Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8565993" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Again, though, that's really orthogonal to the point that I was making.Different tables run differently. Different people have different skills. As I alluded to, you can have games with different allocations of authority. You can also do things like rotate DMs.This is all possible, yet this is NOT the standard model that many people are familiar with.Why? Well, there are all sorts of social and group reasons for this- the primary one is that some people just want to play. Now, I know people will immediately leap up and say some variant of, &quot;But if you just empower the players, it's going to be awesome! It totally worked for my group doing it!&quot;And that's great! It really is. But one of the reasons (IMO) that D&amp;D and 5e is so popular is because, unlike some other TTRPGs, is that it allows for this strict division of authority- yes, it is unfortunate that so much is placed on the DM, but the necessary counterpoint to that is that it also allows it to be (relatively) easy to people to play. In addition, unlike other games, players can also just &quot;coast along,&quot; especially early on, or if they don't want to engage that heavily.To put it in terms that you, as a teacher, might be familiar with- it's great when students teach each other. That's one of the most beneficial ways to learn.But there are also very good reasons for having classrooms that are led by a teacher. Yeah, you don't want DMs to get too full of themselves. But at most tables, the DM is the most important person at the table. Not the &quot;best.&quot; Not the &quot;coolest&quot; (unless I'm the DM). Not the most moral, or intelligent, or attractive. But the most important in the sense that you can run the game with a player missing, but you can't run it with the DM missing. And to the extent I am finding it necessary to push back on this, it's because some people have a shtick, except without the unwritten winking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8565993, member: 7023840"] Again, though, that's really orthogonal to the point that I was making. Different tables run differently. Different people have different skills. As I alluded to, you can have games with different allocations of authority. You can also do things like rotate DMs. [I]This is all possible, yet this is NOT the standard model that many people are familiar with.[/I] Why? Well, there are all sorts of social and group reasons for this- the primary one is that [I]some people just want to play[/I]. Now, I know people will immediately leap up and say some variant of, "But if you just empower the players, it's going to be awesome! It totally worked for my group doing it!" And that's great! It really is. But one of the reasons (IMO) that D&D and 5e is so popular is because, unlike some other TTRPGs, is that it allows for this strict division of authority- yes, it is unfortunate that so much is placed on the DM, but the necessary counterpoint to that is that it also allows it to be (relatively) easy to people to play. In addition, unlike other games, players can also just "coast along," especially early on, or if they don't want to engage that heavily. To put it in terms that you, as a teacher, might be familiar with- it's great when students teach each other. That's one of the most beneficial ways to learn. But there are also very good reasons for having classrooms that are led by a teacher. Yeah, you don't want DMs to get too full of themselves. But at most tables, the DM is the most important person at the table. Not the "best." Not the "coolest" (unless I'm the DM). Not the most moral, or intelligent, or attractive. But the most important in the sense that you can run the game with a player missing, but you can't run it with the DM missing. And to the extent I am finding it necessary to push back on this, it's because some people have a shtick, except without the unwritten winking. [/QUOTE]

Verification