I really raised the hackles of some people in yesterday’s post. I should probably clarify what I was saying yesterday.
What some (including myself) would construe as hyperbole, some took as “I’m an asshole DM. What I say goes, and the heroes can go f*** themselves.”
This is not the case.
I really, highly doubt that anyone, especially one of my commenters, bothered to read the article past my first line. If they (read: one in particular) had, they would have seen this line:
Remember: As a GM, your job is to see the larger picture, to run an entire world. As a player, your job is your character. But allow a little bleed-through and care about what the other side is paying attention to.”
See? I’m not all bad.
The point of the article, which may have been overlooked, is this: Players look at their characters, GMs look at things on a larger scale. We need to have more bleed-through. Was the article fraught with statements that, if read out of context could be seen as me being a tyrannical or “arrogant” as I was called.
I think any of my players can vouch for me that I don’t even believe all that I said in the first quarter of my post yesterday. The first quarter. If you read the rest of it, it makes a pretty good point. That first half is hyperbole to get a point across.
Most of the commenters were very well reasoned, explaining their side of things, and I appreciate it. Others… well, others sounded like they’ve been in some pretty terrible game groups with some terrible GMs. I can’t blame them for saying some pretty terrible and harsh things.