Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

It's a bit meaningless if the game doesn't specify a DC or how to derive one. You can easily slide any given situation entirely off the table.

One can as easily preformulate the DCs. And I have done that as part of my exercise, I didn't list them because it didn't seem too salient.

EDIT It's true though that their approach to setting DCs is an important decision for a DM to make, and also that the specific mechanic in 5e inconveniently results in a sliding index. As I've discussed in detail elsewhere. If you'd like to dig into this then it might be better to fork into a new thread than do that here!

 

[clearstream]

It looks like from post #435 that you are saying that the DM is limited by the social contract/culture of DMing. In that I totally agree. My argument is that as written the rules do not limit the DM like that. If I want to tell the social contract to go hang (which I would never do), then by RAW I can unilaterally enact whatever rules changes or additions I want.

Rule 0 isn't dependent on the social contract. It's what the game rules allow or don't allow the DM to do unilaterally in regards to changing rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, service doesn't mean slavery, that's a silly take. If you hire a mechanic to fix you car, he provides a service. He works for you. The DM is clearly meant to serve the group. He's given authority, yes, and the purpose of that authority is to serve the game and the participants.

That you don't see that seems to be because you don't want to.

I don't work for the players and never have. This is a shared game and I do what I do because 1) it's fun for me, and 2) I like the players to have fun. I don't work for them and I don't serve them, and vice versa. The DM is clearly meant to run the game, not serve the group.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't work for the players and never have. This is a shared game and I do what I do because 1) it's fun for me, and 2) I like the players to have fun. I don't work for them and I don't serve them, and vice versa. The DM is clearly meant to run the game, not serve the group.

"He that is greatest among you shall be your servant... and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

Wanting the players to have fun is a motive that I would be comfortable describing of myself as wanting to serve them. (Hence why feeling unappreciated can lead to DM burnout.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

"He that is greatest among you shall be your servant... and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

Wanting the players to have fun is a motive that I would be comfortable describing of myself as wanting to serve them. (Hence why feeling unappreciated can lead to DM burnout.)

I see it rather as creating an environment where everyone (myself included)  can have fun. I'm not personally responsible for any player's fun. All I can do is create an environment where it can happen.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I see it rather as creating an environment where everyone (myself included)  can have fun. I'm not personally responsible for any player's fun. All I can do is create an environment where it can happen.

So it's not its own setting? I don't quite understand what you mean.

 

[Pedantic]

So it's not its own setting? I don't quite understand what you mean.

I think you misquoted here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you misquoted here.

I did. Sorry about that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I see it rather as creating an environment where everyone (myself included)  can have fun. I'm not personally responsible for any player's fun. All I can do is create an environment where it can happen.

I mean, I agree with that too. I don't think acknowledging that there are limits to my power is incompatible with a service-oriented motive.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The DM is clearly meant to run the game, not serve the group.

What distinction are you making between these two things?