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

[Grainger]

If I asked friends to play a game of D&D, and then wanted a game with no dwarves or no elves, I might make the pitch, but I can't in any meaningful way enforce it. If they want me to GM D&D, but playing dwarves and elves, that sounds more fun to me than having the gaming group break up!

I think the players should give the DM a chance, if they have any faith in his/her ability to run a good game. That said, the DM should have a decent reason for banning major fantasy staples like Dwarves and Elves - in other words, the setting should be properly thought through.

An example I gave upthread was the old Hollow World setting for BECMI, which royally messed with the available character classes and races. PCs (and NPCs) were severely restricted in the equipment they could use and the classes they could take. Spellcasters had their spell lists severely nerfed. I'd argue there was a good reason; the radical changes (there were also big changes to the monster list, terrain, and even the nature of the world) provided a refreshing take on BECMI; it wouldn't be to everyone's tastes, but the sum of these changes gave a unique feel. A somewhat similar example that springs to mind is 2e's Dark Sun - lots of "can't do thats" in that setting, but for a good reason.

To repeat the example I gave about my campaign, chain mail is the only allowed metal armour in my current 5e game (note that there is "better" chain available to replace the missing plate armour etc., so mechanically there's no change). It is part of the flavour of the setting, which wouldn't work if Knights were riding around in suits of plate armour. If a player insisted they were only happy if their fighter could wear a suit of plate armour, I would think he/she was being highly unreasonable, as it would dilute the setting just to suit their whim (it would not be possible to present any sort of alternative setting if we always bent to such demands); in my opinion players should go with the flow, as much as DMs should ensure they have good reasons before they restrict player options.

 

[Grainger]

This "Tyranny of the Majority" style where it's okay to tell one player, "No, sorry your fun just isn't that important so long as everyone else is having a good time and your good time certainly is never more important than the DM's" needs to die in a fire. It's just such a toxic way of playing.

I don't think anyone has advocated that way of playing.

 

[billd91]

Wow, do I competely and totally reject this bolded part. That's among some of the absolute worst DM'ing advice I've ever seen.

Are you honestly saying that you would still enjoy a game knowing that one of your players isn't?

That depends on why he isn't having fun. I'm not in control of everything going on in his brain.

 

[KarinsDad]

Wow, do I competely and totally reject this bolded part. That's among some of the absolute worst DM'ing advice I've ever seen. I cannot believe that a good DM will be having fun knowing that one of his players is not. That would ruin my fun far more than adding some different kind of pretend elf into my fanfic Tolkien setting.

Are you honestly saying that you would still enjoy a game knowing that one of your players isn't?

I am saying that I try to make the game fun for everyone, but if someone is going to be a jerk, I'm not going to lose sleep over it as a DM.

I am glad that you are willing to go that extra 1000 miles to kiss someone's unreasonable butt, but I am not.

You seem to miss the part where I often state that the DM does try to make the game as fun as possible, and focus on my statements about the one individual player who makes it no fun for the rest of the table.

No, the fun of one individual does not trump the fun of the group.

When I read someone here post "If my wants aren't met, why should I play?" instead of "If our wants aren't met, why should we play?", I just seem to read "me, me, me". A bit discouraging.

A lot of people seem to be "me, me, me". They do not care how much work the DM puts in, or how their "wants" might adversely affect the other players or DM. The DM is a person too and is not obligated to follow up on every little pet idea that a player has. Listen to the idea, implement it if it sounds good and meshes with the DM's world vision, but if it doesn't, don't elevate the fun on one player over everyone else's fun.

That's what I am saying. Try to make the game fun. If that is bad DMing advice for you, then sorry, you sound like one of those players.

 

[BryonD]

Whereas I disagree. I want the players as engaged as they can be.

Again with the false premises.

I want the players to be as engaged as they can.

Thus the entirety of my post still stands without meaningful response.

Most of the rest of your reply hinges on the false suggestion that I desired something less that being "as engaged as they can".

I do acknowledge your point about bad DMs. Bad DMs can truly suck and you have established on many occasions that you have had repeated experiences of that variety.
But the point is that "Bad DMs suck" stands by itself. Getting into the details of different ways a bad DM can suck doesn't make them suck any more or any less and also does nothing to offer insight into a conversation about what a GOOD DM can do.

 

[pemerton]

I think the players should give the DM a chance, if they have any faith in his/her ability to run a good game. That said, the DM should have a decent reason for banning major fantasy staples like Dwarves and Elves - in other words, the setting should be properly thought through.

An example I gave upthread was the old Hollow World setting for BECMI, which royally messed with the available character classes and races.

To me this is all part of the pitch. If the pitch is good, the players will buy it!

Sometimes part of the pitch will be some non-aesthetic consideration - eg "I just paid $40 for the Hollow World books, let's give it a shot, OK?" That's fine. Letting your friends play with their new toys is part of compromising!

To repeat the example I gave about my campaign, chain mail is the only allowed metal armour in my current 5e game (note that there is "better" chain available to replace the missing plate armour etc., so mechanically there's no change).

When I read this upthread I wondered about the mechanical impact. When it comes to limiting armour and weapons, I think having regard to both mechanical and cosmetic aspects is important, if the game is built around certain mechanical assumptions (eg 5e is built on an assumption that you can have a good AC despite an average DEX). I think some GMs - obviously not including you! - make these sorts of cosmetic/setting-driven changes without thinking about the mechanical consequences.

Unless there is something very special going on, I think a player who can't compromise on armour and weapon cosmetics is being a bit more pig-headed than one who has strong views on race or other basic aspects of archetype.

My willingness to use the term "pig-headed", though, doesn't mean I've changed my mind that compromise is utimately where it's at!

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, I have to say I love my group.

Give you an example. Recently, one of the DM's ran a short term Planescape campaign. Now, I was not the most enthusiastic participant, but, I honestly wanted to see what other people see in the setting and the DM is fantastic and the other players are very into the concept. Ok, fine. I gave it my best effort and it was a great adventure. Lots of fun.

But, then the DM pitched a longer term Planescape campaign. I honestly did give it a good try, but, Planescape is just not for me. So, I hemmed and hawed and then I said that I was going to bow out of the campaign. No fuss, no foul and certainly no hard feelings. Note, the campaign hadn't started yet, it was still in the discussion stage. I was really busy at work (well, I'm STILL really busy at work) and taking a break was perfectly fine.

The entire group, including the DM, said, no, we do this together or we don't do it at all. One of the other DM's stepped up with a pitch for a Dragonlance campaign and we're now playing Dragonlance.

To me, THAT'S how a group works. All for one and one for all. This "Tyranny of the Majority" style where it's okay to tell one player, "No, sorry your fun just isn't that important so long as everyone else is having a good time and your good time certainly is never more important than the DM's" needs to die in a fire. It's just such a toxic way of playing.

What would happen if a different player did not want to play Dragonlance?

Don't get me wrong, I do not know you or your group. I only know what you post.

But you have posted a lot of anti-DM posts.

Your group appeased you in this case. And suddenly, you found the time to play Dragonlance when it was available, even though you were unwilling to play Planescape. I also find it interesting that you stated that you "gave it a good try" followed by "the campaign hadn't started yet". If it didn't even start, you did not really give it too much of a good try.

My impression is not "all for one, one for all", but rather "all for Hussar". This is just an observation. You seem really pro-Hussar and anti-DM, not so much pro-the rest of the group.

As an example, you gave the one shot a chance, but when that particular person wanted to play DM Planescape as a campaign, you took your ball and went home.

To me, that's not the sign of a close friend. Even if I did not particularly like Planescape (which I do not), I would have played it for two or three years if a friend of mine wanted to run it. I would not have put my fun above his and the rest of the group.

I wonder if the reason you like your group is because they are willing to put up with your likes and dislikes. There are sometimes players that are drivers in a given group. You might be one of those players, someone who leads and the rest of the players follow. The very thing you complain about (the DM not listening to his player's desires) is something you did here. You did not listen to the person who wanted to DM, but decided to bail.

Just saying. Something to think about.

 

[prosfilaes]

You should endeavor to do whatever best maximizes the satisfaction of your wants. But maximization what you can get, and getting 100% of everything are not always going to be there.

Duh. When did I say 100% of what I want?

Is it impossible for you to respect the DM's opinion, even if it is blind faith?

I know best what is going to be fun for me. Why should I have blind faith in a third-party biased opinion on that?

But I don't put "you should play a character that fits with the campaign and desires of the group" in the same class as "you should redefine the game to suit my whims or I'll proactively harm the experience for everyone else."

I'm pretty sure I can hand just about anyone, even non-roleplayers, those two sentences, and they can tell where your biases lie. There's been nothing said from your side of the conversation about "desires of the group", except in that the players didn't run away. I don't see how you can expect me to be maximally engaged if I'm playing a character I'm not interested in playing just to hang out with my friends.

I don't see why I should let a DM use my space if I'm not playing, and certainly my interest in doing so decreases as it goes from "everyone else wants to play Planescape" to "all of you ran out and bought copies of the Advanced Race Guide and have been drooling over them for the last month, but I want to run something with only a few of the core races."

 

[prosfilaes]

What would happen if a different player did not want to play Dragonlance?

Then they would have negotiated another campaign that everyone was happy with.

Your group appeased you in this case. And suddenly, you found the time to play Dragonlance when it was available, even though you were unwilling to play Planescape.

He had time; he just wasn't willing to use it for Planescape.

You advocate leaving in theory, but you seem massively derisive whenever you talk about someone actually having the balls to say "no, I'm not interested, I'm quitting."

Even if I did not particularly like Planescape (which I do not), I would have played it for two or three years if a friend of mine wanted to run it. I would not have put my fun above his and the rest of the group.

But you advocate putting your fun as a DM above the players. Do you really believe that the fun stick passes around the table, that one person or a few people can have fun and the rest should sit there and play without complaint?

You did not listen to the person who wanted to DM, but decided to bail.

He did not obey the person who wanted to DM. What conflict resolution mechanisms do you advocate, because you claim that players can leave if they don't want to play, and now you attack someone for leaving when they didn't want to play?

 

[prosfilaes]

No, the fun of one individual does not trump the fun of the group.

...

A lot of people seem to be "me, me, me". They do not care how much work the DM puts in, or how their "wants" might adversely affect the other players or DM. The DM is a person too

The DM is a person too, so their fun does not trump the fun of the group. If we must submerge the I in the We, then it doesn't matter how much work the DM puts in. They are merely one more part of the Collective.