Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 7344838">To put it simply:&nbsp; Because too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth.You can see this in all manner of works, from movies to novels to video games and more.&nbsp; There needs to be a cohesive vision for the end product, and no matter what level of life you function on, that cohesive vision is almost always created by top-down declaration.&nbsp; Consider weddings, battle strategies, product marketing, building design.&nbsp; That's not to say that the functionaries beneath the &quot;head&quot; do not have input into the vision, and that they may not have significant input into the vision, but ultimately, they are facilitators of the vision, not creators.The same dynamic functions at the table.&nbsp; The DM determines the vision.&nbsp; &quot;A heroic campaign against The Ultimate Evil!&quot;&nbsp; The players have input on how this vision is facilitated: do they join with the lesser of two evils?&nbsp; Do they stand by only the truest of the true?&nbsp; Do they make their own path?&nbsp; This system exists in real life for the same reason it exists in D&amp;D: because it is the simplest and most efficient system, and a system to which the majority of human society has practiced and finds acceptable.&nbsp; Compare to communal systems: they function to a degree on the micro level only in part because the few people who take part in them have an incredibly similar vision.&nbsp; If the group has a very cohesive vision (they all like to play do-gooders, they all want to play murderhobos, they all want to do *thing*) then you can sometimes have communal games.&nbsp; But getting even a handful of people together who innately share a similar vision of the game is incredibly difficult.&nbsp; Which is why most systems operate on the idea that someone builds a playground and lets people play around in it.When people respond to you with statements of &quot;Well, that's just how we do it.&quot; it is because they are having difficulty, or are perhaps in some sort of wonderment over the fact that you find this difficult to understand.&nbsp; The answer to your question is obvious.&nbsp; It may be the &quot;worst system except for all the others&quot; but it's fairly workable so it's what we go with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 7344838"] To put it simply: Because too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth. You can see this in all manner of works, from movies to novels to video games and more. There needs to be a cohesive vision for the end product, and no matter what level of life you function on, that cohesive vision is almost always created by top-down declaration. Consider weddings, battle strategies, product marketing, building design. That's not to say that the functionaries beneath the "head" do not have input into the vision, and that they may not have [I]significant[/I] input into the vision, but ultimately, they are facilitators of the vision, not creators. The same dynamic functions at the table. The DM determines the vision. "A heroic campaign against The Ultimate Evil!" The players have input on how this vision is facilitated: do they join with the lesser of two evils? Do they stand by only the truest of the true? Do they make their own path? This system exists in real life for the same reason it exists in D&D: because it is the simplest and most efficient system, and a system to which the majority of human society has practiced and finds acceptable. Compare to communal systems: they function to a degree on the micro level only in part because the few people who take part in them have an incredibly similar vision. If the group has a very cohesive vision (they all like to play do-gooders, they all want to play murderhobos, they all want to do *thing*) then you can sometimes have communal games. But getting even a handful of people together who innately share a similar vision of the game is incredibly difficult. Which is why [I]most[/I] systems operate on the idea that someone builds a playground and lets people play around in it. When people respond to you with statements of "Well, that's just how we do it." it is because they are having difficulty, or are perhaps in some sort of wonderment over the fact that you find this difficult to understand. The answer to your question is obvious. It may be the "worst system except for all the others" but it's fairly workable so it's what we go with. [/QUOTE]

Verification