Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5395455" data-attributes="member: 22779">For someone who goes out of their way to jump on me every time I might misunderstand something, you're awfully quick to add in things that aren't there.I'll stand by the point that the DM has way more power to end a game.&nbsp; Even without any &quot;major problems&quot;.&nbsp; All a DM has to say is, &quot;Gee guys, I'm really not liking this anymore, let's do something else.&quot; and the game ends.&nbsp; It takes an entire group of players to do that to end a campaign.Lanefan has multiyear camapigns where only a small fraction of the original players are present at the end of the campaign.&nbsp; No single player, and frequently no minority of player numbers can end a campaign.&nbsp; But, OTOH, all Lanefan has to do to end his campaign is say, &quot;Guys, it's over.&quot;How is this not an example of much greater DM control?But, in any case, yes, your comment, &quot; But if you meant to say nothing more insightful than &quot;DMs have more ways to effect events inside the game&quot;, then, my bad, I'll just move along...&quot; is pretty much spot on.&nbsp; Go back and reread the thread.&nbsp; I was discussing with Beginning of the End how players had even remotely equal power to effect events inside the game and that's all I was discussing.In fact, I believe, I actually approved of the idea that DM's have greater control over their game.&nbsp; Design by committee is not something I want to see in tabletop games as a standard.It would be really nice if just once the peanut gallery would argue the point and not the poster.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5395455, member: 22779"] For someone who goes out of their way to jump on me every time I might misunderstand something, you're awfully quick to add in things that aren't there. I'll stand by the point that the DM has way more power to end a game. Even without any "major problems". All a DM has to say is, "Gee guys, I'm really not liking this anymore, let's do something else." and the game ends. It takes an entire group of players to do that to end a campaign. Lanefan has multiyear camapigns where only a small fraction of the original players are present at the end of the campaign. No single player, and frequently no minority of player numbers can end a campaign. But, OTOH, all Lanefan has to do to end his campaign is say, "Guys, it's over." How is this not an example of much greater DM control? But, in any case, yes, your comment, " But if you meant to say nothing more insightful than "DMs have more ways to effect events inside the game", then, my bad, I'll just move along..." is pretty much spot on. Go back and reread the thread. I was discussing with Beginning of the End how players had even remotely equal power to effect events inside the game and that's all I was discussing. In fact, I believe, I actually approved of the idea that DM's have greater control over their game. Design by committee is not something I want to see in tabletop games as a standard. It would be really nice if just once the peanut gallery would argue the point and not the poster. [/QUOTE]

Verification