Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 7656549" data-attributes="member: 1288">No, it wasn't the wrong answer. It's not the sort of objection a DM should change plans for. But it's also not indicative of a &quot;dictatorial style.&quot;Now, you may ask how I can say &quot;It's not the sort of objection a DM should change plans for.&quot; I could answer that by going back into gaming philosophy, about how that's the sort of thing the DM is expected to change, about how players need to buy into the world the DM's created. But we've had page after page after page of that.So let me instead offer you a practical reason why the DM shouldn't acquiesce to that sort of complaint:You said that you &quot;accidentally&quot; put the manticore there. If it hadn't been an accident, if there was a plot-centric reason for it being there, you wouldn't have changed it then, right?Well, if you start making that sort of decision based on whether something is plot-centric, you've just informed everyone at the table whether a monster is &quot;important&quot; or not. &quot;Okay, Hussar changed it to a wyvern last time but not this time? There must be a plot-related reason for it.&quot;Sure, it's OOC vs. IC knowledge. Doesn't matter. It can way too easily influence behavior, and it can also ruin the pacing of the story. Even if that particular player doesn't mind being spoiled, perhaps the other players do.That is why you only retcon or make last-minute changes for serious objections: Not because &quot;What the DM says goes no matter what!&quot; but because, even if you're willing to do it for minor ones, it's potentially more detrimental to the enjoyment of the game than it is helpful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mouseferatu, post: 7656549, member: 1288"] No, it wasn't the wrong answer. It's not the sort of objection a DM should change plans for. But it's also not indicative of a "dictatorial style." Now, you may ask how I can say "It's not the sort of objection a DM should change plans for." I [I]could[/I] answer that by going back into gaming philosophy, about how that's the sort of thing the DM is expected to change, about how players need to buy into the world the DM's created. But we've had page after page after page of that. So let me instead offer you a [I]practical[/I] reason why the DM shouldn't acquiesce to that sort of complaint: You said that you "accidentally" put the manticore there. If it hadn't been an accident, if there was a plot-centric reason for it being there, you wouldn't have changed it then, right? Well, if you start making that sort of decision based on whether something is plot-centric, you've just informed everyone at the table whether a monster is "important" or not. "Okay, Hussar changed it to a wyvern last time but not this time? There must be a plot-related reason for it." Sure, it's OOC vs. IC knowledge. Doesn't matter. It can way too easily influence behavior, and it can also ruin the pacing of the story. Even if that particular player doesn't mind being spoiled, perhaps [I]the other players[/I] do. [I]That[/I] is why you only retcon or make last-minute changes for [I]serious[/I] objections: Not because "What the DM says goes no matter what!" but because, even if you're willing to do it for minor ones, it's potentially more detrimental to the enjoyment of the game than it is helpful. [/QUOTE]

Verification