BadWrongFun: how far is too far??

[Celebrim]

To me, the DM is well within his rights to set the boundaries for what you can play in terms of race, class, alignment, background, etc. I have no problem with "this game is Players Handbook only" or "the basic four classes and races only" or even "human only, and no spellcasting".

I agree, but others find that line to be tyranny. And at some point, the DM could assert so much control over the PC's origins/personality/backstories/etc. that player is giving up significant agency. At some point, I'd rebel against DM misuse of his authority over the setting and say, "You are going to far."

I don't find it problematic for the DM to say what you can play; it's when the DM asserts control over a pc, e.g. "Your character wouldn't do that" type things.

I don't think you are going to find anyone that believes the DM has that right in the general case. The only exceptions to the general understanding that the DM doesn't play the character are going to be over things like possession, mind control, and so forth. Then the argument is going to be over how often that can happen before it constitutes DM abuse. That is going to depend in my experience on the player. I have one player at my current table that readily accepts loss of agency in return for power. I haven't found a real limit on what amount of freedom he'll give away in order to get mechanical rewards yet. He got possessed by a vengeful ghost spellcaster, and basically had a blast even though I was directing his goals of play and could overrule anything he did. He's willingly accepted ownership of an intelligent sword that regularly takes control of his character.

I'll agree that this isn't a simple binary by any means, but I usually can tell when a DM is on the wrong side of the line for my tastes. And, as always, this really is a matter of playstyle. There is no one answer to what makes a game badwrongfun that works for everyone, just one answer that works for me.

My general theory is a lot of this depends on what you get back on the exchange. Players will put up with a lot if the DM manages to make it fun.

 

[Ruzak]

Serious threads often descend into comic lunacy. This one goes the wrong way.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

To add to the list...

You simulate falling damage by making players jump off the roof of your home. They might land on my car, and then I'd have to sue you!

You simulate the characters going to jail by framing the players for felonies. Though, this is an excellent way to be rid of a problem player.

You simulate an orc attack by paying bikers to beat up your players. Insulting bikers like this is not cool!

You simulate a wild animal attack by locking the players in a room with an angry wild animal. Thanks a lot! Now the local pet shop asks why people are buying the animals! This has put a serious crimp on using actual satanic rituals in my games.

You simulate death of a character by selling the player into slavery. Do you know how hard it is to find a decent Call of Cthulhu game now?

When an enemy mage casts noxious cloud, you put on a gas mask and pull the pin on a tear gas grenade. My supplier raised his prices and the new neighbors haven't learned to be quiet yet!

Just thought people would enjoy a little comedic sociopathy

 

[was]

I've never been a fan of the lighter and hairspray Fireball simulator.

 

[Ichneumon]

That reminds me. How does Satan get around so many D&D games in one evening?

And a cautionary tip. Do not attempt to 'spice up' your undead encounter by bringing actual undead into the game room. Animated corpses are very dangerous, and should only be handled by a qualified professional.

 

[CM]

I get annoyed when the players buy hemp rope and don't spring for silk rope.


Hemp itches something fierce.

 

[Celebrim]

Serious threads often descend into comic lunacy. This one goes the wrong way.

I find that the only people who can play a Bard well are the ones that do it for a living in real life. Everyone else tries hard but falls flat.

Also, I prefer to think of this as the Sluggy Freelance of threads. We're going to transcend comic lunacy before we descend there.

Real life story.

I knew this DM who was playing 1e AD&D, and apparently, on account of the DMG's famous organization and layout did not know of the rules for forced marches (once you point them out to a player, they never force march again). Anyway, so it was a dark and stormy night both in game and in life, and his players declared that there PC's were going to march on into the night. And so the DM narrated to them how badly it sucked, how they were shivering and soaked to the bone, and stumbling in the mud which was creeping up their legs, and how they were blinded by the driving rain and could hardly hear from the howling wind and their only source of light was the flashes of thunder. And the players said, "Nevertheless, we press on.", which they could do because they had agency and the DM lacked rules to simulate the problem mechanically. Therefore, under the rules as physics, forced marches didn't suck and the players were taking advantage of that. So the DM said, "I don't think you'd actually do that. It's not realistic that you'd keep walking at night in a storm by choice. You aren't playing your character. You're meta-gaming." And the players said, "Oh no, we're RPing that we are wet and miserable all right, it's just that we are big bad heroes and we soldier on." So then the DM said, "Fine, that's the way you want it, we are going to play outside and walk in circles till you find shelter and make camp for the night."

And so they did.

Ten minutes later they decided they'd find shelter and went back inside.

Discuss the ethics of this DM decision in classic 5 paragraph essay form paying special attention to what Lewis Pulsipher's thoughts on this methodology might be.

 

[MoonSong]

When does agency begin? If you say you want to play a Minotaur Psionic Warrior, and I say "No.", am I taking away player character agency or player agency? And how much player agency can a player reasonably expect?

And this is where we tend to get into 'badwrongfun' claims where the meme is actually applicable.

(emphasis mine) You wrote this as if it was an anathema, such a concept isn't exactly outrageous. But in a way limiting what players can play is taking away player agency. In this case is pretty mild, but extreme cases this can turn ugly, DMs forcing players to rebuild their characters to suit their personal tastes, or arbitrarily deciding player A has to play the cleric, are glaring examples of denial of player agency.

To me, the DM is well within his rights to set the boundaries for what you can play in terms of race, class, alignment, background, etc. I have no problem with "this game is Players Handbook only" or "the basic four classes and races only" or even "human only, and no spellcasting".

As I was telling it is ok for the DM to establish boundaries for characters, some concepts just don't fit in certain worlds, but it is ok as long as the chance for something else presents itself at some point down the line. A DM monolithically stuck on a single snowflake world with a limited scope on character concepts is doing a disservice to her players, why not allow a few one-shots or minicampaigns outside this comfort zone to allow players to have some enjoyment? sometimes you just have to scratch an itch and play something not as ordinary or not regularly allowed. Of course players have to adapt to what the DM is happy running, but if the DM has a lot of fun running a special world that the players are bringing to life, it is a good idea to allow players to play sometimes on a more open one so they can have fun playing the characters they always wanted to play in return.

My general theory is a lot of this depends on what you get back on the exchange. Players will put up with a lot if the DM manages to make it fun.

I agree that it is a matter of equivalent exchange, but would amend this to say players will be happy compromising a lot if the result is fun for everybody. The moment players start having to put up with something is more a sign of the DM turning tyrannical and detracting from the fun than actually contributing to it. More a sign of players wishing to make it work because most of the time an awful game is better than no game.

 

[Henry]

Humor thread or not, I'd call all of these examples "play style" in the same way if you played Russian Roulette with live ammo.

(Cue Dr. Who "Weakest Link" video clip)

 

[Dungeoneer]

To add to the list...

Yes!!!

You simulate a wild animal attack by locking the players in a room with an angry wild animal. Thanks a lot! Now the local pet shop asks why people are buying the animals! This has put a serious crimp on using actual satanic rituals in my games.

Again with the satanic rituals! Why are people so obsessed with making blood sacrifices to the dark prince Lucifer? Can't people just practice Wicca or something?!?*

At any rate, I realized that I left a couple of examples off the original list of badwrongfun:

Your killer DM is an actual serial killer. Great, another TPK, another trip to the store for 30 gallons of bleach and Lysol!
You insist on playing the game in scary clown makeup. What the eff! You can't just wear a cape or something, dude?? You're really freaking out Jerry, and he's our only cleric!

* Apologies to Wiccan forumers.