NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8872101" data-attributes="member: 6921763">Oh, I'm not really worried about the trust factor.  That's a whole other discussion.  I'm talking about a table where there is trust and everyone is playing in good faith to achieve the goals of play:  have fun and create an exciting, memorable story.Think of it more as a division of labor.  The players control their PCs.  The DM controls everything else.  I'm saying the DM does not need to play the PCs at all, even in the de minimus way you are indicating.The fact is, there are very simple ways to describe the effects of a PC's actions without having to invoke what the PC is choosing to do/say/think.  I personally challenge myself to avoid using the word "you" completely when I'm DMing - it's not always possible but it keeps me from "taking control" of the PCs.  I mean, even the slightest most innocuous seeming "control" for the sake of the narration might not sit well with a player - even at a table that has complete trust - and I want to avoid that.   In your example:  "The trolls rush up, claws and fangs bared.  Roll initiative.  The trolls have the benefit of surprise for the first round."  No need to tell the player how their PC acted, reacted, thought, even if it is so very minor. It's subtle - and I understand why you would call it innocuous - but it has made a big difference in how I run my games to avoid telling the players how their PCs think, act, or speak.  It sends the message to the players that they are in complete control of playing their PCs and boosts the trust factor at our table, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification