Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5823809" data-attributes="member: 73683">Because DMs are not playing a game, in the traditional sense.DMs do not have a game theory win condition. They do not have a game theory lose condition. Their role is to facilitate the enjoyment of the game - and, I would suggest, they are primarily there to facilitate the players' enjoyment of the game.Heck, I would argue that the players don't even have traditional win/lose conditions.As a DM, your goal should be to derive enjoyment through your players' enjoyment of the game. In my eyes, you're not a good DM until you've gotten there. Any argument along the lines of, &quot;If I wanted to control everything I'd just write fiction,&quot; misses the point on two counts - first, it ignores the fact that the DM doesn't control the players, and can therefore be surprised by their decisions even while maintaining control over the game world; second, it completely sidelines the players' investment in the game by holding that the only important difference between playing D&amp;D and writing fiction is whether or not you can surprise the DM.I realize that this is a nuanced position - it makes an effort to acknowledge things like the difference between the game world and the players' sphere of control, the fact that the players have their own hedonistic calculus to satisfy, and the fact that random encounter tables are designed as a tool of convenience rather than a formula to construct an ideal game around - but dammit, it's about time we started trading in nuanced positions instead of, &quot;Embrace the chaos!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannager, post: 5823809, member: 73683"] [I][B]Because DMs are not playing a game, in the traditional sense.[/B][/I] DMs do not have a game theory win condition. They do not have a game theory lose condition. Their role is to [I][B]facilitate[/B][/I] the enjoyment of the game - and, I would suggest, they are primarily there[I][B] to facilitate the [U]players'[/U] enjoyment of the game.[/B][/I] Heck, I would argue that the [B][I]players[/I][/B] don't even have traditional win/lose conditions. [I][B]As a DM, your goal should be to derive enjoyment through your players' enjoyment of the game. In my eyes, you're not a good DM until you've gotten there. Any argument along the lines of, "If I wanted to control everything I'd just write fiction," misses the point on two counts - first, it ignores the fact that the DM doesn't control the players, and can therefore be surprised by their decisions even while maintaining control over the game world; second, it completely sidelines the players' investment in the game by holding that the only important difference between playing D&D and writing fiction is whether or not you can surprise the DM.[/B][/I] I realize that this is a nuanced position - it makes an effort to acknowledge things like the difference between the game world and the players' sphere of control, the fact that the players have their own hedonistic calculus to satisfy, and the fact that random encounter tables are designed as a tool of convenience rather than a formula to construct an ideal game around - but dammit, it's about time we started trading in nuanced positions instead of, "Embrace the chaos!" [/QUOTE]

Verification