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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8153734" data-attributes="member: 71699">Indeed. Splitting hairs over neutral versus fair or disinterested is an unfortunate rabbit hole to dive down. Campbell clarified that -There are many claims here. Assumed is some set of participants in an activity that can be recognised as roleplaying gaming (and possibly D&D). Perhaps Campbell believes that -<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">No one participant curates or changes the rules on a whim. The obvious question is whether the problem is with "on a whim" or with "no one" or with those things in conjunction? And what about the game's designers, and the constitutive role of rules? What if one participant doesn't know the rules, but would love to join in the experience? Is anyone allowed to curate the rules for them?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">No one is uniquely responsible for providing an experience. To my mind this says very little: they might have dissimilar roles in providing an experience, and still not be uniquely responsible.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">We should all be playing to find out what happens? Again, this says very little, unless we picture the DM telling the other participants exactly what their characters are doing. I don't think anyone envisions that a DM should do that.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">No one in charge (peers, no parenting). This seems entirely beside the point. Even if there were parenting - say literally, some participants are parents of the others - they might still have similar or dissimilar roles in providing the experience.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The DM does not have special insight. This seems beside the point (and too broad a claim to really sustain). Some DMs might indeed have special insight: would that change the position taken?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">DMs have a different set of responsibilities. On surface, everyone seems to agree with this, but what are they? Were Campbell to go on to articulate that "different set", some unexamined contradictions might turn up.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">DM is not responsible for your fun, and is allowed to have an interest in their own fun. This seems to address an underlying fear that itself is not articulated. It would be better to articulate that fear.</li> </ol>The DM is a player like any other comes out most of all like a position on authority or authorship. There is a sense of a denial of any DM'ly prerogative over the inclusion and interpretation of rules, and of the creation and management of the game world (everything other than the characters, let's say).I suspect it comes down to understanding RPG as being engaged with in two out of three modes: RPG as wargaming, RPG as story-telling, and RPG as group-improv. Traditionally, RPG has been approached as a blend of wargaming and storytelling. Those who would like it to be approached as a blend of story-telling and group-improv might feel under-served, stifled, and disappointed, by the near-overwhelming preponderance of the traditional approach. To date, anyhow.So perhaps the statement is best understood as a bright light illuminating an approach to RPG worth trying. Where, to me, it weakens itself unnecessarily is in framing itself as a denial of the traditional approach, when rather it should be a eulogy to the preferred approach. How can that approach be effectively engaged in? What are the traps for those new to it? What does it do that is uniquely worth having? If I set aside DM as authority and author, what delights or satisfactions do I get in exchange?</blockquote>

Verification