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

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I'm not the one using words like dictator in a discussion about DMs, or saying that I have left a lot of games. If the shoe fits, ...

your right instead you call people entitled and other related words... if I remember right maybe whinny...

Funny, I never once mentioned whether I would have fun with any of your DMs. I've also been in similar games to the one you quoted. The problem for your side of the fence in this conversation is that you assume that our DMs do not do all of the cool things that you claim your DMs do.

no the problem with our side of the fence is that we are promoting simple ideas like talking and working stuff out, you on the other hand are not part of a group, just you keep being insulting and dismissive.

this is a very simple discussion, Is it the DMs game or the Groups game? is the DM just another player taking on the role of the world, or is the DM the final word in everything?

The difference is that we do not quit a lot of games, nor do we object to DM campaign setting elements.

so what is it you think that it means that in almost 20 years (wow I'm getting old)of gaming I have walked out of a lot of games? what do you think?

also I have no problem with DM campaign setting elements, as long as the whole group agrees to it. I see no reason to for instince say that if 6 of us want to play, the DM says "Lets play Darksun" that it is the end of a discussion, it is the beginning of one. There is no reason that can't end with us playing darksun, but it might end with us playing spelljamer (I think that is the fartherst diffrent setting) instead

We ask our DMs to add in a feature like the dwarven military one there and often the DM says yes and goes with it. If they say no, we do not get our panties in a bind over it like some people.

please show me where in any of our examples we "Got our panties in a bind" (and being a woman I find that saying offal funny) We either said OK, or tried to change the persons mind with a frank and open discussion....

 

[pemerton]

I'm not the one using words like dictator in a discussion about DMs, or saying that I have left a lot of games.

You are one of those who has said that the GM has the last word. That the relevant process for decision-making is not consensual or democratic. The standard label for that sort of decision-making process is "dictator" ie one who is able to dictate to others.

The fact that you use the word dictator while in a discussion about DMs is very telling. It really sounds like some people have trust issues.

The standard model for a dictator whose dictatorship is based on trust is a parent.

But there is a reason parent's exercise dictatorial authority over their children - it's because the children aren't fully capable of making their own decisions. They are not fully competent.

When gaming with my adult friends, no such consideration applies. My players don't need to trust me to make good decisions for them - they can make their own decisions! Whether that's what restaurant we go to, what movie we watch, or what sort of RPGing we do.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Funny, I never once mentioned whether I would have fun with any of your DMs. I've also been in similar games to the one you quoted. The problem for your side of the fence in this conversation is that you assume that our DMs do not do all of the cool things that you claim your DMs do. The difference is that we do not quit a lot of games, nor do we object to DM campaign setting elements. We ask our DMs to add in a feature like the dwarven military one there and often the DM says yes and goes with it. If they say no, we do not get our panties in a bind over it like some people.

so maybe I'm miss reading this, but what your saying is that there are some things you so strongly feel (Example Dragonborn PC in your current world) that you could not change them, but you could play under a DM that would. Well would you be willing to tell a PC that they can play a Dragonborn next time because your next world WILL have them, just play something different for now? or are all of your worlds the same when it comes to this split of pc/npc?

DO you understand why some people can't play under DMs like you?

I'm somewhere in the middle of the road. I make games with heavy restrictions that I wont waver on, but I always have a few in the wings so that I can match the world to the Players. I also take requests. For instiance I once made a whole world around the fact that 1 PC wanted to be a starlock and another wanted to be a warden.

I also know there are something's some players can't take. When I pitched my darksun game to both groups I found the Tuesday night group would be a problem. One of the players from both Saturday and Tuesday immediately pitched an idea for a runepriest who is seeking ancient runes, and another player (one who only plays Tuesdays) said he didn't want to have divine classes or it would not seem like darksun. After 15-20 mins going back and forth I just wont run that game, we will find one that works for all of us.

now at first I was with one side on this thread, but I have to say you all paint each other in such negative lights

 

[Hussar]

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.

So what do you consider to be a legitimate reason for bowing out of a campaign? If "I'm pretty sure I'm not going to enjoy this game" isn't good enough, what is?

 

[billd91]

You are one of those who has said that the GM has the last word. That the relevant process for decision-making is not consensual or democratic. The standard label for that sort of decision-making process is "dictator" ie one who is able to dictate to others.

Except that most people don't have the option to opt out under a dictator. So the term, politically loaded as it is, doesn't apply particularly well.

 

[KarinsDad]

We either said OK, or tried to change the persons mind with a frank and open discussion....

It's not coming across that way when people talk about "how the DM is my way or the highway" because of a campaign element, or "how they quit games", etc.

I'm all for discussion. I suspect that we discuss our games ahead of time, just like you do. I think that the difference is that when our DM says "I'd like to play a game of heroic PCs in the Forgotten Realms, no evil alignments, no Tieflings because they are devil spawn and I don't want to deal with the NPCs wanting to attack the PCs all of the time", etc., our players just tend to say "Sure, that sounds fun" instead of "Well, why exactly do you want to remove Tieflings?" or "Why do you want to play in the Forgotten Realms?".

It sounds like a trust issue, but maybe it isn't. To me, campaign settings are trivial things as a player, important things as a DM. As a player, I trust the DM to do a great job putting together a campaign. It's the time spent playing with friends and having a great time which is important for me. I don't actually have any real angst about my PC. I don't "plumb the depths of his emotional state to the nth degree". I play to be social with friends, not to be a thespian. It's the real people in the room that are important, not the made up people on the piece of paper. If I have a sketchy background for my PC, that's ok. If I have a real in depth background for my PC (which I usually do), that's ok too. As a DM, I want to give my players a really good experience, so I put a lot of time and effort into my campaign details (once the group decides to play that campaign) and do try to be more of a thespian, and details are critically important for consistency and flow.


Quite frankly, the biggest issue that we had for our table this entire year is when I said "I want to start playing 5E. I think that it's a much better system." and some of the players (who had only been playing 4E for 6 months) said "Great, I was just getting into this PC, now you want to change game systems.". Those players are now really into 5E, but I do understand getting a PC up to level 4 or so and then not liking switching systems. The timing really sucked. But it wasn't "my way or the highway". We discussed it and agreed. And, I'm not even DM, even though I brought the idea to the group (I was the 4E DM).

 

[Hussar]

You sure do read a lot of nonsense into what other people post. Maybe you should try to take what people post at face value instead of trying to come up with hidden meanings.

This is what is called an inference. I did not imply that, you inferred it. Sorry dude.

The irony is strong with this one.

 

[Sadras]

If they come up with multiple concepts, then great. No problems. But, if they really are jonesing for this particular concept, I'd much, much rather cater to them than try to force my preferences....(snip)...

IMO, and IME, DM's who are this fixated on the details of their campaign worlds become very strong-arm DM's which I am certainly not going to enjoy. It's going to be a series of scenarios with the DM very much in the foreground of every event. After all, it's the DM's world and the DM's campaign and we're just passive consumers of the DM's content.

Not my cup of tea unfortunately. I prefer much, much more pro-active players who are going to take fairly strong authorial roles in the campaign. Again, that's not everyone's cup of tea, obviously. But, again, the presumption that anyone who doesn't run the way you do is somehow an inferior DM makes it very difficult to have a conversation.

I hear you, but....

What if the players want to play Halflings in a Dragonlance setting? What if they want to play Kender in a Forgotten Realms setting? What is they want to play walking-talking Minotaurs in Karameikos/Mystara? What if they want to play a Warforged in Greyhawk? What I'm getting at is, when one selects a setting to play in, one has chosen it due to the distinct canon, lore, myth, races, geography, personalities, politics...etc.

Would you not agree that it seems reasonable to afford the right for DMs to create their own settings, with lore, myth, races...etc since we already afford that right to published settings?
We certainly do not call the creators or the users of Greyhawk, Darksun, Eberon, FR, Ravenloft...settings who are obviously fixated about the details of these campaign worlds, as "strong-arm DMs". I deem it a little unfair for players to demand such strong authorial roles (such as the inclusion of races) in unpublished settings just because they are not published.

Since you have currently mentioned that you will be playing in a Dragonlance setting, how will the request to play a warforged character sit with the DM? Just curious. I mean a DM can obviously pull it off, anything can be included, but I imagine there is also a certain level of respect/decorum for the setting - at least there is for me.

Lastly, I'm fairly optimistic (perhaps foolishly so) that the majority of DMs first propose a campaign concept to their players along with all its various chargen restrictions for that setting and then the group decides if they are on board or not with the concept. It is generally not a surprised authoritarian limitation that is unleashed on the players.

 

[Hussar]

Funny, I never once mentioned whether I would have fun with any of your DMs. I've also been in similar games to the one you quoted. The problem for your side of the fence in this conversation is that you assume that our DMs do not do all of the cool things that you claim your DMs do. The difference is that we do not quit a lot of games, nor do we object to DM campaign setting elements. We ask our DMs to add in a feature like the dwarven military one there and often the DM says yes and goes with it. If they say no, we do not get our panties in a bind over it like some people.

Unfortunately, this conversation isn't going to really go anywhere until you drop the notion that anyone who plays D&D differently than you is somehow immature or self entitled (getting their panties in a bind). There really is more than one way to create a social contract at a table. Who knows, maybe unpuckering a bit and allowing the players a bit more overt control over your precious game world might result in more people having fun.

 

[Hussar]

Except that most people don't have the option to opt out under a dictator. So the term, politically loaded as it is, doesn't apply particularly well.

But characterising anyone who disagrees with you as whiney, or self entitled apparently does apply well?