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

[Aldarc]

Sure, but that makes the definition of a bad DM, "Does something that someone else won't like.", which leaves quite literally all DMs as bad DMs. Not a very useful definition of "bad DM".

Do you have a better one then?

In LotR, the GM in effect did decide that the Gaffer wasn't completely backgrounded, thus the readers learn he had a rough go of it while Sam was away.

I would say the greater danger that players fear is that the DM needlessly kills off these sort of characters for their own sake of sensationalized drama.* But I have seen and heard this royally backfire against self-assured DM in ways that have been disasterous for the desired attempts of the DM. The DM thought they were being clever and creating good drama for the PCs. They weren't. And in some stories recounted to me from DMs who learned their lessons, the PCs went John Wick on the DM's adventure.

* There is a highly socially problematic comic book trope referred to as "women in refrigerators." I have provided a link, but the basic run-down is that comic book writers would use female characters as plot devices subjected to murder, rape, injury, and so on in service to the development and drama of male characters. I would say that "families in refrigerators" is the equivalent trope for tabletop RPGs, though not with the same problematization of gender.

Batman broke his back. Green Lantern lost his ring. Flash lost his speed. Peter Parker lost Mary Jane.

And these are often some of the most controversial and contentious stories. You can still trigger many Spider-Man fans to rage with just three words: one more day. So I would say these stories are precisely cautionary tales about the dangers of this trope from a story-telling perspective.

 

[Aldarc]

Either way there is nothing inherent in D&D specifically that gives the PC ownership and control of NPC's simply because they are part of a character's backstory.

Now I get in your particular playstyle, irregardless of system assumptions, you may allow players to dictate end-states for NPC's or declare NPC's and setting elements off limits from DM's but that's not the default stance for D&D.

The rules do not prohibit this playstyle either so an appeal to the inherent state of D&D is a nonissue, if not a non-sequitor argument. I am less concerned about imposing notions of D&D's inherent state and more about play in praxis. And when one looks at how D&D is played on online streaming games (e.g., Critical Role) or around tables, the notion of an inherent state of D&D falls flat on its face, especially given the liberties with which the rules are followed or not and how various playstyles are supported. I have also often found that arguments regarding a "default stance" often beg the question. If "default stances" were really as clear as people made them out to be, thread discussions would be far more clear cut.

So since we are speaking to D&D I'll stick with my original assertion that the patron is a part of the DM's world... and thus if the DM wants he can determine the patron's actions himself, work with the player in determining the patron's actions, or even allow the player to determine the actions of the patron... more importantly the point is none of these answers is wrong or makes the DM a "bad" or poor DM regardless of which you personally prefer.

And this is where I also take issue with your argument. And as the issue of entitlement has been raised before, I would point this wording (emphasis mine) as part of the problem. I don't believe that we are dealing with "the DM's world." These are shared worlds, cooperatively emergent worlds, that the DM facilitates. A DM may feel a sense of ownership over the world, but that also spakes to that entitlement and the what rubs a number of people here the wrong way, that the players exist to aggrandize "the DM's world," story, or DMing skills.

That said, I have also made it clear in many of my past examples on this matter, that the warlock player - as should be the case with all players - should cooperatively work with the DM about the character and the DM (in good faith and respect to the player) should work with the player.

Maybe there's just an overall breakdown in what you are communicating to me because (emphasis mine above) What this seems to imply to me is that in a cooperative game where we should all be contributing and building the fiction the player wants a specific story that they have already decided upon... thus my impression that it is engaging in one man theater where I as DM am here to provide scenery & background but am not allowed to explore what I would like too with the characters in the game.

If your DM, or you as the DM of your game, is/are cool with playing that role...that's great but for me I'm not there to run you through your particular story...

There may be a communication breakdown. I don't see why or how you keep dismissively calling this "one man theater" when I am explicitly telling you are misreading my argument. Falsely repeating that assertion does not make it correct. I am saying that the player has decided on an interpretive lens or approach through which they will engage the story. It is almost about establishing the character hermeneutic. They have not decided the story. They may have decided on themes for their character, and they may have signalled to the DM what sort of themes they would like to explore. But they are primarily deciding how they will approach the story that the DM facilitates. Story Now approaches, which I do not claim as my approach, may do things differently.

If I don't have the freedom to do that why don't you just write down the encounters, choices, issues, etc. you want to deal with, and I'll regurgitate them at the player appointed times. IMO this is just as bad as the DM who has already decided where the game is going to go and the players aren't given the opportunity to explore themes, and tropes through the lenses they want to. IMO neither should be in total control of this aspect of the game.

IMO what you write here does not respectfully follow what I wrote.

These are jerk DM issues and have nothing to do with the DM having authority or control over the deity of your cleric. He could do these same things just as easily with a powerful enough NPC or by DM fiat. But this, at least as far as I can tell, has been the default assumption of the side against DM's having control over certain aspects of the setting and world that are tied to PC's. I also suspect the assumption of a jerk DM (or jerk player) from both sides at times is also what is causing many to talk past each other in the thread.

You are scapegoating this as a "jerk DM issue," when this is also a matter of preferred approach to storytelling styles. Laying this at the feet of "jerk DMs" is somewhat lazy argumentation that I have found prevalent in this discussion, and I am likely guilty of this as well. A "jerk DM issue" is still a "DM issue." There are things that Lanefan does his players at his table that I would absolutely hate, but I do not necessarily believe that Lanefan is a "jerk DM." He's a DM whose style would find insufferable as a player or my players if I applied his style and preferences to them.

I have no choice but to take you at your word (though admittedly we all have perception biases when it comes to the relating of past events), though honestly I'd love to get the unbiased perspective of the DM and other players in said game and whether they even understood or took notice that said decisions were stemming from your faith.

It sounds like you don't trust my word.

For me as a DM I don't want to be a spectator, which essentially is what the DM seems to be ok with in your above example.

Except they are not a spectator, and the DM also engaged her own issues, questions, and themes the players brought. This does approach does not somehow magically exclude the DM's agency.

Assuming I'm not a jerk DM what exactly is your objection to that? Because all of your objections seem to be predicated on I as a DM looking to screw you over... which again is a totally different issue. You want to communicate better let's speak to what the concerns are around a DM who actually plays in good faith...

I never once thought the DM in the campaign provided aimed to screw me over. My roleplaying preferences are not contigent on fearing a "jerk DM." I play with friends. It's about what I want as a player and what I want for my players.

No it was a pretty specific question...

I don't believe that it was. There were far too many ways, IMHO, for me to answer that question.

Now let me address the second part of your post because I believe you have a habit when engaging with me of getting snarky and snide and I can already see it so I'm asking that if you really want to engage with me you dial it back some (if not, just don't reply)... you don't know what's "Scary" for me.

And you have the nasty habit of assuming the worst in what I write. I apologize for a bit of glib humor, but my intention here was not some sort of bad faith snark, so your accusations here are misplaced and insulting while also engaging in the sort of behavior you accuse of me. However, it would probably behoove us both to dial back our respective snark.

So how about you apply your own advice around accepting and understanding a different viewpoint...

I don't think that it does our discussion any favors here for you to assume that I am not.

Exactly so I guess the DM just shouldn't play an NPC with any type of connection to the PC's kor who happens to gain one through play of the game either because the same thing could happen... see how absurd this line of thinking can get at a certain point? In other words, as I've said before, this is a jerk DM problem and not a problem around DM's controlling deities and patrons.

I don't think that this snarky, absurd argument is appropriate or fair. If you had asked me in good faith, I would tell you that I believe that this depends largely depends on the player and their own idiomatic preferences here. Some players would want the DM to play the warlock's patron because they want to engage this otherworldly entity. Some are fine with the DM having all the control around the NPCs in their backstory. That's fine. This absurd argument is not actually being touted. However, there are NPCs or story elements that a player may prefer the DM not to touch or bring to the foreground. It may be because of "jerk DMs" but also may be because that's not what the player wants their play experience to engage as a forefront element. Again, I believe that laying this at the feet of "jerk DMs" is looking for an easy out of this discussion that is far more nuanced than a "jerk DM" gives credit or merit.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You are doing character generation *before* campaign selection? Making folks create characters before they know what the campaign is about seems less efficient than doing that the other way around.

For a lot of my gaming history, PC gen in a paucity of GM campaign info has been the norm. I used to do generic PCs and develop them over time because of it.

Nowadays in such situations, I generate PCs, and then recast them- if possible- to fit. Doesn’t always work, but nothing ever does.

Personally, when I’m behind the screen, I try to give my players something substantial to chew on. Doesn’t always work. When I tried to repurpose my Vernian/Wellsian Supers 1900 campaign I did for my group in Austin (HERO 4th) as Supers 1914 for a Dallas group (M&M 2nd), I could tell that a couple players hadn’t paid more than cursory attention to the resources I made available. Shortly before that game collapsed*, one player made a comment about the campaign setting that would be as analogously clueless as someone today being shocked that America had cars.



* Said attitude wasn’t solely to blame, but it definitely hurt.

 

[Imaro]

The rules do not prohibit this playstyle either so an appeal to the inherent state of D&D is a nonissue, if not a non-sequitor argument. I am less concerned about imposing notions of D&D's inherent state and more about play in praxis. And when one looks at how D&D is played on online streaming games (e.g., Critical Role) or around tables, the notion of an inherent state of D&D falls flat on its face, especially given the liberties with which the rules are followed or not and how various playstyles are supported. I have also often found that arguments regarding a "default stance" often beg the question. If "default stances" were really as clear as people made them out to be, thread discussions would be far more clear cut.

And this is where I also take issue with your argument. And as the issue of entitlement has been raised before, I would point this wording (emphasis mine) as part of the problem. I don't believe that we are dealing with "the DM's world." These are shared worlds, cooperatively emergent worlds, that the DM facilitates. A DM may feel a sense of ownership over the world, but that also spakes to that entitlement and the what rubs a number of people here the wrong way, that the players exist to aggrandize "the DM's world," story, or DMing skills.

From the DMG pg. 4

"The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game. The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story..."

"Every DM is the creator of his or her own campaign world. Whether you invent a world, adapt a world from a favorite movie or novel or use a published setting for the D&D game, you make that world your own over the course of a camapign."

Seems pretty clear what the assumed (default) stance of a DM and the campaign world is in D&D... irregardless of whether an individual DM decides to change that for his own personal group. You can call it entitled, not to your tastes, claims it rubs you the wrong way or numerous other things... but it's clearly stated in the DMG so I doubt it's lack of clarity as opposed to individual preference that causes different groups to play in different ways.

That said, I have also made it clear in many of my past examples on this matter, that the warlock player - as should be the case with all players - should cooperatively work with the DM about the character and the DM (in good faith and respect to the player) should work with the player.

The players right to background world elements outside of their character (which has been what the main jist of the argument for quite a few pages now) so that the DM can't touch them isn't cooperating it's forbidding the DM from touching something other than your character in the world. In what way is that cooperation unless by cooperation you mean a situation where on party is dictating the terms to another.

There may be a communication breakdown. I don't see why or how you keep dismissively calling this "one man theater" when I am explicitly telling you are misreading my argument. Falsely repeating that assertion does not make it correct. I am saying that the player has decided on an interpretive lens or approach through which they will engage the story. It is almost about establishing the character hermeneutic. They have not decided the story. They may have decided on themes for their character, and they may have signalled to the DM what sort of themes they would like to explore. But they are primarily deciding how they will approach the story that the DM facilitates. Story Now approaches, which I do not claim as my approach, may do things differently.

If I am playing a warlock and only want to explore my character's relationship with said patron in a manner where I decide what the patron is thinking, what the patron does, what the patron believes, where the patron ends up at the end of the campaign and so on... It's a one man show (story). The rest of the group may get to be spectators if I eat up enough time roleplaying with myself (which in and of itself can cause other issues to arise) but they, including the DM, are no longer part of that story in any meaningful way.

You are scapegoating this as a "jerk DM issue," when this is also a matter of preferred approach to storytelling styles. Laying this at the feet of "jerk DMs" is somewhat lazy argumentation that I have found prevalent in this discussion, and I am likely guilty of this as well. A "jerk DM issue" is still a "DM issue." There are things that Lanefan does his players at his table that I would absolutely hate, but I do not necessarily believe that Lanefan is a "jerk DM." He's a DM whose style would find insufferable as a player or my players if I applied his style and preferences to them.

Yes but it's not an issue that's inherent to DM's playing NPC's that have intimate relationships with PC's which is how the issue is being framed by you and others. All mixing the two does is obfuscate discussion of the real issue which centers around mutual DM/player respect and finding the right playstylel for the players/DM's in your particular game. the probem arises when someone doesn't agree with your playstyle preferences, categorizes them as bad DM'ing and are supported by posters claiming... there's no better word for it"...

It sounds like you don't trust my word.

It's not about trusting your word. I trust that you believe what you are saying to be true but I also know that human perception and memories are inherently flawed. On top of that if you didn't ask the other players what they thought or felt about the roleplaying and impact of your character's faith how would you know what they really thought about it and to go a little deeper, if you all are friends would they tell you the truth if they didn't care for it or found it forgettable. So it's more that without multiple perspectives and input from the people who were there I take it as exactly what it is a single perspective from a player who probably has some bias since it's his character and roleplaying we are scrutinizing.

Except they are not a spectator, and the DM also engaged her own issues, questions, and themes the players brought. This does approach does not somehow magically exclude the DM's agency.

Maybe not exclude (of course if you are backgrounding it I fail to see it as anything else), again I don't have enough information to say for certain... However I would assume being told I can't make decisions about a players patron or deity, by design, definitely limits DM's agency more narrowly when exploring themes concerning that relationship.

I never once thought the DM in the campaign provided aimed to screw me over. My roleplaying preferences are not contigent on fearing a "jerk DM." I play with friends. It's about what I want as a player and what I want for my players.

Huh... I'm confused...so who are you talking about when you make statements like those below...

And I believe that players, in my case at least, often do prefer playing from this human perspective over against one in which the deity exists as an NPC who exists as the DM's sockpuppet and for the sake of the DM's desire to "control all the things."

I am often completely uninterested, if not turned-off, by the DM using my character's deity as an NPC for micromanaging my character.

Just because my deity is "absent" or removed-from-play as the DM's plaything does not mean that my character and their faith exists in some sort of vacuum.

I assumed you were talking from your own experiences, if not are these hypothetical problems pulled from thin air... insults for the other side of this argument or something else entirely? What DM are you talking about in these statements and if its not about "jerk DM's" why frame these statements in such a way that emphasizes jerk behavior on the part of the DM?

I don't believe that it was. There were far too many ways, IMHO, for me to answer that question.

Okay so give 3 examples of how it would have affected your characters actions, thoughts or anything else in the game... should be easy if there are so many you don't know where to begin.

And you have the nasty habit of assuming the worst in what I write. I apologize for a bit of glib humor, but my intention here was not some sort of bad faith snark, so your accusations here are misplaced and insulting while also engaging in the sort of behavior you accuse of me. However, it would probably behoove us both to dial back our respective snark.

Lol... calling snark out as snark is... insulting. Ok.

I don't think that it does our discussion any favors here for you to assume that I am not.

And when you frame the other side of a discussion in in the the manner you did above quotes (see where I asked above what DM you were speaking to if not your own)as well as agreeing with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s continued use of bad DM to describe the other side... ... well it makes it a little hard to assume openness and a willingness to understand as primary goals.

I don't think that this snarky, absurd argument is appropriate or fair. If you had asked me in good faith, I would tell you that I believe that this depends largely depends on the player and their own idiomatic preferences here. Some players would want the DM to play the warlock's patron because they want to engage this otherworldly entity. Some are fine with the DM having all the control around the NPCs in their backstory. That's fine. This absurd argument is not actually being touted. However, there are NPCs or story elements that a player may prefer the DM not to touch or bring to the foreground. It may be because of "jerk DMs" but also may be because that's not what the player wants their play experience to engage as a forefront element. Again, I believe that laying this at the feet of "jerk DMs" is looking for an easy out of this discussion that is far more nuanced than a "jerk DM" gives credit or merit.

This reads like you believe it is ultimately the player who should decide what NPC's the DM is allowed to control...If that is the jist of your argument here simply put I don't agree... I'm there to play with my toys as DM in the same way the player gets to play with his and the same way I'm not going to get to dictate how and when the player is allowed to play his character he doesn't get to dictate how and when I can play NPC's.

As to the rest of your statement if it's more nuanced than "jerk DM's" quit framing the general discussion in that way and instead frame it around the nuanced reasons you want to discuss.

 

[Satyrn]

For a lot of my gaming history, PC gen in a paucity of GM campaign info has been the norm. I used to do generic PCs and develop them over time because of it.

Nowadays in such situations, I generate PCs, and then recast them- if possible- to fit. Doesn’t always work, but nothing ever does.

Personally, when I’m behind the screen, I try to give my players something substantial to chew on. Doesn’t always work. When I tried to repurpose a Supers 1900 campaign I did for my group in Austin (HERO 4th) as Supers 1914 for a Dallas group in M&M 2nd, I could tell that a couple players hadn’t paid more than cursory attention to the resources I made available. Shortly before that game collapsed*, one player made a comment about the campaign setting that would be as analogously clueless as someone today being shocked that America had cars.



* Said attitude wasn’t solely to blame, but it definitely hurt.

I don't need no setting info before creating a PC. A fighter fits in everywhere, and I'm happy to play a cleric of Yeah, Her.


(Drunkenly pronounced to sound vaguely like Yahweh)

 

[BookBarbarian]

I don't need no setting info before creating a PC. A fighter fits in everywhere

There will always be a place for those willing to hit stuff with a pointy piece of metal.

 

[5ekyu]

For a lot of my gaming history, PC gen in a paucity of GM campaign info has been the norm. I used to do generic PCs and develop them over time because of it.

Nowadays in such situations, I generate PCs, and then recast them- if possible- to fit. Doesn’t always work, but nothing ever does.

Personally, when I’m behind the screen, I try to give my players something substantial to chew on. Doesn’t always work. When I tried to repurpose my Vernian/Wellsian Supers 1900 campaign I did for my group in Austin (HERO 4th) as Supers 1914 for a Dallas group (M&M 2nd), I could tell that a couple players hadn’t paid more than cursory attention to the resources I made available. Shortly before that game collapsed*, one player made a comment about the campaign setting that would be as analogously clueless as someone today being shocked that America had cars.



* Said attitude wasn’t solely to blame, but it definitely hurt.

My basic sequence is get up to 20% or so of the big picture stuff done, then another maybe up to 20% micro stuff done - all with focus on "what players will need to make informed chargen choices" (include pre-gens that spotlight elements and systems and a starter locale and hooks), do chargen et al (including collaborations) then build in the remaining 40-75% of the campaign specifics *after i know the stars*.

So its a phased approach.

 

[Lanefan]

You are mistunderstanding what construes an assumption. It's not an assumption to raise the possibility that the DM and player may not be on the same page regarding the PC's deity/patron/oath when initiating play and that this can only become obvious later into play. An actual error of assumption in this case would be assuming that the DM and player are on the same page when play begins. And my comment was directed towards this egregious assumption.

If the game's being run using a canned setting e.g. Greyhawk or Eberron or whatever then the info's out there for all to find; the DM only has to inform as to any changes to the canon. If it's a homebrew setting then yes, the DM has to make sure there's enough clear info given to allow the players to see what's involved (or likely to be involved) in playing a cleric to any given deity. (and having done these deity write-ups for my own campaign I'll say this: it's a lot of work, but if you can then use the same pantheon from one campaign to the next it's work you really only have to do once)

Let us take, for example, a cleric. The cleric has faith, tenents, and likely a code. The cleric can explore their faith without the deity ever once showing up into play or the DM even dangling that possibility. The idea that a deity must or should show up in order for an adherent or priest to explore their faith strikes me as offensive and non-sensical from any real life sensibilities. In many respects it is the default position of the human perspective. Gods in D&D can be real and embodied (e.g., Forgotten Realms), but this is not always the case (e.g., the Sovereign Host in Eberron).

If you're running the game from a 1e perspective - and I'm not sure if this has changed much since - then a high-level cleric communicates with its deity every morning while praying for 6th and 7th level spells. (3rd-5th come from a minion, 1st-2nd come as a function of faith and belief). In this sense, the deity is certainly real to the praying cleric!

And likewise from within the worldview of many religious adherents, the supernatural elements that constitute their faith (e.g., God, gods, spirits, etc.) likewise are regarded as real. And I believe that players, in my case at least, often do prefer playing from this human perspective over against one in which the deity exists as an NPC who exists as the DM's sockpuppet and for the sake of the DM's desire to "control all the things."

There's a leap of logic here that I'm not following.

First, what's this "human perspective" you're referring to?

Second, if a deity is 'real' in the game world/setting to the point of being able to have any sentient interaction with anyone then it's an NPC. If a deity isn't 'real' and is nothing more than an amorphous source of daily spells then it's not an NPC, but in this case you'd have to ban Commune as a spell as its very existence presumes sentience and knowledge at the deity end.

Recently I had been playing a dwarf cleric of the forge in a campaign coming to a close. The DM has been entirely hands off with my deity. I established the fiction of the deity from scratch.

Who gets to determine how this new deity interacts with the other Dwarven deities, or how Dwarves view its followers and clerics? Who plays the deity when it interacts with your PC e.g. when you cast Commune?

The idea that I am therefore somehow playing "lone theater" or that I am incapable of having other players/the DM see my decision-making process or the influence of my faith is not only downright insulting but also contradicted by actual play experiences. Just because my deity is "absent" or removed-from-play as the DM's plaything does not mean that my character and their faith exists in some sort of vacuum. It engages the world. My character's ethos and faith has been the most well-defined, grounded, and consensually understood among the group. It has made my character a moral beacon and pillar for the group. My faith has vocally informed many important decisions that my character has made. If the DM wants to explore my faith, they do not reach their hand up the deity as a sockpuppet; they establish human situations and scenarios for my character to engage. I am not running amok and abusing power without any responsibilites; those responsibilities are accumulating. And I wanted to engage those responsibilities as part of how I envision the character. I have established contacts, begun reforming prisoners, laid the groundwork for coordinating the guilds, and laying the foundations for a chapel and future temple.

So what happens if someone else wants to play a cleric to this deity? Are they now bound to your vision of it; or in other words, is this deity in effect now just an extension of your specific PC?

 

[Lanefan]

I would say the greater danger that players fear is that the DM needlessly kills off these sort of characters for their own sake of sensationalized drama.* But I have seen and heard this royally backfire against self-assured DM in ways that have been disasterous for the desired attempts of the DM. The DM thought they were being clever and creating good drama for the PCs. They weren't. And in some stories recounted to me from DMs who learned their lessons, the PCs went John Wick on the DM's adventure.

If the PCs ever want to go John Wick in my game they're free to do so.

But yes, killing these NPCs off "just because" isn't fun for anyone. Putting them in known danger, particularly where such danger is an outgrowth of things already going on in the campaign, is fair game. An example: in my current game a PC's family lives in a place that started out as peaceful, but throughout the campaign a war front has been moving steadily closer to their home, to the point where this family has just been (or is about to be? I forget where we left it) taken in to a local keep for safety and the PC has taken steps to help bolster the keep.

* There is a highly socially problematic comic book trope referred to as "women in refrigerators." I have provided a link, but the basic run-down is that comic book writers would use female characters as plot devices subjected to murder, rape, injury, and so on in service to the development and drama of male characters. I would say that "families in refrigerators" is the equivalent trope for tabletop RPGs, though not with the same problematization of gender.

Mercifully, I've missed this so far. I hope you don't mind if I keep this streak intact...

And these are often some of the most controversial and contentious stories. You can still trigger many Spider-Man fans to rage with just three words: one more day. So I would say these stories are precisely cautionary tales about the dangers of this trope from a story-telling perspective.

Controversial and contentious? Sounds like the storyteller is doing it right - far more so than with just another story that nobody talks about and everyone forgets a year hence.

Lan-"personally I wouldn't mind at all if we lost Spiderman"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

And this is where I also take issue with your argument. And as the issue of entitlement has been raised before, I would point this wording (emphasis mine) as part of the problem. I don't believe that we are dealing with "the DM's world." These are shared worlds, cooperatively emergent worlds, that the DM facilitates. A DM may feel a sense of ownership over the world, but that also spakes to that entitlement and the what rubs a number of people here the wrong way, that the players exist to aggrandize "the DM's world," story, or DMing skills.

There's a middle ground between these that you're skipping over: the DM builds the world for the players to do with what they will. They might aggrandize the world, they might enrich it (the usual outcome IME), they might destroy it, or they might do all these and more during the campaign. But in the end, yes, it's the DM's world*.

* - for a homebrew world, a quick way to confirm this is to ask "if this setting got published, who would hold the copyright?".

It's usually also the DM's story until and unless the players/PCs do something to change it; and the over-under on how long it'll be before these changes start to occur is about a session and a half.

As for "aggrandizing DMing skills" - well, not quite sure what to say to this one. One hopes a DM improves with practice, and through trial and error.

You are scapegoating this as a "jerk DM issue," when this is also a matter of preferred approach to storytelling styles. Laying this at the feet of "jerk DMs" is somewhat lazy argumentation that I have found prevalent in this discussion, and I am likely guilty of this as well.

In fairness, some of this may well be due to the extreme examples some posters have been resorting to; examples which require a jerk DM in order to exist.

There are things that Lanefan does his players at his table that I would absolutely hate

At risk of setting myself up for the slaughter, I suppose I should ask what in your view those things might be.

but I do not necessarily believe that Lanefan is a "jerk DM."

Thanks for that, at least.

He's a DM whose style would find insufferable as a player or my players if I applied his style and preferences to them.

Oh, you never know. I probably come across on here as more hard-line than I really am, in part because someone has to do it in opposition to some annoying big-picture trends and I'm willing to take the hit.

Except they are not a spectator, and the DM also engaged her own issues, questions, and themes the players brought. This does approach does not somehow magically exclude the DM's agency.

No, it wouldn't exclude it; but it could certainly change it considerably: instead of just defining the setting and locking it in (and thus having to think about it a lot less going forward) the DM now has to account for player-side alterations to the setting, somewhat on the fly.

I never once thought the DM in the campaign provided aimed to screw me over. My roleplaying preferences are not contigent on fearing a "jerk DM." I play with friends. It's about what I want as a player and what I want for my players.

This last makes a lot of sense: I rather suspect most DMs end up DMing the game they'd like to play in.

Lanefan