D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?

prosfilaes said:

Gaming is about multilateral consent. If my wants aren't met, why should I play?

Click to expand...

You shouldn't play. That is my point. If the game is not meeting your needs after talking with the DM be mature and walk away. You are not a bad person for doing so and neither is the DM for not meeting your wants. People have different play styles and wants. It is only if a player insists that the DM has to meet his or her wants and pushes the issue rather than accept it just differences in taste that the player becomes entitled, because the assumption is that they have to be included in a game and have changes met to accommodate them when the game is being run by someone else.

I have excused myself from the games run on a few occasions. Once was a game run by a boss, but I still got together with them when they played Talisman. Another was run by one of my players. It was a game that by his own admission was out of control and everything was allowed, because he took over the campaign having only played his first two rpg sessions before having the previous DM quite. The third I quit, because it was hack n slash dungeon of the week both of which bore me tears. I excused myself and talked with the DM after the game which resulted in a major change as described my prior post.

Actually, there is a fourth which is my friend's LARP. Our current group LARPs with the exception of myself. I sit that out two Saturdays a month.

Similarly, I have had one player sit out when I ran a supers game. Everyone else wanted a break from fantasy and nobody wanted to play an espionage game, because two of the players are as subtle as bricks and would get everyone killed. That player sat out, but we made sure to have other activities during the month in which to include him.

Or I tell the owner of the table and the other people in my group that maybe we should play someone else's game on these nights. I've got a bunch of ideas, but if someone else wants to run things I'd be happy to do that. If we have to go head to head like this, I think the DM should be careful to make sure that it's actually their table and their group first. My way or the highway doesn't really go well if it's not your house or the players have no interest in playing without the person the DM is kicking out.

Click to expand...

If everyone else is not having fun, it might be good to bring it to the DM's attention first and then offer the suggestion. However, if you are the only one not having fun, make sureyou are not going to burn bridges with the other members of group unless you don't care.

Edit: Or, from another direction, my wants aren't met, but I'm not going to abandon my friends in my Tuesday night game. So I continue to come, but a little more grumpy and paying a little less attention. And it turns out that while I don't have the social weight to force your hand, you don't have the social weight to kick me out without possibly losing the entire group. And so it goes, everyone a little less happy because we focused on who was entitled to what instead of all working together.

Click to expand...

It depends. In our group, if you are not enjoying yourself, we are going to ask why you continue to play. We don't base our friendship on gaming and try to find other things to do. It might not be weekly that we do things as a group if someone does not want to play, but we find time do other things that includes them.

GMforPowergamers said:

It isnt blackmail, but my housse and my car. I also only see two friends on saterday, so I would loose said friends if I left game. SO votreing with my feet isnt an option.

Click to expand...

You would lose your friends if you don't game with them? I find that pretty sad that your friendship is tied to a game. One of my two best friends is a gamer and we don't game with one another (play style clashes).

Greg K said:

You would lose your friends if you don't game with them? I find that pretty sad that your friendship is tied to a game. One of my two best friends is a gamer and we don't game with one another (play style clashes).

Click to expand...

If I was on my computer, I would XP this post. Much subtle wisdom here, with many ramifications.

Sailor Moon said:

I just want to focus real quick on the whole concept of compromise. You can't just solve an argument by declaring compromise. If I don't get what I want but you do then that is not compromise.

Click to expand...

We don't have a lot of these sorts of issues with gaming. But in marriage this can crop up a lot. There are simply a lot of things that don't lend themselves to a compromise within a particular issue and instead involve trading issues. For instance, if my daughter wakes up in the middle of the night, we take turns putting her back to bed. It would make no sense if we both get up and lose sleep putting her back to bed, and it actually goes slower rather than faster if we both try to do it. So we compromise by one person doing 100% of it one time, and the other doing 100% the next time. And a lot of issues are like that, from dishes to making meals, etc..

My point is, it's quite frequent that you don't get what you want but the other person does, with marriage compromises. But, next time it will be reversed.

Also, sometimes who "wins" will depend on who really cares a lot more about that issue than the other, too. For instance, my wife despises killing spiders, but while I don't like it, it's not nearly as big a deal for me. So, I kill all the spiders. And there are things she does that I really despise and she is just mildly bothered by them.

There are lots of issues where you can't just split it down the middle to find compromise in that particular thing, and need to trade-off with a future issue. Compromise isn't always about both people getting what they want with each individual issue.

I will say I generally come down on the side of the DM here, even though I have been known to buckle more than once. I split DMing with another member of our group (even within the same campaign). My co-DM likes to play monsters.. . .a lot. I personally don't like to idea at all and wreaks havoc with my immersion- plus I have to come up with a hundred reasons why the local guard doesn't just feather him with arrows. I've told him I don't like it at all, and why. However, I eventually buckled because he kept saying how he and his wife really enjoy playing them. Now the group has two goblins currently running through HotDQ. Did I compromise? No, I gave in. Big difference. Quite frankly at a slight loss of enjoyment and ability to connect to the game for the sake of my friend (not enough to not play, but it does impact my enjoyment a bit).

While its a bit of a bummer for me, I don't mind this as much as the individual who seems dead set on finding exactly what a campaign excludes, and always wants to find a reason to be THAT THING. Whether that be being evil in a campaign where that was excluded as an option, or a dwarf in a world where that isn't an option, or use a splat book that the DM has disallowed there's often one player who wants to BE THAT THING. . . and its usually the same individual player. I have had these players and generally find such individuals to be a poor match for my gaming style. In those cases it largely the player that needs to adjust IF the DM isn't going to allow their exception.

If the whole group wants to be evil dwarves and use the Book of Nine Swords (for example), than sure, the DM might need to reassess his campaign ideas and either adjust or step down. But, as a player, if a DM states their world is a certain way and excludes certain class/races/whatever, I am more than willing to work within those parameters knowing that the DM is putting a lot of thought into their world. I base it more on the quality of the campaign as it is run than the number of crunch options I can access on character creation. Hell, I love psionics, but if a DM said no I would ask why (of course) but would find something else to play and probably still have an enjoyable time if the campaign is quality. I certainly wouldn't feel the need to press the issue knowing that there are a number of options I would still enjoy.

I have also walked away from two DMs. In the first instance, the whole group decided he just wasn't a good fit and continued without him. In the second case, two of us left the group because the DM was pulling too many no choice situations on us where we felt like we were just NPCs in his world. I didn't dislike those individuals, I just didn't want to play in their game- so I voted with my feet. I don't think leaving a group is a bad thing, really. I would rather not game at all then continue to play in a game where I am not having any fun. What's the point of that?

When it's all said and done, you do what's best for your group. I know what my group likes and they know what I like to run and how I run it so it's a win win for all of us. They enjoy my games and always come back for more.

I must be doing something right eh?

Took care of that for you SkidAce.

Greg K said:

You would lose your friends if you don't game with them? I find that pretty sad that your friendship is tied to a game. One of my two best friends is a gamer and we don't game with one another (play style clashes).

Click to expand...

Im not sure if it is loose a friend as much as not see him, he (well they) habe avery busy scheduil, and the only day they have free is saterday when we play. If we didnt play then we could hang out on saterday, but then he would never play... if i didnt play that game i would not see them

prosfilaes said:

Gaming is about multilateral consent. If my wants aren't met, why should I play?

Click to expand...

Agree with Greg K. here.
But I'd add that you can't isolate your wants, even just within yourself.
Do you "want" to play in a table top RPG? Do you "want" to play in a game run by *this* DM? Are there other DMs willing to run a game that meets your wants and are good enough at DMing that you "want" to play in their game. Are there other things you "want" to do that make appealing alternatives to this particular game?

You should endeavor to do whatever best maximizes the satisfaction of your wants. But maximization what you can get, and getting 100% of everything are not always going to be there. And, obviously, if the DM won't agree, then the DM doesn't "want" to, so some lack of perfection is implicit.

Or I tell the owner of the table and the other people in my group that maybe we should play someone else's game on these nights. I've got a bunch of ideas, but if someone else wants to run things I'd be happy to do that. If we have to go head to head like this, I think the DM should be careful to make sure that it's actually their table and their group first. My way or the highway doesn't really go well if it's not your house or the players have no interest in playing without the person the DM is kicking out.

Edit: Or, from another direction, my wants aren't met, but I'm not going to abandon my friends in my Tuesday night game. So I continue to come, but a little more grumpy and paying a little less attention. And it turns out that while I don't have the social weight to force your hand, you don't have the social weight to kick me out without possibly losing the entire group. And so it goes, everyone a little less happy because we focused on who was entitled to what instead of all working together.

Click to expand...

So "working together" means you get what you want or you will pout and bring everyone else down to spite them?
Is it impossible for you to respect the DM's opinion, even if it is blind faith?
At the end of the day, if you own the place where people play and they don't have alternatives, then you *DO* have leverage. But I don't put "you should play a character that fits with the campaign and desires of the group" in the same class as "you should redefine the game to suit my whims or I'll proactively harm the experience for everyone else."

If there's a number one rule of DMing, it's this: it's the DM's job to make sure all the players are having fun. That's like the Prime Directive of DMing. So when we talk about the DM restricting player options, or designing the game world, he/she has to bear this in mind at all times. It's often a fine line.

For example, if I fancied running an all-Rogue campaign, I wouldn't go ahead without considering if it would be fun for my players. As it's such a non-standard set-up, I would run the idea past them first.

However, as DM I have a right to have fun, and a huge part of the fun, for me, is designing a game world. So I reserve the right to choose the setting, and prohibit certain classes, equipment, etc. in the PHB. While doing this, I need to consider at all times whether this would create a game where the players couldn't have fun - if that would occur, then I've gone too far in my design, and I need to pull it back. And I always consider balance. For example, I have prohibited all metal armour types except chain, as I am representing a historical era before it was invented. However, to prevent Fighters and similar classes from getting a raw deal, I came up with a solution: they can buy armour with the cost and stats of those other armours, but these will be regarded as heavier-grade, or better quality chain. In this way, the fluff matches the setting, but the rules remain in balance; in other words, this is the simplest and most elegant possible way to represent that aspect of the game setting.

To give another example, I don't consider prohibiting Tieflings as forcing a situation where any player's fun is precluded. If they must play a Tiefling to have any fun, then frankly they're a poor player. There are megatonnes of options in the PHB, and the players will just to go with one of the other many, many choices. And if I can have fun with the world; if I can believe in my world, see it in my mind's eye, then it will be a much better campaign for the players. Allow me to have fun, and the game might shine. Make me miserable - chain me to design decisions made by the writers of the PHB or the MM that I really dislike* - and the game will be, at best, mediocre.

The DM shouldn't be a jerk. But the players shouldn't be jerks either by demanding to do something just because it's in Supplement #1234949239820, or even if it's in the PHB. They should give the DM the benefit of the doubt. But if the DM really is being unreasonable, and DMs certainly can be, then some of the suggestions upthread for dealing with it (basically raising the issue in a civil, rational manner) are good ones.




*Demons, devils, and similar creatures. Not for religious reasons; I just think they're stupid.