D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

Lanefan · Nov 2, 2018

Hussar said:
Now, that being said, I would say that there are differently levels of justification for things. I don't want X because I don't like X and I'm the DM so, what I say goes, is a pretty darn weak argument. If that's the best justification you can come up with, well, at that point, I'm of a mind that I'll just suck it up and let the player have their way because it means that the player will be more invested in the game.

At the expense of the DM being more invested in the game; and the DM not being invested is a fast track to a lousy game.

Which means that as a DM, I need to implicitly trust that the players are acting in good faith, same as they have to trust that I am too.

No, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], it's not about power tripping. It's about DM's who are incapable of checking their ego at the door. Consciously deciding not to force their preferences on the players is the hallmark of a great DM, IMO. The ability of a DM to take what the players want and mold that into a campaign is what makes someone a great DM.

Even if the end result isn't something the DM also wants?

Anyone can put on the Viking Hat and dictate to the group. That's easy. There's no challenge to the DM there. The DM sits perched comfortably in the middle of his or her comfort zone, secure in the knowledge that nothing can disturb the carefully crafted campaign.

Consensus is messy as Hell. It's difficult. It's slow. It's never the easy way.

But, it does give the absolute best results.

Your definition of consensus seems to be the players get the game they want no matter what, with the DM left to "suck it up and let the player have their way".

For me, if players want a game I'm not interested in DMing then AFAIC one of them can DM it. And if I'm not interested in playing in it either then I'll sit out - fine by me. It's not like I'd then be banned form calling these same people up some other night and saiyng hey let's go for a beer...

Imaro · Nov 2, 2018

Hussar said:
Now, that being said, I would say that there are differently levels of justification for things. I don't want X because I don't like X and I'm the DM so, what I say goes, is a pretty darn weak argument. If that's the best justification you can come up with, well, at that point, I'm of a mind that I'll just suck it up and let the player have their way because it means that the player will be more invested in the game.

I'll address the direct response to me a little later but I did want to touch on this... Does this work in reverse? If a player's justification is that I don't want to play X because I don't like X and we agreed to only play games everyone liked so what I say goes do you as a DM consider that an equally weak argument? Is there a point where the player should just suck it up and let the DM have their way? If so what is it.

This is what I'm trying to figure out with you [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], because while I get where you're coming from in a general sense I am also getting the impression that compromise from your point of view is the DM always conceding to the players. Now if that;s the case just state it as opposed to claiming compromise when the player never has to. It's similar to the question I asked previously... if you always concede to the player at what point do they actually need to be open minded or adaptable?

Maxperson · Nov 2, 2018

Hussar said:
Wow, dude. You are REALLY hung up on that aren't you? Look, just take your spanking and move on.

You can't "spank" someone through the use of a Strawman. It quite literally is a fallacy that keeps you from ever being right. :erm:

You made a mistake, you got called on it by someone who knows more on that particular topic than you do. My being an English teacher does not have any real bearing on this, other than your constant ad hominem attacks.

You don't want to be called out when you twist the arguments of others, stop doing it.

But, just to be clear, what am I not answering clearly? Everyone else in this thread apparently has not had any problem understanding my point, but, obviously I need to clarify something for you.

You engage in Strawman arguments more than anyone else that I've seen on this site. Every time you do so, you are not answering straight as you are twisting arguments and answering something that has not been said.

Maxperson · Nov 2, 2018

Hussar said:
It's not about doing what you want. It's about not doing things that someone at the table doesn't want to do. It's about the table, as a group, putting forth the things that they don't want to do and then the group agreeing not to do those things.

What it's about is the double standard you keep espousing. DMs aren't supposed to do things that someone at the table doesn't want to do, but the DM must do something he doesn't want to do when a player requests it.

I don't want X because I don't like X and I'm the DM so, what I say goes, is a pretty darn weak argument. If that's the best justification you can come up with, well, at that point, I'm of a mind that I'll just suck it up and let the player have their way because it means that the player will be more invested in the game.

And yet you seem to think that "I don't want the DM to do X because I don't like X and I'm the player." is not a pretty darn weak argument.

Which means that as a DM, I need to implicitly trust that the players are acting in good faith, same as they have to trust that I am too.

Your responses about DM authority belies that statement, though. It's pretty clear from your responses that you don't implicitly trust that the DM is acting in good faith when he does things.

Consciously deciding not to force their preferences on the players is the hallmark of a great DM, IMO.

So then I take it that you agree that consciously deciding not to force your preference as a player on the DM is the hallmark of a great player.

Ovinomancer · Nov 2, 2018

Maxperson said:
It [strawman] quite literally is a fallacy that keeps you from ever being right.

Um, no. Informal fallacies like the Strawman do not make the conclusion wrong automatically. That's formal logical fallacies. Instead, informal fallacies are arguments that provide no support for the conclusion -- ie, the specific argument is poor -- but do not automatically invalidate the conclusion.

This is easiest to see with ad hom arguments -- just because I insult you that doesn't mean my conclusion is wrong.

I really wish people would stop throwing around informal fallacies by name and instead actually explain the argument's flaw. This would prevent the above.

Oofta · Nov 2, 2018

Hussar said:
I think I see where I've gone wrong here. People are phrasing things kinda from the other end of where I am.

Just to repeat from last post:

It's not about doing what you want. It's about not doing things that someone at the table doesn't want to do. It's about the table, as a group, putting forth the things that they don't want to do and then the group agreeing not to do those things.

Now, that being said, I would say that there are differently levels of justification for things. I don't want X because I don't like X and I'm the DM so, what I say goes, is a pretty darn weak argument. If that's the best justification you can come up with, well, at that point, I'm of a mind that I'll just suck it up and let the player have their way because it means that the player will be more invested in the game.

Which means that as a DM, I need to implicitly trust that the players are acting in good faith, same as they have to trust that I am too.

No, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], it's not about power tripping. It's about DM's who are incapable of checking their ego at the door. Consciously deciding not to force their preferences on the players is the hallmark of a great DM, IMO. The ability of a DM to take what the players want and mold that into a campaign is what makes someone a great DM. Anyone can put on the Viking Hat and dictate to the group. That's easy. There's no challenge to the DM there. The DM sits perched comfortably in the middle of his or her comfort zone, secure in the knowledge that nothing can disturb the carefully crafted campaign.

Consensus is messy as Hell. It's difficult. It's slow. It's never the easy way.

But, it does give the absolute best results for me and my group.

Fixed this for you.

But for many of the same reasons that others have pointed out, I simply disagree. The DM is the final arbiter of the campaign setting, rulings and style. I encourage feedback and take it into consideration for the games I run, but as a DM my vote counts more than anyone else's vote. For that matter so does my wife's vote.

SkidAce · Nov 2, 2018

Hussar said:
I think I see where I've gone wrong here. People are phrasing things kinda from the other end of where I am.

Just to repeat from last post:

It's not about doing what you want. It's about not doing things that someone at the table doesn't want to do. It's about the table, as a group, putting forth the things that they don't want to do and then the group agreeing not to do those things.

Now, that being said, I would say that there are differently levels of justification for things. I don't want X because I don't like X and I'm the DM so, what I say goes, is a pretty darn weak argument. If that's the best justification you can come up with, well, at that point, I'm of a mind that I'll just suck it up and let the player have their way because it means that the player will be more invested in the game.

Which means that as a DM, I need to implicitly trust that the players are acting in good faith, same as they have to trust that I am too.

No, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], it's not about power tripping. It's about DM's who are incapable of checking their ego at the door. Consciously deciding not to force their preferences on the players is the hallmark of a great DM, IMO. The ability of a DM to take what the players want and mold that into a campaign is what makes someone a great DM. Anyone can put on the Viking Hat and dictate to the group. That's easy. There's no challenge to the DM there. The DM sits perched comfortably in the middle of his or her comfort zone, secure in the knowledge that nothing can disturb the carefully crafted campaign.

Consensus is messy as Hell. It's difficult. It's slow. It's never the easy way.

But, it does give the absolute best results.

Better and clarifying post. I approve.

5ekyu · Nov 2, 2018

SkidAce said:
Better and clarifying post. I approve.

I may be out on a limb here but i would call a case where all the players and the Gm and the player who did not play all agreed with and were happy with the choices made "reaching consensus."

Maxperson · Nov 2, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
Um, no. Informal fallacies like the Strawman do not make the conclusion wrong automatically. That's formal logical fallacies. Instead, informal fallacies are arguments that provide no support for the conclusion -- ie, the specific argument is poor -- but do not automatically invalidate the conclusion.

This is easiest to see with ad hom arguments -- just because I insult you that doesn't mean my conclusion is wrong.

I really wish people would stop throwing around informal fallacies by name and instead actually explain the argument's flaw. This would prevent the above.

He's been doing this to people for a long time. He's probably hit me with a Strawman somewhere between 100-200 times, and he has been incorrect 100% of the time. Why? Because he's not answering me. Instead, he's answering himself, which I suppose allows him to be correct about the altered argument, but has yet to allow him to be correct regarding the arguments I put forward.

Maxperson · Nov 2, 2018

SkidAce said:
Better and clarifying post. I approve.

Meh. It boiled down to "Do as I say, not as I do."

D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Imaro

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Oofta

Legend

SkidAce

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads