Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charles Dunwoody" data-source="post: 5804243" data-attributes="member: 17927">I don't agree. The DM and the other players are equal (the father is bigger and has authority over the child as well as being responsible for the child's well-being and welfare).The table has five players (as an example) a DM and four players running characters. If one character does something brilliant the DM has the social pressure of four other players to do what is right and let the character succeed. With CaS, the game designers/rules try to take the place of the players at the table and that social pressure. However, those same rules can hobble the DM and players who do want to work together rather than rely on rules (because you have to mutually prune back/ignore so many rules to get it to work). Conversely, with CaW if the whole table wants to run it like a CaS they can work together to do that, with the DM working on carefully balanced combats and maybe some house rules to cut down on randomness. 5E could have a module that adds those balancing rules right back in for CaS players.To me, having CaS mandatory asks a bigger question. Why would you game with people you don't like? If your DM makes you feel like a four-year old wrestling with his father and he lords it over you, why game with him at all? Wouldn't it be more entertaining to play with a group of equals and work together to tell a great story? I suppose you could have a game where it tells the DM how to act and tries to enforce that style of DMing, but if the DM is a jerk isn't he still a jerk even under the rules for a game of CaS? I know some people fear giving any power to the DM and I just don't get that even if I respect their right to feel that way. If my DM turns out be be a dick I just don't game with him, any more than I'd have over for a Superbowl party or go golfing with him. I don't need rules to stop him from being a jerk, because rules won't change that.</blockquote>

Verification