Exactly. The people in my group whom are all close friendsplay/run a Vampire LARP twice a month with a large group of other players. They enjoy it and keep asking me join. At one time, I did Vampire LARP.. I stopped because it was no longer fun. I agreed to help my friend run at cons, but I didn't like it so I stopped. He and the people in my group asked me to try it again and I did a few years back. I didn't have fun so I stopped after a few sessions. They are trying to get me to go back and can't understand why I don't have fun. I have better things. to do with my time than LARP so I don't go despite how many times they ask. There are better ways to spend my time- hangout with other friends (especially, certain female friends), work on lesson plans, catch up on tv, sketch, go shoot pool...
D&D 5E World-Building DMs
Bad for you. Not for the people with whom I play. And that is fine.
Personally, Eberron, Planescape, and Spelljammer and just the start of three bad games for me just in concept. The same for a game with Drow PC, Tiefling PCs, Dragonborn, Githyanki, Githzerai, and most of the 3e WOTC created races regardless whom is running. No matter what you did, it will be trying to put lipstick on a pig and call it pretty. There is no way that I am buying in.
Corpsetaker
First Post
I run particular settings for their unique and particular theme so I stick with whatever that theme is no matter how small it may be. If setting Z says no ABC then there is no ABC. If I didn't want to stick with the theme of the setting then I wouldn't run it in the first place.
I don't budge when it comes to settings and their restrictions.
I don't budge when it comes to settings and their restrictions.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
It has finally occurred to me that we might be dealing with different types of personal philosophies that go beyond D&D in general. If true, that would mean coming to a total understanding of different perspectives would be beyond the scope of a D&D discussion. So, I'll test that hypothesis.
The following scenarios are not analogies for D&D. These are intended to be viewed independently. (We already know it's in context of this thread, but forget about it for purposes of how you would respond.)
1. You are invited to a party. Your host and some of his/her friends don't <fill in the blank (smoke, drink, eat gluten, listen to rap, whatever)> and request that people not bring such things to the party.
Would you consider the that the host is being a jerk or out of line by not allowing certain things at his party?
2. You are invited to a themed-party (costume, birthday, Super Bowl, Star Trek, etc). The host asks you to bring your <fill in blank with appropriate implements of recreation>.
If it were a Star Trek party on Super Bowl Sunday, would you ask people to turn off Star Trek so you could watch the Super Bowl?
If it were a Super Bowl party, would you start DJing your "best of Star Trek" collection in the background? Would you feel the host was being a jerk if he asked you to stop?
3. You and a bunch of friends meet up "to hang out and have some fun." One of you is driving. The driver insist on going where he wants to go, and tells anyone who doesn't want to do it that he'll drop them off at their home, but it's his car and he's driving it to where he want to go.
Would you consider him to be being a jerk?
In which of those scenarios would you assume the host/driver was being selfish?
That would be really awesome.
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, but it may be a matter of opinion. The way I remember it, back in 2e all AD&D campaign worlds (including Athas) were officially in the same multiverse. They didn't have to say it--it was just assumed as the default. So Dark Sun was always a part of the multiverse, it's just that they didn't mention how it related to arcane space in the boxed set. It was a Sage Advice answer in Dragon where I read about the closed sphere explanation. (I didn't have the revised set.)
I feel exactly the same way (well, not about the same settings). I would feel unbelievably selfish if I tried to get them to change their game to accommodate me.
Absolutely.
The following scenarios are not analogies for D&D. These are intended to be viewed independently. (We already know it's in context of this thread, but forget about it for purposes of how you would respond.)
1. You are invited to a party. Your host and some of his/her friends don't <fill in the blank (smoke, drink, eat gluten, listen to rap, whatever)> and request that people not bring such things to the party.
Would you consider the that the host is being a jerk or out of line by not allowing certain things at his party?
2. You are invited to a themed-party (costume, birthday, Super Bowl, Star Trek, etc). The host asks you to bring your <fill in blank with appropriate implements of recreation>.
If it were a Star Trek party on Super Bowl Sunday, would you ask people to turn off Star Trek so you could watch the Super Bowl?
If it were a Super Bowl party, would you start DJing your "best of Star Trek" collection in the background? Would you feel the host was being a jerk if he asked you to stop?
3. You and a bunch of friends meet up "to hang out and have some fun." One of you is driving. The driver insist on going where he wants to go, and tells anyone who doesn't want to do it that he'll drop them off at their home, but it's his car and he's driving it to where he want to go.
Would you consider him to be being a jerk?
In which of those scenarios would you assume the host/driver was being selfish?
That would be really awesome.
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, but it may be a matter of opinion. The way I remember it, back in 2e all AD&D campaign worlds (including Athas) were officially in the same multiverse. They didn't have to say it--it was just assumed as the default. So Dark Sun was always a part of the multiverse, it's just that they didn't mention how it related to arcane space in the boxed set. It was a Sage Advice answer in Dragon where I read about the closed sphere explanation. (I didn't have the revised set.)
I feel exactly the same way (well, not about the same settings). I would feel unbelievably selfish if I tried to get them to change their game to accommodate me.
Absolutely.
Hussar
Legend
Fair enough. But, can I step outside and smoke? Can I bring a donut and eat it? If I put on headphones and listen to rap, is that okay? I'd say the situation is less cut and dried as all that.
Nope. I wouldn't. But, then again, if I'm watching the football game or checking the scores on my iPhone, I'd expect to be left alone.
Again, who am I bothering if I've got my earphones on and watching Star Trek on my iPhone?
Yes, we would abuse that driver with a fair bit of derision. Sorry mate, just because it's your car doesn't entitle you to tell me where we're going tonight.
On the flip side, I would 100% expect my players to tell me if they wanted something in the game and not feel that there is anything wrong with suggesting changes. I may or may not accommodate those changes, but, I would certainly expect everyone at the table, who is going to spend the next couple of hundred hours of their free time with me to add, append or otherwise change anything that makes them have more fun.
Then again, most of my fun as a DM comes from watching my players enjoy the game. Anything that increases that is a good thing for me. I would not feel insulted in the slightest if someone came to me with a suggestion for something for the game. I would welcome it 100%. About the only way I would reject such suggestions is if one of the following two things were true:
1. It was going to cause such widespread changes in the game that I would have to rewrite large swaths of the campaign ie. bringing a cleric of Garl Glittergold into a Dark Sun campaign.
2. It was going to obviate some of the restrictions I have in the game. For example, in my World's Largest Dungeon campaign some years ago, there was no buying or selling magic items and you had to make do with whatever you could find. I had to veto the Vow of Poverty for that game because the VoP basically did an end run around one of the major elements of the game - it made being poor and scrounging into a bonus, not a handicap.
Otherwise? Go for it. You want a gnome in my Dark Sun campaign? Not a problem. You want a Warforged in my Isle of Dread campaign? No worries. You want to bring an elven priest of an elven god into my Scarred Lands campaign? Ok, we're going to have a problem because it's a canon element that the god of the elves is dead and the whole race is dying because of it. That's a major conceit of the setting and I cannot change that without having to rewrite a very large chunk of my campaign. Sorry.
Phantarch
First Post
I don't think it's a general life philosophy split. I think it's more of a general Game philosophy. Not RPG specifically, but games in general. Board games, card games, computer games, etc. I think when a player looks at D&D as being just another game, being reductive and restrictive seems strange. If I'm playing Risk, I'd find it weird if somebody banned Australia. If I'm playing cards against humanity, I'd find it odd if somebody removed all of the racial cards because it offended their sensibilities. If I'm playing an DDO, I'd find it unusual if somebody refused to ever play any of the Forgotten Realms expansions.
If somebody looks at D&D like any other game, I understand how it could seem weird that people are hand picking the rules and pieces instead of accepting the rules in the book. The difference being that a lot of us view RPGs as their own animal, and they don't follow the accepted rules of play found in other games.
If somebody looks at D&D like any other game, I understand how it could seem weird that people are hand picking the rules and pieces instead of accepting the rules in the book. The difference being that a lot of us view RPGs as their own animal, and they don't follow the accepted rules of play found in other games.
Smoke em if you got em. Why would they print all those options if they did not want you to use em?
GMforPowergamers
Legend
this is a lot to unpack...
this is a big one in my group. My ex girlfriend and one of my best friends were big smokers (I have sense broken up with her and he has moved to another state for a job so it isn't a big deal anymore) and that friend was a drunk.
I on the other hand have asthma and so does another player. "hey don't make Ross fall down sick" was often told as "Hey I should be able to smoke"
We had a LARP Vampire game that had a smokeing area, but had a very hard no drinking alchoal and no drug policy. To the point that if the head story teller smelled alchoal on your breath you were asked to leave. We all thought it was a bit odd...
I don't really understand the gluten thing outside of jokes, because I don't know anyone, so I will skip that.
then the music thing I would say is crazy... listen to what you want, and if we are all listening we need to mix it up, a little of what you like a little of what I like a little of what kurt likes...
OK, so I go to the rennfair every year. The group I go with goes in costume, and 1 of the guys is a stage magician that does a whole renfair act. I don't wear a costume...almost ever. I have only dressed up 1 of the last 10 holloweens. If I am invited to a costume/theme party I am most likely not coming in any theme that is too out there. I did go to a slumber party at a bar a few years ago in my boxers and a tee shirt though...so maybe.
If I was invited to a star trek party on super bowl sunday I would check the scores on my phone, and might ask if we could check the game inbetween disks...
If I were at a super bowl party and the game wasn't fun to watch I would totally suggest a different bit of entertainment... a few years ago when the Jackson boob thing happened we had a party, and the game wasn't doing much for us, so we switched to D&D... we completely missed the whole thing...
well 9 out of 10 times I am the driver... 1 friend is 40 and no has no licence, 1 friend didn't get his until into his 30's and even then bought a 2 seater car, and 1 friend drives a death trap that none of us are ever riding in.
This is also part of the issue with my saterday night game. there are either 5 or 6 of us depending on the night, but I drive 2 other players to game. If I 'sit out a game' that game can't happen because loosing me looses 2 other players. I got sick one saterday and we had to call game because it was already going to be a 5 person night, and if I don't go it's a 2 person night.
SO I think everyone gets a vote is the only right thing to do... and compromise. If someone was such a jerk as to say "Well I have the car so we do it my way" I would be pissed... so I don't do it.
edit: you know what this really reminds me of... Dominion. I have 1 friend that will only play if you randomize the cards, and another friend that will only play if you follow his idea of how cards should be used (If there is an attack there has to be a defense, you have to have atleast 1 2pt card and at least 1 6+ card in the game) the two of them can not play togather, the two are completely mutal exclusive. So when both are at a game night...we don't play DOminion.
Last edited:
hawkeyefan
Legend
After all the discussion here, I think it's clear that both sides are responsible for the game and each side should be open to restrictions and/or exceptions.
For me, I feel like it falls to the DM to be final arbiter of things because so much of the work falls to him/her, and also because DMs to me are probably among the most creative folks at the table.
Which I guess is why it's so jarring for me to see DMs say they never allow X in their game because there's no way X can add anything. How do you know that if it's never been allowed? And why not work with the player to see if together you can make X interesting in some way?
There are plenty of races that I generally don't like. I'm honestly not a big fan for gnomes, despite my stance earlier in the thread about them and Dark Sun. I don't really like Warforged (but I'm not a big Ebberon guy). Drow PCs aren't that big a deal, and I've had maybe 3 or 4 over the years. I felt like they brought an interesting dynamic to the game. I had a player who wanted to play a Shadovar. It seemed like a bad idea to me at first, but I worked with him on the character's backstory and agenda and it became a fundamental aspect of a campaign. At first, I was resistant to Dragonborn, but I got over that. I think it was just a gut reaction to resist such a change.
I suppose I'm just a bit surprised to see folks that I would consider creative be so closed-minded to certain things without there being a strong reason for it.
For me, I feel like it falls to the DM to be final arbiter of things because so much of the work falls to him/her, and also because DMs to me are probably among the most creative folks at the table.
Which I guess is why it's so jarring for me to see DMs say they never allow X in their game because there's no way X can add anything. How do you know that if it's never been allowed? And why not work with the player to see if together you can make X interesting in some way?
There are plenty of races that I generally don't like. I'm honestly not a big fan for gnomes, despite my stance earlier in the thread about them and Dark Sun. I don't really like Warforged (but I'm not a big Ebberon guy). Drow PCs aren't that big a deal, and I've had maybe 3 or 4 over the years. I felt like they brought an interesting dynamic to the game. I had a player who wanted to play a Shadovar. It seemed like a bad idea to me at first, but I worked with him on the character's backstory and agenda and it became a fundamental aspect of a campaign. At first, I was resistant to Dragonborn, but I got over that. I think it was just a gut reaction to resist such a change.
I suppose I'm just a bit surprised to see folks that I would consider creative be so closed-minded to certain things without there being a strong reason for it.
