Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7509388" data-attributes="member: 48965">From the DMG pg. 4  "The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game.  The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story...""Every DM is the creator of his or her own campaign world.  Whether you invent a world, adapt a world from a favorite movie or novel or use a published setting for the D&D game, you make that world your own over the course of a camapign."Seems pretty clear what the assumed (default) stance of a DM and the campaign world is in D&D... irregardless of whether an individual DM decides to change that for his own personal group.  You can call it entitled, not to your tastes, claims it rubs you the wrong way or numerous other things... but it's clearly stated in the DMG so I doubt it's lack of clarity as opposed to individual preference that causes different groups to play in different ways.   The players right to background world elements outside of their character (which has been what the main jist of the argument for quite a few pages now) so that the DM can't touch them isn't cooperating it's forbidding the DM from touching something other than your character in the world.  In what way is that cooperation unless by cooperation you mean a situation where on party is dictating the terms to another. If I am playing a warlock and only want to explore my character's relationship with said patron in a manner where I decide what the patron is thinking, what the patron does, what the patron believes, where the patron ends up at the end of the campaign and so on... It's a one man show (story).  The rest of the group may get to be spectators if I eat up enough time roleplaying with myself (which in and of itself can cause other issues to arise) but they, including the DM, are no longer part of that story in any meaningful way. Yes but it's not an issue that's inherent to DM's playing NPC's that have intimate relationships with PC's which is how the issue is being framed by you and others.  All mixing the two does is obfuscate discussion of the real issue which centers around mutual DM/player respect and finding the right playstylel for the players/DM's in your particular game.  the probem arises when someone doesn't agree with your playstyle preferences, categorizes them as bad DM'ing and are supported by posters claiming... there's no better word for it"...     It's not about trusting your word.  I trust that you believe what you are saying to be true but I also know that human perception and memories are inherently flawed.  On top of that if you didn't ask the other players what they thought or felt about the roleplaying and impact of your character's faith how would you know what they really thought about it and to go a little deeper, if you all are friends would they tell you the truth if they didn't care for it or found it forgettable.  So it's more that without multiple perspectives and input from the people who were there I take it as exactly what it is a single perspective from a player who probably has some bias since it's his character and roleplaying we are scrutinizing.    Maybe not exclude (of course if you are backgrounding it I fail to see it as anything else), again I don't have enough information to say for certain... However I would assume being told I can't make decisions about a players patron or deity, by design, definitely limits DM's agency more narrowly when exploring themes concerning that relationship.  Huh... I'm confused...so who are you talking about when you make statements like those below...I assumed you were talking from your own experiences, if not are these hypothetical problems pulled from thin air... insults for the other side of this argument or something else entirely?  What DM are you talking about in these statements and if its not about "jerk DM's" why frame these statements in such a way that emphasizes jerk behavior on the part of the DM?Okay so give 3 examples of how it would have affected your characters actions, thoughts or anything else in the game... should be easy if there are so many you don't know where to begin. Lol... calling snark out as snark is... insulting.  Ok.And when you frame the other side of a discussion in in the the manner you did above quotes (see where I asked above what DM you were speaking to if not your own)as well as agreeing with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s continued use of bad DM to describe the other side... ... well it makes it a little hard to assume openness and a willingness to understand as primary goals. This reads like you believe it is ultimately the player who should decide what NPC's the DM is allowed to control...If that is the jist of your argument here simply put I don't agree... I'm there to play with my toys as DM in the same way the player gets to play with his and the same way I'm not going to get to dictate how and when the player is allowed to play his character he doesn't get to dictate how and when I can play NPC's.  As to the rest of your statement if it's more nuanced than "jerk DM's" quit framing the general discussion in that way and instead frame it around the nuanced reasons you want to discuss.</blockquote>

Verification