Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8495975" data-attributes="member: 7032025">I agree, I have the same feeling, which is why I reminded that the old school was more about the adventure than the rules, just as 5e is. 3e started a trend of "player empowerment" which had good intents at the core, but which, in my opinion, is detrimental from the spirit of the gamer, which has always needed a DM to be in control.Indeed.Exactly, and the basic principle was that the players trusted their DMs, and actually were part of that illusion too.Again, I fully agree, especially since I never met any abusive DM. Lots of things are said based on things which are, to me, mostly urban legends and odd exceptions.Or if, being mature about what fantasy is about and in particular fantasy roleplaying, they agree on being railroaded now and then, and actually play along because they know it's one of the ways to really epic adventures.And even beyond that, there is nothing wrong about the DM controlling the narrative, full stop. For Christ's sake, all the published adventures - which are very popular - are built that way with some sort of railroading in there, if only to start the adventure, and follow the chapters. After that, you can have adventures that are extremely linear and that people still love, for example WD-DH (I personally hate it, but some people really love it and place it first in the published adventure). It all depends on what the table expects and about maintaining that collective spirit between the players and the DM. If the DM railroads a bit, why is that against the players ? It is on the contrary probable that he is doing that FOR the players, so that the adventure can be properly epic, because sandboxes are very nice, but they are rarely epic, this requires at least some sort of storyline.Exactly. This comes from the more competitive side of gaming which came with 3e and player empowerment, leading in turn to more of a players vs. DM perspective. As you point out above, the previous competitive side demonstrated by modules such as Tomb of Horrors was really a very small fraction of gaming at the time. But with 3e, it took on a completely different tone, in particular with whole groups where a DM had to show that he was playing by the rules, using the RAW and rolling dices in the open, to show that he was not "cheating" against the players. And for me this culminated with 4e, with a very precise ruleset and the idea that the DM was really mostly the referee in a competitive sport, setting up situations to test his players in a completely fair process that could not be discussed.I'm not saying that it's not a valid way to play the game, there are so many of these, but it has created a community of elitist DMs and players who sort of look down on people not being part of that "competition". And that is detrimental to the spirit of the game, which for me has always been that of the most collaborative game ever, with all players including the DM just sitting together as friends to tell a really epic story.</blockquote>

Verification