D&D 5E The "Stop Trying to Impose Your Playstyle" Argument

MoonSong said:

Nah, it is actually illustrative. It's human nature, if we can be selfish in zero sum situations involving our best friend on the other side, why not do it when the other party is strangers on the internet? You intent is deep down selfish and entitled... and that is ok

Click to expand...

Oh, well, gosh I am so relieved you've absolved me for my deep down selfishness.

/eyeroll

Anybody who is going to conflate the very specific example I gave (regarding a difference in opinion with best friend about game design) and pretty much any other instance of zero-sum trade-offs with said best friend is either being intentionally disingenuous or needs some expensive therapy.

Unless, of course, you're the sort of person who would intentionally lose at a board game versus your best friend so as not to make him/her feel bad. If you're that selfless then I will accept your criticism.

Elfcrusher said:

Unless, of course, you're the sort of person who would intentionally lose at a board game versus your best friend so as not to make him/her feel bad. If you're that selfless then I will accept your criticism.

Click to expand...

You just described being a DM!

So I get Elfcrusher's point because I don't like guns in D&D and well the Artificer Gunsmith is on its way I am sure.

That said this door swings both ways. Making something official normalizes it so that you will have time playing with out it but at the same time not making it official makes it homebrew and to most GMs I have played with home-brew it just 2 four letter words for not properly play tested and will not be allowed. Also, If its my idea my current GM assumes it is "rule lawyering" and "power gaming" until I point out its an official source showing RAI.

Example I recently discovered BOOTS OF STRIDING AND SPRINGING DMGp156 and when I told him about them his immediate assumption was that I wanted to carry a fortress on my back. I just want to carry a dagger or be able to pick up what ever random object I might want to move in a dungeon without my speed being reduced by 10. Its not a broken item, but before I pointed out it was in the DMG and it does stop the disadvantage to all roles of heavy encumbrance. Why does he assume I am a rules lawyer / power gamer? Because to be honest I know the rules better than him and use them. Anytime I use something he doesn't know he assumes I am cheating some how even though I am able to show him in the rules every time, then when we agree it means what I think it means because sage advice clarified it, then he goes from calling me a rules lawyer to a power game because "I built may character to make the most of some loop hole rules" it couldn't possible be that I built a strong barbarian "boxer" with tavern brawler and realized that with athletics and extra attack I could use the attack action to push someone down, bonus action to grapple them, then my second attack to head but him with advantage for 1d4+str until he breaks my grapple since his speed is 0. Now... to me that's what grappling is for.. to him its a rules flaw I am lawyering but if he did it first... it would be fine. Its not that I thought of it but I thought of it FIRST, because I wanted to do more than just punch all the time.

So when you say normalizing content for everyone is bad, its also the only way I would get to play a shadow sorcerer unless I wait for my GM to use one in the game first. I would always be waiting for the GM to use every homebrew item, class, and subclass before I could use it and we have different tastes. I need to normalize materials as official play tested and approved before I can use it without having to weight for my GM to use it first. I get this means that if you don't want to use the shadow sorcerer the way I don't like the gun carrying Artificer in my D&D we both have to put up with running into stuff we don't want unless its a game we are GMing. That said, I have to say Wizard of the Coast is in the market of making content and options to sell not of selling nothing. So I just have to be content with my shadow sorcerer and put up with the Gun slingers in my blade and magic world.

The OP is not wrong, its just not the reality of what will happen when two people have opposing ideas of which result in no mutual victory. The one that sells content wins.

DELETE: oops, I was totally posting in the wrong thread.

Elfcrusher said:

Oh, well, gosh I am so relieved you've absolved me for my deep down selfishness.

/eyeroll

Anybody who is going to conflate the very specific example I gave (regarding a difference in opinion with best friend about game design) and pretty much any other instance of zero-sum trade-offs with said best friend is either being intentionally disingenuous or needs some expensive therapy.

Unless, of course, you're the sort of person who would intentionally lose at a board game versus your best friend so as not to make him/her feel bad. If you're that selfless then I will accept your criticism.

Click to expand...

But I wasn't criticizing you. There is nothing wrong with being selfish -or more in line with this thread there's nothing wrong with having selfish desires-. In fact that is my point, there are lots of valid arguments on these boards, but I don't consider "selfishness" and "entitlement" as valid criticisms.

There is nothing wrong with desiring for a third party to take your side on a zero-sum game. It is ok to desire it over petty things with close friends, more over over more "important" stuff with strangers on the internet. Like I've said I've been on both sides of this before

(And let me tell you some games are hard to lose on purpose without it being noticeable. It takes skill, but uh making my friends happy is worth it)

ClaytonCross said:

So I get Elfcrusher's point because I don't like guns in D&D and well the Artificer Gunsmith is on its way I am sure.

That said this door swings both ways. Making something official normalizes it so that you will have time playing with out it but at the same time not making it official makes it homebrew and to most GMs I have played with home-brew it just 2 four letter words for not properly play tested and will not be allowed. Also, If its my idea my current GM assumes it is "rule lawyering" and "power gaming" until I point out its an official source showing RAI.

(snipped for brevity)

The OP is not wrong, its just not the reality of what will happen when two people have opposing ideas of which result in no mutual victory. The one that sells content wins.

Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page. The door does swing both ways. If we are on opposite sides of a debate about a potential game option and I get my way then your experience is lessened, and if you get your way then my experience is lessened.

My only beef is that too many people insist that the inclusion of an option can't lessen anybody's experience, because it's an "option", and that therefore the pro-option camp has some kind of high moral ground.

Elfcrusher said:

I think we're on the same page. The door does swing both ways. If we are on opposite sides of a debate about a potential game option and I get my way then your experience is lessened, and if you get your way then my experience is lessened.

My only beef is that too many people insist that the inclusion of an option can't lessen anybody's experience, because it's an "option", and that therefore the pro-option camp has some kind of high moral ground.

Click to expand...

If only this had been your opening post

ccs said:

4) Voting with my wallet. Eventually WoTC will publish a psionics book. I won't be buying it.
True, they won't notice the lack of my $50 because thier math will have indicated that there IS a large enough market for such a book. But who knows? Maybe if between now & then I can convince enough others to join my anti-psionics stance I cam affect that math.....

Hopefully I succeed in thwarting any of you Drow/monster psionics fans.

Click to expand...

This is sort of besides the point but I'm interested in the response.

I assume that psionics won't be a book of it's own but instead a section within a book on alternate systems or soemthing similar. Would you not buy a book jsut because it contains a class and some spells you don't like? This goes for [MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION] and guns/artificer as well.

For the record I don't like guns or psionics in DnD either...

Olive said:

This is sort of besides the point but I'm interested in the response.

I assume that psionics won't be a book of it's own but instead a section within a book on alternate systems or soemthing similar. Would you not buy a book jsut because it contains a class and some spells you don't like? This goes for [MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION] and guns/artificer as well.

For the record I don't like guns or psionics in DnD either...

Click to expand...

I want to like the Artificer Alchemist and really like the Idea of the Artificer even if I really hate the gunsmith subclass so I may by what ever book it comes in any way despite the gunsmith version and I simply would not play it and I would not let my players use it when I GM, however I might make a home brew alternate that enchants weapons and allow them to use that. In fact I already made an alternate home brew but with out any sort of play test or feed back I would have to adjust the class with group and player feed back. Also, the subclass I made was for scrolls side of the Artificer trilogy of Potions, Scroll, and Gear. I am planning to make a "RuneBlade" or something similar to Hawk Diesel's attempt or my original wizard subclass alone the same lines.

Ultimately, it is coming out and as a player I am sure I will have to see it in games where I am not the GM as is Guns blazing. I am not for colonial D&D. It is simply a matter of enough people want it that I can't stop it from being normalized content. The best I can do is make an alternate version that better fits my Medieval Fantasy view on D&D and try to lean people around me in that direction when I can or play one of those Artificer subclasses in hope that me being one other people will pick around it.

Psionics is .... well its a mixed emotion for me. Mind Flares are D&D through and through so I have a hard time arguing against them but at the same time I prefer the magic telekinesis to mental psionic telekinesis just for the sake of the feel. Then I play a warlock with the Patron The Old One and have actually enjoyed talking to people without words..... so I would not say I am a hypocrite so much as undecided here. Guns in D&D I just don't want. I am not interested in a 3 musketeers campaign.

Olive said:

For the record I don't like guns or psionics in DnD either...

Click to expand...

Now I want a psionic gun that amplifies my mental strength and fires force bullets at my enemies.