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

Hussar · Oct 15, 2014

Elf Witch said:
Hussar I don't think many of are saying not to trust players not unless you know that in certain things they can't be trusted. Look I have several powergamers in my group one I trust totally so I feel pretty safe saying yes most of the time. The other two I don't trust as much because I have had experience with some of their very broken combos. So I say let me look at it and I do look at it and I talk to my son since he is a huge powergamer and if it is too overpowered I go into that conversation armed with ideas on how to let them have some of it but not the parts that I think are going to be an issue.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...se-but-complain-about-it/page45#ixzz3GACILeCm

Really? Why play with people you don't enjoy playing with? I mean, if you have two players whose play styles are so different from your own that you have to babysit them so they don't break your game, or tell the entire group not to cheat just to stop that one guy from cheating, there's a lot larger issues at the table than simply letting some player have a tiefling one off character in a setting that isn't really meant for tieflings.

For all the flack I get for being hard on DM's, it sounds like people have much, much worse experiences with players but seem unwilling to actually do anything about it. Cheating player? Talk to him/her about it, don't let him/her away with it and boot the player if it continues. Players abusing the rules to create broken material? Talk to them. Tell them that they are taking away from the fun of the table and possibly, just possibly, don't play with them.

But continuing to play with these players and then complaining about how they play just seems so counter productive to me. Why are you playing with people that you don't enjoy playing with?

Sadras · Oct 15, 2014

Hussar said:
But, why is the reverse not true? Why should you not give the player the benefit of the doubt. Approach games assuming you can trust the player until he or she proves otherwise. I feel that's appropriate considering that they are volunteering hundreds of hours of their free time.

Hussar said:
Shame on you for compromising. Don't you know that you are supposed to tell those players to suck it up and do whatever YOU want?
(snip) But, that being said, there is a lot of "My way or the highway" going on in the thread. Compromise should always be the byword.

I'm going to try a different approach using another analogy, it might just blow up in my face, but I'm willing to risk it and see where it goes

On this forum there are board rules with some hard limits. Is it because the admin's don't fully trust us as adults? want us to remain on thread topics (theme-based)? or prefer a clean debate with no insults (style)?
By my acceptance to sign-up and post here, I have agreed to the parameters set by Morrus and co for this website. Why do you have an issue with a DM setting parameters for a campaign setting (which by that point everyone has agreed to) yet accept the limits we have to adhere to on Enworld?

Hussar · Oct 15, 2014

Sadras said:
I'm going to try a different approach using another analogy, it might just blow up in my face, but I'm willing to risk it and see where it goes
On this forum there are board rules with some hard limits. Is it because the admin's don't fully trust us as adults? want us to remain on thread topics (theme-based)? or prefer a clean debate with no insults (style)?
By my acceptance to sign-up and post here, I have agreed to the parameters set by Morrus and co for this website. Why do you have an issue with a DM setting parameters for a campaign setting (which by that point everyone has agreed to) yet accept the limits we have to adhere to on Enworld?

Because it is a proven fact that unmoderated or under moderated forums are toxic.

And note, the TOS for en world is already a compromise. It's not like I'm not allowed to ever talk about a particular edition. I don't go to forums where that is true. I vote with my feet.

Elf Witch · Oct 15, 2014

Hussar said:
Really? Why play with people you don't enjoy playing with? I mean, if you have two players whose play styles are so different from your own that you have to babysit them so they don't break your game, or tell the entire group not to cheat just to stop that one guy from cheating, there's a lot larger issues at the table than simply letting some player have a tiefling one off character in a setting that isn't really meant for tieflings.

For all the flack I get for being hard on DM's, it sounds like people have much, much worse experiences with players but seem unwilling to actually do anything about it. Cheating player? Talk to him/her about it, don't let him/her away with it and boot the player if it continues. Players abusing the rules to create broken material? Talk to them. Tell them that they are taking away from the fun of the table and possibly, just possibly, don't play with them.

But continuing to play with these players and then complaining about how they play just seems so counter productive to me. Why are you playing with people that you don't enjoy playing with?

You take things to such extremes. Either that are only know perfect people and only play with perfect people. The examples I mentioned are one aspect of an other wise fun person to play with. So instead of saying get out of my game because you do one thing that bothers me I take precautions to keep the game fun for everyone at the table including them. The guy that cheated on his dice rolls moved away and I get emails asking me to run a game on roll20 because he misses playing with me as a DM. I would still play with him and was sad to see him move away because other than the need to cheat on dice rolls he was an engaged player who made the game fun for everyone at the table.

The powergamer who I never say yes to right away is also a great role player. I love having him at my table. He gets very involved in the world he writes game journals and when I say no or when I make modifications to what he wants he accepts it.

Why would I not play with him when I have a perfect solution that works.

BryonD · Oct 15, 2014

Hussar said:
Since you accuse me of false premises, could you please rephrase the above since I seem to be misunderstanding what you mean. To me, the above means that it is far better to have a highly invested DM than highly invested players. After all, apparently that's true 90% of the time according to you.

First, apologies for being away, been busy.

I did say that having better DMs is more important. You replied saying: "Whereas I disagree. I want the players as engaged as they can be."
You set up wanting players to be engaged as they can be as a point of disagreement. That is absurd and doesn't reflect anything I said.
It is obvious that one can (and would) want players to be engaged as possible and still experience that the difference in an engaged DM makes a far bigger difference than engaged players.

I find it very difficult to believe that a DM could be so easily discouraged during chargen but not during play.

I don't see where YOU are going with this as a reply to what *I* said.

YOU are the one that described players as people who pout and bring the game down. I already replied regarding your description of this boolean nature in players as you have apparently experienced them.
YOU are also the one that described engaged DMs as being consistently strong-armed jerks.

So, clearly neither of us are describing a "zero-sum" game. But the difference in which side we prefer emphasis comes down to our experiences.
I've experienced good players who work with the group. You have experienced players who get upset and show it if they don't get their way.
I've experience engaged DMs who create great games. You have experienced engaged DMs who use it as an excuse to bully players.

Seeing it as you have described it, I completely respect your opinion.
But I'm going to stand by my experience and simply wish you luck in finding better people to share a table with in the future.

Hussar · Oct 16, 2014

Elf Witch said:
You take things to such extremes. Either that are only know perfect people and only play with perfect people. The examples I mentioned are one aspect of an other wise fun person to play with. So instead of saying get out of my game because you do one thing that bothers me I take precautions to keep the game fun for everyone at the table including them. The guy that cheated on his dice rolls moved away and I get emails asking me to run a game on roll20 because he misses playing with me as a DM. I would still play with him and was sad to see him move away because other than the need to cheat on dice rolls he was an engaged player who made the game fun for everyone at the table.

The powergamer who I never say yes to right away is also a great role player. I love having him at my table. He gets very involved in the world he writes game journals and when I say no or when I make modifications to what he wants he accepts it.

Why would I not play with him when I have a perfect solution that works.

Well, part of that is the nature of the Internet. I only know your group based on what you say, so, based on that small slice of knowledge, I can only offer limited advice.

You have described four pretty dysfunctional gamers - 1 that flat out cheats, 2 whose play style conflicts so badly with your own that it makes the game unplayable and one who will sabotage any game where he doesn't get to play what he wants. Now, with further information, maybe these are only minor issues. Fair enough.

But, that also makes your advice really only apply to your group. You didn't say, "Limit the options of power gamers when the power gamers also bring their A game to the table". You just said, "Limit options to force power gamers to not power game". Why not give the advice, "Hey DM's, learn the system so that the power gamers in your group can power game without breaking the game"? Why is that not just as useful advice as, "Well, we have to force restrictions on the players so they don't get advantage over the game"?

My entire problem with this whole thing is that it's presented as, "Players must always compromise with the DM but the DM only has to compromise if he or she feels like it. If compromising would bring something into the game that the DM doesn't like, then, well, tough noogies, don't compromise".

I think that's very toxic advice to many gaming tables. I believe that unless the DM can convince the players with well reasoned arguments, then what the player wants is probably fine for the game. And no, I don't believe that "Well, I don't like it" is a valid argument for a DM. If the player really wants a tiefling and the only issue is an aesthetic one? Suck it up and let the player play what he wants. It's not your character, it's his. He's the one who has to fill that roll for dozens if not hundreds of hours. I dislike strongly any advice that says that the DM is entitled to enforce his personal tastes on the group.

....
[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION], sorry, no, I don't see the issues as separate. A DM who is that laser beam focused on his campaign that he cannot adjust it before the campaign starts to accommodate fairly minor changes - adding in a one shot race character isn't that hard after all, we do have Plane Shift spells in the game - IME will not suddenly become completely free and easy after the campaign starts. If he won't allow you to take something he doesn't like, not because it will break his game or invalidate the campaign in some way, but solely because of his own personal tastes, what makes you think he's suddenly let you do something that doesn't fit with his personal tastes once the game starts.

I'm sorry, but, I've seen it far, far too many times to believe that it's an isolated thing. Granted, it's entirely a taste thing. The second I sit down at a table and the DM starts getting very controlling about exactly what gets created at chargen, alarm bells start going off in my head. And, again, IME, after the game starts, that level of control over the game won't stop.

Now, it may be that you and others aren't like that. Fair enough. But, I'll stand by this prediction. The presence of exceptions doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

BryonD · Oct 16, 2014

Hussar said:
[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION], sorry, no, I don't see the issues as separate. A DM who is that laser beam focused on his campaign that he cannot adjust it before the campaign starts to accommodate fairly minor changes - adding in a one shot race character isn't that hard after all, we do have Plane Shift spells in the game - IME will not suddenly become completely free and easy after the campaign starts. If he won't allow you to take something he doesn't like, not because it will break his game or invalidate the campaign in some way, but solely because of his own personal tastes, what makes you think he's suddenly let you do something that doesn't fit with his personal tastes once the game starts.

I'm sorry, but, I've seen it far, far too many times to believe that it's an isolated thing. Granted, it's entirely a taste thing. The second I sit down at a table and the DM starts getting very controlling about exactly what gets created at chargen, alarm bells start going off in my head. And, again, IME, after the game starts, that level of control over the game won't stop.

Now, it may be that you and others aren't like that. Fair enough. But, I'll stand by this prediction. The presence of exceptions doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Again, I completely support that you "see it " this way based on your experience.
I don't know how this thread has evolved in my absence. But to call the changes being discussed when I was last involved "fairly minor" is quite unreasonable.

But that is neither here nor there.

Bad DMs are bad DMs. If a bad DM is doing the things you complain about then you should THANK him for reminding you that he sucks BEFORE you waste time on the game. I made this point before you ever replied to me. So telling me again and again about your experiences with bad DMs offers nothing to a conversation about what can happen with a good DM.

Greg K · Oct 16, 2014

Hussar said:
I think that's very toxic advice to many gaming tables. I believe that unless the DM can convince the players with well reasoned arguments, then what the player wants is probably fine for the game. And no, I don't believe that "Well, I don't like it" is a valid argument for a DM. If the player really wants a tiefling and the only issue is an aesthetic one? Suck it up and let the player play what he wants. It's not your character, it's his. He's the one who has to fill that roll for dozens if not hundreds of hours. I dislike strongly any advice that says that the DM is entitled to enforce his personal tastes on the group.

And I say as a player, your our participation is based on accepting the setting I am running and the limits I set. If when all is said and done, you don't like the terms, do the both of us and anyone else onboard with the terms a favor and leave to find another table more to your liking. I don't want to spend dozens or hundreds of hours with your character anymore than you want to spend the same amount of time playing with limits you don't like.
.

BryonD · Oct 16, 2014

Greg K said:
And I say as a player, your our participation is based on accepting the setting I am running and the limits I set. If when all is said and done, you don't like the terms, do the both of us and anyone else onboard with the terms a favor and leave to find another table more to your liking. I don't want to spend dozens or hundreds of hours with your character anymore than you want to spend the same amount of time playing with limits you don't like.

Yep. Just as a player should thank a bad DM for forewarning them, DMs should thank disruptive players for getting themselves uninvited as soon as possible.

The very concept of playing "hundreds of hours" under a set-up a person doesn't like is simply bizarre. Don't do it. Simple.
I guarantee you if there is a table with 4 or more other people playing for "hundreds of hours" then THEY are having a good time, whether you are or not. If you can't have fun when everyone else is AND you can't find a different game to spend "hundreds of hours" involved in, then it becomes pretty easy to spot the source of the problem. If the DM really is a problem, then there won't be "hundreds of hours", people will simply find another DM or something else better to do.

Elf Witch · Oct 16, 2014

Hussar said:
Well, part of that is the nature of the Internet. I only know your group based on what you say, so, based on that small slice of knowledge, I can only offer limited advice.

You have described four pretty dysfunctional gamers - 1 that flat out cheats, 2 whose play style conflicts so badly with your own that it makes the game unplayable and one who will sabotage any game where he doesn't get to play what he wants. Now, with further information, maybe these are only minor issues. Fair enough.

But, that also makes your advice really only apply to your group. You didn't say, "Limit the options of power gamers when the power gamers also bring their A game to the table". You just said, "Limit options to force power gamers to not power game". Why not give the advice, "Hey DM's, learn the system so that the power gamers in your group can power game without breaking the game"? Why is that not just as useful advice as, "Well, we have to force restrictions on the players so they don't get advantage over the game"?

My entire problem with this whole thing is that it's presented as, "Players must always compromise with the DM but the DM only has to compromise if he or she feels like it. If compromising would bring something into the game that the DM doesn't like, then, well, tough noogies, don't compromise".

I think that's very toxic advice to many gaming tables. I believe that unless the DM can convince the players with well reasoned arguments, then what the player wants is probably fine for the game. And no, I don't believe that "Well, I don't like it" is a valid argument for a DM. If the player really wants a tiefling and the only issue is an aesthetic one? Suck it up and let the player play what he wants. It's not your character, it's his. He's the one who has to fill that roll for dozens if not hundreds of hours. I dislike strongly any advice that says that the DM is entitled to enforce his personal tastes on the group.

....
[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION], sorry, no, I don't see the issues as separate. A DM who is that laser beam focused on his campaign that he cannot adjust it before the campaign starts to accommodate fairly minor changes - adding in a one shot race character isn't that hard after all, we do have Plane Shift spells in the game - IME will not suddenly become completely free and easy after the campaign starts. If he won't allow you to take something he doesn't like, not because it will break his game or invalidate the campaign in some way, but solely because of his own personal tastes, what makes you think he's suddenly let you do something that doesn't fit with his personal tastes once the game starts.

I'm sorry, but, I've seen it far, far too many times to believe that it's an isolated thing. Granted, it's entirely a taste thing. The second I sit down at a table and the DM starts getting very controlling about exactly what gets created at chargen, alarm bells start going off in my head. And, again, IME, after the game starts, that level of control over the game won't stop.

Now, it may be that you and others aren't like that. Fair enough. But, I'll stand by this prediction. The presence of exceptions doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Again you are going to extreme. Using the term dysfunctional is really extreme. Many players have been known to cheat on a dice roll I find it very unbelievable that a player who has been playing a long time has not done it at least once. The player in question tended to do it when he thought his character or someone else character was in peril. Other than that one thing as he said he was good player and my solution stopped him without resorting to embarrassing him or kicking him out if the game.

The other two players I mentioned are not bad players as I said I the first place. Neither have ever DMed they love making powerful characters and sometimes they go to far. I don't for one moment believe they are deliberately trying to break the game. What I said if you remember that because they sometimes bring into things that are to powerful either for the game or for me as a DM. I don't just say yes I say let me read it and I will get back with you.

Then I research it and if it is to powerful I bring in ways to compromise so they can get some of what they want and I don't get a combo I can't handle. I thought you were the one who said that compromise was good. But I am beginning to wonder if by compromise you mean the DM just gives in.

As others have said over and over at this point that compromise should be the goal. What you are seeming to have trouble grasping is this if the compromise is something the DM can't or does not want to do, like say adding gunpowder to a setting, then yes the player not the DM is the one who has to compromise. And I get you don't think that is fair but I disagree.

DMs are human beings just like players and they have strength and weakness just like players. Some DMs can't handle the disparity in the party if you have a wide range of power levels, some DMs can't handle a table full of powergamers because they can't build challenges that satisfy them, some DMs are not quick on their feet. A great DM can do a lot more than just a good DM. The same is true of players a great player is a better player than just a good player. But if we only allow great DMs and great players to play then the hobby will die because I think they are more good players and DMs then great or bad.

I am a good DM. I am creative. I think fast on my feet and come up with a compelling adventure on the spur of the moment. I don't feel adversarial toward my players and I try to the best of my ability to make my game fun for everyone. But I am not good at trying to come up with challenges that work well with a mixed party of power levels and I am not good enough to handle a table full of powergamers. I recognize my weaknesses and I upfront with my players about it. At the end of the day I am satisfied that my players enjoy my DMing because they have never quit my game other than no choice of either moving away or dying.