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

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Just a question about this because I ran into this specific house rule once before in a 2e game. What's the justification for having chain mail but not plate? My old DM tried to pull the history card and claim that chain mail predates plate mail. When I pointed out that there is plate mail in the bronze age, she completely ignored history and refused to budge. How do you justify it? After all, chain mail is far, far more difficult to produce than plate.

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.

I believe you misread what I posted or I wasn't clear enough. The DM ran a short term Planescape game (maybe half a dozen sessions) as a primer for Planescape. That's what I tried and I did give it my best shot.

When the DM then pitched an extended Planescape game, I said that I was going to bow out.

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.

Funny thing. You and others keep claiming that it's perfectly fine for a player to bow out of a game that he or she wouldn't enjoy. I don't like Planescape. I think that's a pretty well established fact around here. I did give the one shot a try, because it was a one shot and I'll try just about anything once. But, I wasn't about to commit to playing several hundred hours of a Planescape campaign that i was very sure I wasn't going to enjoy.

So, why am I a bad player for politely bowing out of a campaign that I didn't want to play in. Isn't this precisely what I'm supposed to do?

You seem to take the position that the players are supposed to accept every and all things the DM says and go from there. At what point can a player say, "No thank you, I'm going to sit this one out"?

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

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.

so you are fine with 2-3 years of playing a campaign you do not like, but wont let a friend play a race he wants in your world... does not compute.

If you are willing to play something you don't like for YEARS, how is that worse then asking to play a Dragon born???

 

[Hussar]

Invested players are great and they add to the game. If you have a highly invested DM and 4 "show up and honestly play" players (not "invested", but not dragging anything down either), 9 times out of 10 you will have a better game than if there are 4 "invested" players and a "show up and play" DM. Again, not downplaying the players, but context and relative contribution are important here.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...se-but-complain-about-it/page18#ixzz3FQ4mpxC6

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.

To me, it's not a zero sum game.

if a DM's investment hinges on me choosing from a limited list of predefined concepts that he has vetted, then I'm going to flat out say that I'm not interested in playing with that DM. Mostly because IME any DM whose investment is so precarious that me playing a different kind of pretend elf than what he or she approves of causes the DM to become a "show up and play" DM, then I strongly believe that that DM will carry that forward into the campaign itself and any action the players take that the DM doesn't approve of will be met with the same reaction as trying to play a class/race that the DM doesn't approve of.

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Perhaps.

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."

I advocate leaving if the DM or game is egregious. Planescape might be egregious for him. It didn't sound that way, it sounded like it just wasn't his preference.

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?

Nope. You are putting your own spin on my words. I never once advocated that the DM's fun trumps that of the players. I'm a firm believer in trying to make the game fun for all of the players, including the DM. He's a player too. What I am against, though, is a player who tries to run roughshod over the DM or the campaign. A player who comes up with an idea, but the DM says no and that player sulks. Or a player who wants to play a Dragonborn after finding out that Dragonborn are monsters and not PCs in this particular campaign.

If a player has a complaint, I am all for him airing it out with the DM. A lot of times, it's a simple misunderstanding that can be resolved. But if a player repeatedly has problems with the game and the rest of the players do not, typically that means that it is not the DM, but the player with the issue.

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?

It's the way he stated it. One for all and all for one, but at the first sign of an issue, he decides to bow out.

He might really believe that it is one for all, but it sounded like it was not "Hussar for all". He did not give the campaign a chance, he just bailed.


I get it that someone does not like a given campaign style. I don't prefer Planescape. But, different people have different ideas about what "one for all" means.


As for conflict resolution, the system they used was good. Have a discussion. But as part of that discussion, he played the "I'm leaving card". Sorry, but that's a pretty darn heavy card to play and it's one that some players have the group power to play with no risk of really leaving. My way or the highway. I'm ok with him leaving, but he didn't play the card to leave. If so, he would have left. No, it sounds like he played the card to get his way and change the campaign.

In the past when various groups have had discussions on which campaign to play, I do not remember a player ever playing the "I'm leaving" card. Ever. It just sounds wrong to me. I'm glad that you are ok with it.

 

[Hussar]

So, politely bowing out of a game that I won't enjoy is not acceptable and makes me a bad player? Even when I clearly stated that there are no hard feelings and it's perfectly fine with me?

Wow, your definition of bad player KarinsDad is pretty broad. I mean, GregK above talked about bowing out of two or three campaigns that he didn't want to play, not because the DM was bad or whatnot. Why are you not badgering him as well?

And, just to be absolutely clear on the timeline here, because, apparently, I'm not being clear enough:

1. The group is engaged in a long term (3 years plus now) 4e Darksun campaign.

2. The DM of that campaign needs a bit of a break to recharge his batteries.

3. Another player offers to run a short term Planescape adventure - say 6 sessions or so. Everyone agrees and plays.

4. The DM, for personal reasons, would like to change to a biweekly campaign and have someone else run things in the intervening weeks. This might also turn into a weekly game, again, due to personal reasons and the Darksun game goes on hiatus for a while.

5. The other player offers to run a Planescape campaign. Other players are fine with it and several are strong fans of the setting.

6. Despite enjoying the short term game, I am not willing to play in that setting long term. I simply do not enjoy the game. So, I politely offer to bow out while they play Planescape and return once Darksun goes off hiatus.

7. The rest of the group decides that no, they would rather play with all of us together than exclude me and another player offers to run a Dragonlance campaign.

8. We are now playing in a Dragonlance campaign.

So, at what point am I being a self entitled, whiney player who has to get his way?

 

[Hussar]

And, because citations will always be asked for:

I have excused myself from the games run on a few occasions. Once was a game run by a boss, but I still got together with them when they played Talisman. Another was run by one of my players. It was a game that by his own admission was out of control and everything was allowed, because he took over the campaign having only played his first two rpg sessions before having the previous DM quite. The third I quit, because it was hack n slash dungeon of the week both of which bore me tears. I excused myself and talked with the DM after the game which resulted in a major change as described my prior post.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...se-but-complain-about-it/page17#ixzz3FQDeqDda

So, there was at least one game where it was simply a play style issue (hack and slash dungeon of the week) that was the issue. We don't know about the game run by a boss, so there's no indication whether he bowed out because the game was poor or simply a play style thing. [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION], is [MENTION=5038]Greg K[/MENTION] also a poor player for dropping out of campaigns?

 

[KarinsDad]

so you are fine with 2-3 years of playing a campaign you do not like, but wont let a friend play a race he wants in your world... does not compute.

If you are willing to play something you don't like for YEARS, how is that worse then asking to play a Dragon born???

First of all, I love playing D&D. Even when I do not prefer some aspect of it, I really enjoy it. And I especially like playing D&D with my friends.

So yes, I do not prefer Planescape, but no matter what the game, I have a lot of fun. The game is so much more for me than my just my PC. It's about teamwork, socializing with friends, telling jokes, saving the day, coming up with cool ideas in game, watching someone roll a critical right at the proper moment, etc. Not just me. Not just my PC. But the entire group.

I am not one of those entitled people for whom minor molehills become massive mountains.


You, on the other hand, are willing to argue that a given PHB race should be allowed in every single campaign, regardless of how the campaign world is structured. You in your own words have left many many games, I have only left a few (and only 2 D&D games in 35+ years, one because the DM was extremely heavy handed, and the other because the DM only really liked exploration, not combat or roleplaying).

So yes, it computes very easily. I am content with how the DM sets up a game for the most part and you are not. I play D&D to have fun and be with my friends and to make new friends. Other people play the game to ensure that their preferences and ideas are immediately implemented. Different strokes.


And when I play, I give the DM the respect he deserves and do not gripe if he disallows certain races, classes, alignments, feats, spells, or rules. When I DM, I expect the same respect in return. I listen to an idea. Sometimes, I allow it. Sometimes not. But as a player, I don't just quit the game unless it is extremely horrendous. And I give other people's campaign ideas a real chance. I don't threaten to quit over it.

 

[Hussar]

First of all, I love playing D&D. Even when I do not prefer some aspect of it, I really enjoy it. And I especially like playing D&D with my friends.

So yes, I do not prefer Planescape, but no matter what the game, I have a lot of fun. The game is so much more for me than my just my PC. It's about teamwork, socializing with friends, telling jokes, saving the day, coming up with cool ideas in game, watching someone roll a critical right at the proper moment, etc. Not just me. Not just my PC. But the entire group.

I am not one of those entitled people for whom minor molehills become massive mountains.

Yet, you are willing to boot a player out of the group for that same minor molehill and consider any player who makes an issue of it to be a bad player. Pot, meet kettle.

You, on the other hand, are willing to argue that a given PHB race should be allowed in every single campaign, regardless of how the campaign world is structured. You in your own words have left many many games, I have only left a few (and only 2 D&D games in 35+ years, one because the DM was extremely heavy handed, and the other because the DM only really liked exploration, not combat or roleplaying).

So yes, it computes very easily. I am content with how the DM sets up a game for the most part and you are not. I play D&D to have fun and be with my friends and to make new friends. Other people play the game to ensure that their preferences and ideas are immediately implemented. Different strokes.


And when I play, I give the DM the respect he deserves and do not gripe if he disallows certain races, classes, alignments, feats, spells, or rules. When I DM, I expect the same respect in return. I listen to an idea. Sometimes, I allow it. Sometimes not. But as a player, I don't just quit the game unless it is extremely horrendous. And I give other people's campaign ideas a real chance. I don't threaten to quit over it.

So, basically, so long as the DM isn't bad, players are obligated to play in whatever campaign he puts forward?

Yeah, no thanks. And the degree of onetruewayism you are demonstrating here is absolutely astonishing. Anyone who doesn't feel the way you do is somehow a bad player who plays "the game to ensure that their preferences and ideas are immediately implemented"? Gimme a break.

As a player, I am not obligated in any way, shape or form to play in your game. If I choose to play in your game, that is 100% my choice and any and all reasons I have for not playing in your game are 100% valid. I would much rather play with players who want to sit at my table rather than players who feel that they for some bizarre reason owe me anything just because i'm running a game.

 

[Greg K]

We don't know about the game run by a boss, so there's no indication whether he bowed out because the game was poor or simply a play style thing.

Definitely playstyle. I have discussed this game before on these boards. They were modelling their high level characters off of comic book superheroes. Each character had magic items modeled off the abilities in the comics. Then, they flew around the galaxy on cosmic adventures. I tried it for a session or two and then bowed out. Not my cup of tea, but they were having which fun made it a good game for them. They were understanding that it was not for me.

Btw, I don't think you were a bad player for bowing out. I do disagree with your tyranny of the majority comment and will leave it at that to avoid breaking board protocol.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, at what point am I being a self entitled, whiney player who has to get his way?

It's how you said it.

"I gave it my best effort and it was a great adventure. Lots of fun."

followed by "Planescape is just not for me." followed by "I said that I was going to bow out of the campaign".

Like I originally stated, I do not know anything about your group. But when an adventure is great and a lot of fun, but the player decides to bow out instead of letting a second player run a game he wants to play (which that first player himself said was a great adventure and a lot of fun), then one has to wonder.

I know nothing about you except what you write here. I do know that you write a lot of anti-DM posts and this just seemed like another one, but more subtle this time.

DM: "Since everyone seemed to enjoy the Planescape one shot, I was thinking of running it as a campaign."
Player: "My idea of a great adventure is not Planescape (even though I had a great time the last time), so I'm leaving."

You can understand how that concept comes across, right? The bottom line is that you got your way. The DM did not. Hmmm. And you played a pretty strong "I'll just bow out" card to accomplish that.

I'm not saying that makes you whiney and entitled, but I am saying that it comes across as an example of you liking your group because you get your own way.