Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7489264" data-attributes="member: 6857506">Yup. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Although I did not know any of them personally, it seems a good guess that for the people who invented D&amp;D, challenge was a very important form of engagement with the game.&nbsp; Perhaps supporting a game that provided challenge was even their main intent.&nbsp; However, it has since been noted that 1) the D&amp;D ruleset can be used to create games that provide a variety of modes of engagement*, though any particular game will emphasize some and downplay others; and 2) different people value the various modes differently.Were &quot;The DM is there to help the players have fun&quot; interpreted as you suggest, that would be in its own way just as narrow and limiting as your description of the &quot;old skool&quot; ideal.&nbsp; However, my interpretation (which I think is fairly widely shared nowadays) of &quot;The DM is there to help the players have fun&quot; is that the DM is there to provide (the basis for) a game that emphasizes the modes of engagement most desired by the players.&nbsp; Of course, that may be shaped by the DM's abilities and, perhaps, constrained by the DM's own preferences.&nbsp; In any case, &quot;The DM is there to help the players have fun&quot; is a (IMO) highly desirable expansion of the DM's charter that covers your &quot;old skool&quot; ideal as a (perfectly acceptable) special case.So, no, I disagree that &quot;DM as Adversary&quot;, if viewed as the sole or superior option, is a thing that makes D&amp;D D&amp;D.&nbsp; However, that D&amp;D can provide a variety of modes of engagement, &quot;DM as Adversary&quot; (to use your shorthand) among them, is one of the things that makes D&amp;D D&amp;D.* One parsing of different modes of engaging D&amp;D is <a href="https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/" target="_blank">here</a>.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7489264, member: 6857506"] Yup. :) Although I did not know any of them personally, it seems a good guess that for the people who invented D&D, challenge was a very important form of engagement with the game. Perhaps supporting a game that provided challenge was even their main intent. However, it has since been noted that 1) the D&D ruleset can be used to create games that provide a variety of modes of engagement*, though any particular game will emphasize some and downplay others; and 2) different people value the various modes differently. Were "The DM is there to help the players have fun" interpreted as you suggest, that would be in its own way just as narrow and limiting as your description of the "old skool" ideal. However, my interpretation (which I think is fairly widely shared nowadays) of "The DM is there to help the players have fun" is that the DM is there to provide (the basis for) a game that emphasizes the modes of engagement most desired by the players. Of course, that may be shaped by the DM's abilities and, perhaps, constrained by the DM's own preferences. In any case, "The DM is there to help the players have fun" is a (IMO) highly desirable expansion of the DM's charter that covers your "old skool" ideal as a (perfectly acceptable) special case. So, no, I disagree that "DM as Adversary", if viewed as the sole or superior option, is a thing that makes D&D D&D. However, that D&D can provide a variety of modes of engagement, "DM as Adversary" (to use your shorthand) among them, [I]is[/I] one of the things that makes D&D D&D. * One parsing of different modes of engaging D&D is [URL="https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/"]here[/URL]. [/QUOTE]

Verification