Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6092973" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yeah, I feel that.  Having been in similar situations way too many times, I've come to the realization that sometimes it's just better to excuse myself from the table.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />But, I think Greenfield highlights precisely what I mentioned earlier where the DM has become invested in how something is resolved.  If the DM wasn't invested, he wouldn't care about the how, just that it was resolved.  IMO, problems abound when DM's become invested in the how.In particular is the example of the DM nit-picking the ring of feather fall.  That's precisely what I mean when I talked about Celebrim forcing skill checks.  The players have reframed the scene - from a dangerous climb to a 30 second speed bump.  Obviously the players aren't really interested in the dangerous climb scene because, if they were, they wouldn't turn it into a speed bump.  But, the DM in Greenfield's example is invested in how the scene plays out, and starts trying to undo the players reframing.Which, to me, is not something I enjoy.  The players, again, totally IMO, should have this degree of reframing power and I have zero problem with that.  Obviously YMMV and all that.</blockquote>