Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9834806" data-attributes="member: 7045806">Sure. But the trading isn't by role. It's by human. That's the fundamental flaw of the debate in this thread. Roles are arbitrary labels that we are using to distribute rights to fun. But the fun is connected to the human, not to the role. So asking DMs or players to make concessions in certain ways based on role is fundamentally flawed, because you don't know the fun dynamic of the people in those positions.An example would be a person who got their way twice as a DM, and then went to being a player. And another who "lost" twice as a player and is now the DM. The human in the player spot should give in. Here the role is irrelevant, as it always is when it comes to fun. The human won twice as a DM, they "owe" some good will to the human who lost. Notice that swapping the roles in this hypothetical changes nothing. I bet any group that sticks together for more than a few sessions does this.The absurdity of some of the arguments here, become clear if we replace the roles with "human with dice" and "human with different dice." All of a sudden saying "Human with dice should always acquiesce to my wishes because I'm a human with dice" sounds like what it is. Absurd.It is only when we disassociate from the human element through opaque mechanical roles that much of what is said in this thread makes any sense. But maybe this thread isn't actually about having fun.</blockquote>

Verification