Community

MatthiasKaiser wrote:

See, when you're not haranguing other posters for being bad, you actually post about a very similar approach to what they already have.

Actually there's a fundamental difference between Max's and my methods. While in final product they might make a similar performing product, there many different philosophy's employed to get to that point. *assuming Max is using hyperbole to demonstrate whatever his shifting points are*

Max's Philosophy is that of a Dm's First everyone else at best is Second. His mantra, is that "ANY GOOD DM!" can make a bad group bearable, and "enjoyable" *at least for the DM* or that one person's "good" can overcome the "suck" elsewhere. And that "good" person is the DM.

Mine, is The Group Collaborative is First, the individual parts of the Group come Second, this includes Dms as well as Players. Where as mine, states basically the group is only having as much fun as the person that enjoys the game the least is. Because frankly, said person is going to drag the rest down. It's more important that the group -as a whole- enjoys the experience, and that's best catered to, by giving everyone an equal say in the goings on in the story arc and or campaign world, *or worlds as the case may be* at some point or another.

When you boil it down to the most simple of components.

MatthiasKaiser wrote:

There's no real difference. You and others artificially created a difference by polarizing the argument and making it "Us vs Max." If the DM comes first, it's first among equals, but that's fairly essential, because he's the one coordinating everything, just like it says in the DMG. Players that don't fit in aren't just screwing with the DM, they're screwing with the campaign that the rest of the players want to play.

Have you been reading this thread?

I think the difference is pretty clear actually. His view is a DM> You view. That the Dm is the one that does everything and everyone else has the "privilege" of playing in his game.

And that only what he says has a place in Fantasy, has a place in Fantasy and everyone else is Immature and Stupid, or Doing it Wrong.

MatthiasKaiser wrote:

I've been reading this thread, and your baiting and warped, selective interpretation of Max's words leads you to that conclusion through great effort on your part.

Whatever Max. You aren't fooling anyone.

MatthiasKaiser wrote:

Right. Because no one besides Max can agree with Max. Despite the PHB and DMG of several editions of the game and many, many magazine articles in Dragon talking about the DM's role in the game, how to tailor campaign worlds, and how to handle players who can't seem to ever play along all supporting his position, he's absolutely wrong and no one besides himself can agree.

You've been making a big deal out of nothing for days now.

If you look at how many people have responded to Max and his "right way" to the contrary, I think someone must have been heinously misreading DMGs over the years.

If everyone else, gets a more Group Collaborative vibe from the game but one or two people out of a large number of participants in a given debate I think one or two people's views are at least a little skewed.

And I highly doubt everyone in this thread but yourself Max, and what's his face *begins with an S I believe* has failed to read a Dmg correctly.

You tailor your games according to what your players want. Infact I remember reading that specifically in at least one DMG. At no point is there a "Dm should come first. Everyone else should just be happy with whatever your decide" view *though I never read the 1e DMG*.

The Dm should run build his world according to player tastes. I recall reading that as well.

I also recall that the group as a whole, should get proper input in the game for the game to be enjoyable. Not "well you must clear it with me first *****! MY WAY or GET OUT". Or that the Dm was some rare, so hard to find Element in the Universe that you must bend down to his or her demands and wants and needs out of a game every time.

Nor do I recall there being described a One True Way to play a Fantasy game either for that matter and that any other way is Wrong and Immature.


But then I'm a stupid reject that Dms Wrong despite the fact that everyone at my table enjoys my games well enough to enjoy it when I dm for them. So whatever. If the Dm Centric View is the Right Way, then buddy I sure as hell don't wanna be Right.

MatthiasKaiser wrote:

Yeah, you're unwilling to accept that someone might actually back up Max, so you insist I'm him. And you wonder why people call your arguments childish.



I can't believe you're actually trying to argue against DM approval. In every other conversation I've ever had about DMing, on these forums, on other forums, with other players, everyone knows that the DM's word is final. He's the one coordinating the various tastes of an entire group of players. Not one player, but a group of players, so the whim of one can't immediately override the will of the group.

The DM governs by authority granted by the players, but he does in fact govern the campaign.



Not familiar with literary criticism, eh? Believe it or not, there's such thing as a good story and a bad story.

Usually the people being childish are the ones that say it too. Guess it takes a spoiled little child to spot one doesn't it?

It's only final if everyone in the group agrees to it as being such. If everyone in the group wants to try something out, the Dm better listen. You can always get another Dm. The Dm is the Editor. He's not God. There's a HUGE difference there.

No, the Dm only can delude himself into thinking he governs the campaign. he's a facilitator and the guy that makes sure the stories sync correctly. The Dm only controls the Npcs. He doesn't control the campaign. The Players do, they do with every single action, or non action that they make. The Dm has to "rewrite" or figure out a new story arc many times in a campaign as the players drift about.

And guess what? It's not usually the CONCEPT that makes something a bad story... That goes under you know.. it being written badly. For example Transformers II. Premise. Autobots and Humans versus the Evil Decepticons, execution? Utterly Terrible. Final Product? A terribly scripted jumbled mess, of generic robots fighting each other and a Plot Device which is so utterly hamfisted into the rest of the film that it makes even less sense the more you think about it.

Lord of the Rings: Premise adventure story, of a dark fantasy. Execution? Badly done... Final product? A Series of Books which focus more on the World and not the characters.

Another example:

Casablanca.

Vs

Barbed Wire.

Same damned concept. Even some same scenes.... Difference? one was done by someone with Talent and care.. the other was written by a Retard that thought bewbs and hideously bad action would make up for the glaringly bad deficiencies.


http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol … 7-barbwire incase you've never watched the Travesty known as Barbed Wire.