
My apologies to the big guy for the trademark dilution he’s experiencing right now.
DEAR PROGRAMMERS. “Drinking the Kool-Aid” is not a catch-all phrase that you can use to describe anyone and everyone you disagree with. Please observe the distinction:
Drinking the Kool-Aid: “X is awesome, because all the cool people are doing it.”
Not Drinking the Kool-Aid: “X is awesome, I tried it out because all the cool people are doing it, and it was really helpful.”
Thanks.
P.P.S. If we wanted to be historically accurate, we’d use “Drinking the Flavor-Aid.” The more you know.
I’m usually quick to say “you’re doing it wrong; read more and try again” when I see people complaining about practices that I find profoundly beneficial. But maybe that isn’t helpful. Maybe some understandings can only be effectively passed by direct transmission.
Look for me; I’ll be the one who don’t know how to cheat
Having DMed a few games now, I’m always surprised how scared most veteran players are of the DM. Every trap is assumed to have a chance to instantly kill players (even at low levels), every NPC is merely biding their time until they can best double-cross the players party, and every item is horribly cursed until (repeatedly) proven otherwise.
A healthy bit of skepticism, of course, is a good thing. Assuming that the DM is out to get you, on the other hand, is borderline paranoia.
The goal of a session is to challenge the players. I think most DMs take this a bit too far without realizing it, however, and turn it into a competitive thing; as if only by attempting to beat the players can they provide an adequate challenge. Or, perhaps at a baser level, it’s the only way to ‘win’ at being a DM.
Power can be a heady beast, and control issues are difficult to work with sometimes. Player A has been rather annoying lately, so maybe I’ll just turn that 19 into a 20 to teach him a lesson. Player B somehow figured out my clever plot twist a week before it was supposed to happen - time for them to fall down a well.
This tends to leave players, well, paranoid. I spend most of my time assuring players that I’m not out to kill them. A lot of the time it doesn’t work - danger and betrayal are both essential (in moderation) to interesting battles and stories, so inevitably my “good guy” credibility takes a hit every time they perceive a challenge as being too hard.
Perhaps the best advice I’ve ever read on this subject was that, to an extent, control of the game’s direction should be as much in the players’ hands as it is in yours. This creates a more cooperative experience which is, generally, more entertaining for everybody: the DM has the challenge of staying one step ahead of the players so that they don’t totally run the board, and the players don’t have to sit back and ride the DM’s railroad. Perhaps not the best idea if you’re a control freak, but if you’re looking to have fun this seems like the clear option.
So why do most DMs appear to be out to kill their players?
When you set the table, when you chose the scale, did you write a riddle that you knew they would fail?
…the Constitution protects these groups of rights-bearing individuals. The proposition that only human beings, standing alone, with no group affiliation whatsoever, are entitled to First Amendment protection — that “real people” lose some of their rights when they join together in groups of two or ten or fifty or 100,000 — is legally baseless and has no grounding in the Constitution.
— When Individuals Form Corporations, They Don’t Lose Their Rights | Cato @ Liberty