D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Lanefan]

Just like I said pages ago.

Just because something works doesn't mean it's perfect or near perfect.

Keep in mind, though, that the pursuit of perfection can be the enemy of good enough when good enough is all you need.

The pursuit of good enough when what's out there is not good enough, however, is highly valid; and each person will have a different definition of "good enough" when it comes to this hobby.

 

[Maxperson]

Not necessarily.

I mean, have you even tried char-gen in 3e?

I have(and loved it). Still not as much work as a setting.

 

[Minigiant]

Keep in mind, though, that the pursuit of perfection can be the enemy of good enough when good enough is all you need.

The pursuit of good enough when what's out there is not good enough, however, is highly valid; and each person will have a different definition of "good enough" when it comes to this hobby.

Sure.
But my original post was a criticism of the path of D&D and its current edition. Claiming "but it is successful" doesn't address that criticism.

And I've seen multiple things get worse and not address flaws because they used success as a shield. Such thought allows others to capitialize on blind dismissal of a product's faults.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree on holy, but the words of the DMG are pretty clear that it's expected.

Frankly, I could not care less what "expectations" the DMG puts. It has no weight at all to how good an idea it is or isn't, it just represents the fact there's a history of how that's been handled--but whether that history is warranted is the whole point of discussion about the top down approach.

 

[Oofta]

Frankly, I could not care less what "expectations" the DMG puts. It has no weight at all to how good an idea it is or isn't, it just represents the fact there's a history of how that's been handled--but whether that history is warranted is the whole point of discussion about the top down approach.

A discussion? Sure. I disagree. Good?

Slightly longer: whichever side of the DM screen I'm on, the DM makes the final call. Someone has to, and no I don't think voting on issues is a good idea. In many cases it will just mean the strongest personality gets their way.

A good DM, like a good supervisor will listen and honestly consider the options. But sometimes things simply work better with a clear structure. We're not talking life or death here. Unlike a supervisor, a DM has no real power over their players. Every player is free to get up and walk away at any time.

Which doesn't mean it's the only way of course, just the way the vast majority of tables have been run and I assume will continue to be run. Because most of the time it works better than the alternative.

Speaking from personal experience I make rulings now and then, occasionally a player reminds me of a rule. Sometimes I'll ask the group what they think. But real conflict and disagreement? Incredibly rare. We're too busy having fun to get into it.

 

[MGibster]

They may be scared of doing it, or they may believe it’s more than they can handle, or they may not have the time it may take to do it. And of course, for some people, it may just not be something they’re suited to.

I think most people just don't want to DM.

But I think the difficulty of the role often gets overstated. More people can and should GM.

I agree. More people should give it a whirl.

 

[Imaro]

I think most people just don't want to DM.


I agree. More people should give it a whirl.

I do wonder what is gained by having people do something they don't want to do for a leisure activity... I don't have much experience with it but does getting someone to DM who doesn't want to usually result in them enjoying it enough to keep DM'ing?

 

[Mordhau]

I do wonder what is gained by having people do something they don't want to do for a leisure activity... I don't have much experience with it but does getting someone to DM who doesn't want to usually result in them enjoying it enough to keep DM'ing?

I think a lot of people are reluctant to GM because of lack of confidence. So if they do it, they might indeed find they enjoy it.

Obviously no one need to do it purely for the sake of others. But it can't hurt to encourage people who may be interested.

 

[cbwjm]

Speaking from personal experience I make rulings now and then, occasionally a player reminds me of a rule. Sometimes I'll ask the group what they think. But real conflict and disagreement? Incredibly rare. We're too busy having fun to get into it.

This is pretty much exactly how my friends and I play. The DM makes rulings (often that's me, though one of my players is running a different game), but if a player recalls a rule that I've run incorrectly I will change my ruling to correct it. Last time I can recall this happening was the rule on moving around enemies, I think I had 3e stuck in my head where moving around got an attack of opportunity (though who knows if I was recalling the 3e rule correctly). We might talk things over for a minute or so but generally they'll accept a ruling and we'll move on. We're here to play not to get bogged down on rules questions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I do wonder what is gained by having people do something they don't want to do for a leisure activity... I don't have much experience with it but does getting someone to DM who doesn't want to usually result in them enjoying it enough to keep DM'ing?

Do you never suggest to someone to try playing who may not already be eager to do so? And don't you think there are people out there who weren't really eager to DM, but did so out of necessity, and now they love it?

I mean, apply this logic to any activity. People sometimes don't know if they'll like something until they try it.

Sometimes people will think there's some reason not to try something, but then once they do, they realize that what they worried about wasn't really the case.