Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
So, the DM has the authority to change any rule he likes but, really can't because that would violate the social contract.
That isn't what I said.
So, the DM has the authority to change any rule he likes but, really can't because that would violate the social contract.
Or to summarize it more succinctly... Someone brings up a play style (or component thereof) and decides to add that unless you play this way (or with these procedures) you are a bad DM... thread explodes.
I don't think I've seen anyone say that unless you play X way, you are a bad DM. I've seen it implied via DM authority hate, but it hasn't been said straight out that I can remember.
Fair enough - I can see how what I said might be interpreted that way. However, there's an important (well, I think so anywayIt's one thing to have preferences. It's a different thing to interpret a game system. Clearly 5e works more like [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] describes than as you might wish that it did.
This is a little ironic given your other post that I've quoted! Because here you're saying that, in fact, the fiction does not unfold over the course of play, but is only established "as a block" when the GM decides what happens.
The GM hasn't said anything else about it because she doesn't need to.In your example, how did it become true in the fiction that the PC walked across the room? The player's action declaration - according to you - didn't bring that about. But the GM hasn't said anything about it - in your example, the GM is taking for granted that the PC has crossed the room and is now at the door.
This one's different. There's a reason (an unseen pit trap) for mechanics to get involved, and so the GM invokes them. She may well (and in fairness probably should have) have rolled in secret to see whether your path across the room happened to hit or miss the trap; and if you hit it then whether you noticed the trap before falling in.In my experience, it would actually be like the following:
Player: I cross the room to the door.
GM: As you're half-way across the room, you fall into a pit!
No. The player makes the case that the PC TRIES TO move across the room and open a door, and the GM narrates the results.In other words, it's the player who makes it the case that the PC moves across the room.
In the example as given I ignored it because it wasn't relevant. The GM assumes the PC won't fall flat on his face while crossing the room, and that he's capable of operating a door handle. (very slightly more contentious to the truly pedantic among us, she also reasonably assumes the PC will look through the door he's just opened, if for no other reason to avoid being caught off guard by whatever might be lurking on the other side) As she knows there's no other in-fiction obstructions to the attempted action she skips past resolution straight to narrating the result: you cross the room, open the door, and here's what you see beyond it on first glance.What the mechanism is that leads the GM to say what s/he does is a further question (eg is it the result of a failed check by the player; or the GM reading off his/her dungeon notes; or the GM making something up on the spur of the moment because it will be fun; or . . .).
You seem to be ignoring action resolution. In my experience that's a fairly important part of playing a RPG.
Funny, the only, ONLY thing that I've claimed was bad DMing was booting a player for not wanting to play a specific campaign.
I'm going to repost my post to which you replied (and will explain why I've bolded what I've bolded):The GM hasn't said anything else about it because she doesn't need to.
<snip>
The player makes the case that the PC TRIES TO move across the room and open a door, and the GM narrates the results.
<snip>
As she knows there's no other in-fiction obstructions to the attempted action she skips past resolution straight to narrating the result: you cross the room, open the door, and here's what you see beyond it on first glance.
pemerton said:In your example, how did it become true in the fiction that the PC walked across the room? The player's action declaration - according to you - didn't bring that about. But the GM hasn't said anything about it - in your example, the GM is taking for granted that the PC has crossed the room and is now at the door.Now it's true that describing what you want to do and describing what you're doing can and often do sound just the same at the table; but when you-as-player say in character "I'm walking across the room and opening the door" what you're really saying is "I want to walk across the room and then I want to open the door", and if there's no impediment to either of those actions the DM will likely just say something like "OK. Opening the door reveals a short passage behind, that opens out into a room or chamber after about 10 feet."
Before the campaign starts there is no DM, so this cannot be bad DMing.
![]()
While I don't disagree with you, I do also think refusing to play in a game that everyone in your (presumably stable and long-standing) social group wants to play is a bit gauche. Unless the game or campaign concept is bringing up some kind of psychological issue, the fun of hanging with your social group should trump the relative negative feeling towards the game as a whole.And, yup, I'll stand by the statement that booting a player just so you can play your pet campaign is a pretty bad thing to do.
While I don't disagree with you, I do also think refusing to play in a game that everyone in your (presumably stable and long-standing) social group wants to play is a bit gauche. Unless the game or campaign concept is bringing up some kind of psychological issue, the fun of hanging with your social group should trump the relative negative feeling towards the game as a whole.
I think they key here isn't the DM's pet campaign or the player for whom the particular system is a bête noire, but the other players in the group. If they're ambivalent about the DM's concept, better for the DM to make a change. If they're enthusiastic, though, the player with the problem may have to be the one to change their attitude.
Granted, this probably points more to the importance of saving strong aesthetic considerations for the internet, and not bringing them into casual social encounters. Nobody wants to hear your "TLJ ruined Star Wars" diatribe at the office Christmas party.![]()