Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pathkeeper24601" data-source="post: 7103199" data-attributes="member: 6819969"><p>I agree with you.&nbsp; Not only that, I about set of a whole bit of raging.&nbsp; The DM can't Metagame because ... he is part of the metagame itself.&nbsp; He is the purveyor or the rules and controller of the world itself.&nbsp; He has to craft responses (both positive and negative) to the players actions.&nbsp; The same decisions making that the players fear will &quot;screw them over&quot; allows for the greatest amount of player agency as well.&nbsp; &quot;Yes&quot; is just as much a metagame function as &quot;No&quot;.&nbsp; The players can't take over a country if the DM doesn't provide a country to take over.&nbsp; I don't see were not providing such a place is metagaming and providing it is.&nbsp; The real issue is whether the DM abuses his position as part of the game to provide a challenging game and make the game fun and exciting for the players, not as a means to take out his sadistic pleasure on the players.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Pathkeeper24601, post: 7103199, member: 6819969"] I agree with you. Not only that, I about set of a whole bit of raging. The DM can't Metagame because ... he is part of the metagame itself. He is the purveyor or the rules and controller of the world itself. He has to craft responses (both positive and negative) to the players actions. The same decisions making that the players fear will "screw them over" allows for the greatest amount of player agency as well. "Yes" is just as much a metagame function as "No". The players can't take over a country if the DM doesn't provide a country to take over. I don't see were not providing such a place is metagaming and providing it is. The real issue is whether the DM abuses his position as part of the game to provide a challenging game and make the game fun and exciting for the players, not as a means to take out his sadistic pleasure on the players. [/QUOTE]

Verification