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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8155274" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So this is from late yesterday, so let me re-quote the relevant part of what you are responding to:I thought (and continue to think) it is an interesting topic because there are groups of people to whom the idea that a DM is a player is self-evident, and also groups of people to whom the idea that a DM is not a player is self-evident.And the view that you might have is usually (but not always) a proxy for other views; in other words, there tends to be a very strong correlation between the way in which a person might view this "self-evident" statement, and their views on a constellation of other topics.I would start by saying that we are individuals. I am not a mind-reader. I do not know what you, Wolfram stout, are thinking! Instead, as I wrote, I think that there is a correlation between the assertions that this is "self-evident" on this thread, and the opinions that I've seen certain people have on other threads. I also want to say that it appears to be a strong correlation, but it isn't 100%, since there are some people that have taken different positions. Nothing is perfect, and people contain multitudes.I may be a little vague, because I don't want to offend anyone. I have noticed since joining, and especially in the last couple of months, that there are two viewpoints that seem to repeatedly surface in threads; most recently, in the threads discussing the appeal of various races, or curated campaigns, GM authority, a question of agency, or collaboration with your players, and so on.We can call these two viewpoints "DM Empowerment" ("DME" for short) and "Player Agency" ("PLA" for short). I'm just using those as labels.These viewpoints tend to have a constellation of associated beliefs and points that they argue; for example, the DME are more likely to argue for curation and cite OD&D, and the PLA are more likely to argue for collaboration and cite Blades in the Dark. I kid, kind of, and overly simplify, but you get the gist.The thing is, the actual play experience is likely quite similar at these tables; in my opinion, good tables in D&D that have communication tend to function well regardless of the theoretical underpinnings. So a DME table with experienced players and good communication most likely is not that different, in the main, than a PLA table with experienced players and good communication. And yet, given the nature of internet discussions, it always devolves into an angry exchange of, "I wouldn't let that player at my table," "Yeah, well, I wouldn't play at your table!"This thread is similar, except the DME viewpoint adherents are mostly agreeing with the OP (who is attractive, articulate, and likely drinks expensive scotch) that the DM is not a player is self-evident, while the PLA viewpoint adherents are mostly saying that the DM is a player is self-evident.And the thing is ... it's not self-evident. Because it's very-much context dependent. If you poke hard enough, both sides will acknowledge that there might be an issue with how self-evident the claim is, simply because language is context-dependent. As I've analogized before, whether you call someone a "Doctor" is not some immutable fact, but depends on the circumstances; whether you think the DM is a player isn't really about some dictionary definition, or even a deep contextual search for what it means to "role shift" when you describe the roles of the participants of a D&D game, but tends to be about a deeper meaning.The original person I quoted, [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] , was pleasant enough to expound on what he meant when originally states that "a DM is a player like any other player." It's not just a neutral statement defining terms; it contains within it the ideal of shared responsibility, and denial of curation, and denial of authority to the DM. The thing is- that's cool! I've read enough of these threads to understand that this is a valid way to think about TTRPGs in general, and about D&D. I might disagree with it, but that's neither here nor there.So while there are some people that are treating this as a surface-level conversation (what do these words mean, Alex?*), for the most part this is not about terms. This is really about an underlying conception of the nature of the roles in D&D; is the DM "a player like any other player," which is to say an equal peer with a different role, but no particular responsibility or authority from the role, or is the DM not like any other player, and thus has a different responsibility and authority because of that role?It's not that there is a "right" answer there, but the idea that this is semantics, word play, or self-evident, is not correct. IMO. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />*I would go back to the idea that I have expounded on several times regarding doctorates, and how they are context dependent. If you have a PhD, you are called a Doctor (normally, in the US). But if someone screams, "Is there a doctor in the house?" you would not respond, because that is (in context) asking for a medical doctor. If you have an honorary PhD, you do not call yourself "Dr.", but the bestowing university might do so in written correspondence (because hey, money!). And so on.</blockquote>

Verification