Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tanin Wulf" data-source="post: 7292898" data-attributes="member: 6777825">Then we fundamentally disagree.&nbsp;I have no idea what this means.&nbsp;Yes, the ultimate check on the DM's power is the player's ability not to game. However, other than that, the DM has no limit on his or her power (or, put another way, the only limit on the DM's power is something that becomes apparent once the DM has exceeded it and not before). That's why it's a position of trust, because a good DM is trusted to never let things get that bad.&nbsp;I feel like you don't understand what &quot;position of trust&quot; or &quot;position of authority&quot; means. The DM has authority by virtue of his or her position as DM. That position doesn't give them trust, it means they must have trust in order to execute it faithfully. If you didn't already trust the person to DM according to something you want to be a part of, then they shouldn't be your DM and this whole thing is a non-issue. (There's a reason I'm very particular in selecting a DM. There are many players I would never let DM a game for me, but who are great players.)Some games do it differently than D&amp;D, but in D&amp;D the DM is very much a position of trust, unless you set out to change the default assumptions of the game (and there's even a section in the mythical guide for this master of dungeons, to return to my previous jab, talking about this exact thing with regards to cooperative storytelling and alternate models of DMing).EDIT: So... I'm going to leave up what I said, but since we're in 99% agreement, I don't want this to be seen as &quot;violent agreement!&quot; Rather, I apologize that I am coming off as combative. We're talking DMing philosophy and that gets me riled up to discuss philosophy (it's the politician and lawyer in me). =)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tanin Wulf, post: 7292898, member: 6777825"] Then we fundamentally disagree. I have no idea what this means. Yes, the ultimate check on the DM's power is the player's ability not to game. However, other than that, the DM has no limit on his or her power (or, put another way, the only limit on the DM's power is something that becomes apparent once the DM has exceeded it and not before). That's why it's a position of trust, because a good DM is trusted to never let things get that bad. I feel like you don't understand what "position of trust" or "position of authority" means. The DM has authority by virtue of his or her position as DM. That position doesn't give them trust, it means they must have trust in order to execute it faithfully. If you didn't already trust the person to DM according to something you want to be a part of, then they shouldn't be your DM and this whole thing is a non-issue. (There's a reason I'm very particular in selecting a DM. There are many players I would never let DM a game for me, but who are great players.) Some games do it differently than D&D, but in D&D the DM is very much a position of trust, unless you set out to change the default assumptions of the game (and there's even a section in the mythical guide for this master of dungeons, to return to my previous jab, talking about this exact thing with regards to cooperative storytelling and alternate models of DMing). EDIT: So... I'm going to leave up what I said, but since we're in 99% agreement, I don't want this to be seen as "violent agreement!" Rather, I apologize that I am coming off as combative. We're talking DMing philosophy and that gets me riled up to discuss philosophy (it's the politician and lawyer in me). =) [/QUOTE]

Verification