-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?
- Thread starter Sailor Moon
- Start date
It wasn't and I put the blame firmly were it belonged on a player who decided that his only choice was to act like a spoiled brat instead either finding another class in the core he could have had fun with or saying I really don't want to play in this game but hey have fun.
But now we have a player who tried to DM twice and was burned twice and now won't DM again so you tell me how the game is served by driving DMs out of it?
Also tell me how it benefits a game to have an overwhelmed DM who does not have the experience to balance a game with so much power creep as both 3.5 and Pathfinder have once you allow splat books into it? That is exactly what happened with her Age of Worms campaign and that lead to a lot of tension and lack of fun for almost everyone at the table and ended the game before got to finish the adventure path.
Basically what you are suggesting is that players should always be given their way so they don't destroy your game by acting like a jerk. This reminds of how well it works to give into your child tantrum in public so you are not embarrassed or disturbing other people because it is not like the kid wil take advantage of it.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Yes, because players are children and need structure and guidance in order to learn how to properly behave. It is pretty telling to see the characterisations of players here - immature, whiney, self entitled children given to tantrums if they don't get their way.
But, apparently, I'm a bad person for being negative about DM's by saying that maybe, sometimes, DM's should unclench a little bit and give the player what the player wants so long as it isn't going to invalidate large swaths of the campaign.
See, maybe if the DM wasn't so worried about micromanaging her campaign, and trusted that the players weren't out to ruin the game, and allowed the players to take what they wanted, she wouldn't have been burned twice. IOW, treat the players like responsible adults rather than spoiled children and maybe, just maybe, the players will act like responsible adults.
But, that's just me. I treat my players like responsible adults and put the responsibility for the game going well squarely on their shoulders. If the game goes wahoonie shaped, everyone at the table knows it's (at least in large part) their own fault. And guess what? I haven't had a game go wahoonie shaped in years. Once I actually took the plunge and treated players as equals, my game got better. It got a LOT better.
If you keep having the same experiences, perhaps making different decisions might, just might, be the solution.
But, apparently, I'm a bad person for being negative about DM's by saying that maybe, sometimes, DM's should unclench a little bit and give the player what the player wants so long as it isn't going to invalidate large swaths of the campaign.
See, maybe if the DM wasn't so worried about micromanaging her campaign, and trusted that the players weren't out to ruin the game, and allowed the players to take what they wanted, she wouldn't have been burned twice. IOW, treat the players like responsible adults rather than spoiled children and maybe, just maybe, the players will act like responsible adults.
But, that's just me. I treat my players like responsible adults and put the responsibility for the game going well squarely on their shoulders. If the game goes wahoonie shaped, everyone at the table knows it's (at least in large part) their own fault. And guess what? I haven't had a game go wahoonie shaped in years. Once I actually took the plunge and treated players as equals, my game got better. It got a LOT better.
If you keep having the same experiences, perhaps making different decisions might, just might, be the solution.
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
We're not all going to agree on this one. Time to put down the battle axes and move on. I'd rather not close it -- it's a fun discussion, overall -- but we're not going to get anywhere until we recognize that condemning someone's actions at a game we weren't at isn't particularly fruitful.
Last edited:
Some adults to behave like children now and then and when they do they are no different than a two year old throwing a tantrum. Well there is one difference the two year doesn't know better. An adult should know better. An adult should accept that they are not always going to get their way and that sometimes not every campaign is to their taste and if they think they are not going to have fun the adult thing to do is to not play not go ahead and play with a chip on their shoulder not caring if they ruin everyone else time at the table.
As for unclenching in the very first game she DMed she allowed in anything the players asked for. I don't know how more accommodating you can get to not only allow 3.5 WOTC in but third party as well. She trusted the players who were more experienced than her to not do anything that would make it hard for her as a novice DM. She allowed in things she hadn't even read because she trusted her players. And it became a disaster. And when she openly told the players look I cannot handle this some chose to be difficult over it and in the end derailed the game.
Most hobbies involving other people have rules and social contracts. Take the SCA you cannot fight even playing around with steel weapons at an SCA event. The reason for this is insurance purposes and the fact that some adults no matter how you treat them cannot be trusted to behave in an adult manner. I find it hard to believe in your entire adult life you have never come across an immature person who lacks the responsibility of behaving as an adult.
K has sabotaged both my roommate's games and two other games with other DMs in the 18 years I have known him. And each time it was because he either didn't get his way or he was allowed to play anything he wanted and it overpowered the game leading to everyone at the table being unhappy and he refused to see that he needed to change the character or work with the DM to bring it into power with the rest of the party. He can't admit that when things go bad that he helped it go that way that he played a part in it.
When I DM K I am very careful about what he is allowed to bring in and if I am not sure I go to other DMs who know him and ask their advice. Now I have been lucky he has never been so unhappy that he has behaved badly.
On the flipside I have to watch what kind of PC R makes because he sometimes makes these lame ducks PCs which would not be bad except he is miserable because they are so weak. I have learned to say no and tell him why. I am saving him, me and the other players being frustrated.
You and I have very different definitions of micromanaging from what i am reading you think if DM does not allow everything in the game for what ever reason is micromanaging. Where as I think it is a DM who does not allow the players to contribute to the world , who rail roads to the point that you have no choice and gets involved in character creation to the point that you will only make the PC to his requirements.
Last edited:
prosfilaes
Adventurer
If the game wasn't improved by the DM saying no, then the question is irrelevant.
Having run games for a while I've seen a number of occurences of the splat hunter who do anything to get hold of a class/item/spell from a supplement. Very seldom is it done for flavour or fun, it's almost always trying to upgun their character in a specific way, usually outside the ecosystem of the supplement itself which can contain balancing factors to keep it under control. For that reason, and my own sanity, with one or two exceptions I haven't allowed anything in my games I don't own, have read from cover to cover and fully understood.
The few exceptions have underlined this stance for me more convicingly than anything else.
The few exceptions have underlined this stance for me more convicingly than anything else.
Really? You would rather see budding DMs driven out of the game by bad behaviour than allowing them to find their feet and grow?
prosfilaes
Adventurer
Quick course in basic logic. Let A be saying yes to players and B be DMs being driven out. Elf Witch was saying that A implies B. Then Elf Witch said that not A implies B, thus logically B, whether or not A. Thus B is independent of A, and in a discussion of whether or not A is good, B is irrelevant.
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
It sounds to me that what the game would have been improved by is the DM saying no and then not inviting the player to play. I wasn't there, I don't know, but it doesn't sound to me like poor DMing is the problem here. It sounds like an entitled player trying to take their ball and go home.
My takeaway is that new DMs should be set up to succeed. That means that they should be running groups of players whom they like and trust. If someone is trying to poison that well out of pique, screw 'em, there are more appropriate games for them to play in.
Last edited:
