Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8565862" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I generally don't, but if you look at the original (mostly tongue-in-cheek post), it was pretty par for the course.On a serious note, people can, and do, DM in all sorts of different ways. Hopefully, most of them are doing it in a way that serves them, and serves the people that are playing with them. But there is a weird and unacknowledged toxicity that occurs when people believe that the only correct thing is for DMs to cater to players and all of their needs.Look, I get your point about being a teacher- but ... and I mean this ... you are paid to be a teacher. You are supposed to be catering to your students. Most DMs are still not paid. It's something people do because they love to do it. And as I think almost all of us realize, being the DM is a much, much larger time-sink than being a player. Sometimes by a huge amount. It's a labor of love. Well, sometimes it's a labor of free pizza, but usually just love.It's not always like that. Some groups rotate (good for them!). Some games offload responsibilities (great!). But generally, one person in a group has to spend more of their own time and labor on the game than everyone else- sometimes more than everyone else combined. That doesn't make them a "better person," but it does mean that, in those situations, we need to be cognizant of those differences. Heck, it's why there is, and always has been, a large imbalance between the number of people that play, and the number of people that run games.I think most people are aware of the toxicity that can occur from a DM that is a jerk. But just as jerky are the players that demand to run the game without putting in the work necessary; more simply, if you demand that the game run a certain way, there's a simple way to have that happen. YOU DM IT. Didn't need any fancy economics or econometrics in that.</blockquote>

Verification