Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 8935963" data-attributes="member: 78752">No, worldbuilding is my favorite part of dungeon mastery.&nbsp; It's how I see my role, and how I derive most of my enjoyment from the game: creating a consistent world and seeing how the players bounce off of it.&nbsp; I wouldn't sign it over to random tables any sooner than I'd sign it over to ChatGPT, which by all accounts is a much more robust tool.I'm not yucking your yum, or at least I hope I'm not.&nbsp; It's fine if that's what you want to do -- every dungeon master has their own strengths, and plays to them -- but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tie it into the concept of &quot;authority&quot; like this.&nbsp; Being trusted to build the world in which the game takes place is a privilege, not a right, and exercising that privilege doesn't make anyone a control freak.&nbsp; Dungeon masters deserve to have fun, too.I think there's some value in pointing out to less experienced dungeon masters that they have a tool like this available to them, for use when they are uncertain about a setting truth, but dividing a d100 roll into binary 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% probabilities is not what I would call particularly inspired design.I'd heard about Ironsworn's Oracle system in passing, and I was hoping it would have more nuance, like a target probability that reflects disagreement between party members on the likelihood of the outcome, or a way to assign different probabilities to multiple proposals on the table rather than reducing everything to an either-or.&nbsp; That would legitimately be interesting to me, in certain circumstances.It doesn't, though, not really.&nbsp; What it does is give you a procedurally generated answer that at worst takes none of these very valid questions into consideration, and at best passes most of the responsibility of answering them to the players, who by design do not have your referee's frame of reference regarding the setting, campaign, or adventure.&nbsp; If you're running a more collaborative table, that's probably fine, but that is far from the baseline assumption of how D&amp;D operates.I hope you are just being flip, here, but fear of accepting responsibility is never a good reason to do anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DMZ2112, post: 8935963, member: 78752"] No, worldbuilding is my favorite part of dungeon mastery. It's how I see my role, and how I derive most of my enjoyment from the game: creating a consistent world and seeing how the players bounce off of it. I wouldn't sign it over to random tables any sooner than I'd sign it over to ChatGPT, which by all accounts is a much more robust tool. I'm not yucking your yum, or at least I hope I'm not. It's fine if that's what you want to do -- every dungeon master has their own strengths, and plays to them -- but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tie it into the concept of "authority" like this. Being trusted to build the world in which the game takes place is a privilege, not a right, and exercising that privilege doesn't make anyone a control freak. Dungeon masters deserve to have fun, too. I think there's some value in pointing out to less experienced dungeon masters that they have a tool like this available to them, for use when they are uncertain about a setting truth, but dividing a d100 roll into binary 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% probabilities is not what I would call particularly inspired design. I'd heard about Ironsworn's Oracle system in passing, and I was hoping it would have more nuance, like a target probability that reflects disagreement between party members on the likelihood of the outcome, or a way to assign different probabilities to multiple proposals on the table rather than reducing everything to an either-or. That would legitimately be interesting to me, in certain circumstances. It doesn't, though, not really. What it does is give you a procedurally generated answer that at worst takes none of these very valid questions into consideration, and at best passes most of the responsibility of answering them to the players, who by design do not have your referee's frame of reference regarding the setting, campaign, or adventure. If you're running a more collaborative table, that's probably fine, but that is far from the baseline assumption of how D&D operates. I hope you are just being flip, here, but fear of accepting responsibility is never a good reason to do anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification