D&D 5E The "Stop Trying to Impose Your Playstyle" Argument

[FrogReaver]

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I thought it was clear that in this hypothetical my friend and I had opposed preferences, not that I was neutral on the issue and just wanted to deny him his preference.

Anyway, I'm regretting using the "best friend" example at all.

(I'm sort of regretting starting the thread, really. Just venting over a pet peeve. Never really does much good, does it?)

It usually helps you focus your thoughts on the matter to explain it more coherently. I think a few of the posters here explained your dilemma very well. I'll quote it in just a moment so you can see what I'm talking about.

 

[FrogReaver]

Imagine player A does not like feats and always takes ASIs even in games where feats are available. They feel feats codify things which are best left to DM's discretion. So if that player wants to, in appropriate circumstances, try and block the effects of a dex-save-for-half effect with their shield for example, they can try for it with some sort of roll.

But, with the introduction of feats into the game like Shield Mastery, the overall change to the game is such that the DM is no longer inclined to let Player A try such a thing without the feat - even if that same DM would otherwise be inclined to let Player A try such a "trick" with something like a very high acrobatics check in the right circumstances.

Player B however loves feats, and takes Shield Mastery in that same game.

Do you see now how feats can be a "player-by-player option" to choose to use for their character or not? Player A chooses to never use feats, and Player B chooses to always use feats, and Player A feels Player B's choice makes Player' A's options reduced during the game. Player A views it as a "fairness" issue. But-for Player B choosing to use feats, the DM would have let Player A try something they now cannot try to do in the game without also selecting a feat.

@Elfcrusher

Mistwell explains what you and others are doing when you say I dislike X in a thread. Knowing what you are doing also explains why it's so very annoying to have someone attack your position as attempting to deny someone else their fun. It's because there are mutually exclusive options. One game cannot be all things to everybody. So arguing in favor of your position is often arguing against someone elses. As mistwell explained, the very fact something is available in the game changes the game and some people may dislike how those options have changed the game.

So in your position you must attempt to "deny others their fun" because in so doing you are attempting to not have your fun denied.

 

[Nevvur]

A quick remark regarding AL, the number of players engaged in the program isn't as important as its role in the greater D&D community. AL is the public face of D&D and a welcoming gateway (ideally) into the game for new players. AL guidelines matter, even if the developers recognize the majority of players don't abide by them.

That said, the most vocal proponents of the playstyles which inspired this thread haven't indicated they participate in AL, so I have a hard time understanding why they need official support for their playstyle, even after reading their arguments multiple times. Please don't rehash them here for my sake, though!
[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]

It sounds like you're trying to fix human behavior. I would argue this is even more daunting a task than creating 'balanced' magic item prices. Good luck!

 

[Xetheral]

@Frogreaver

Please accept my apologies.

Elfcrusher's original argument was that it is not selfish to be "against including X as an option". However, the "best friend" hypothetical seemed to me to undermine that argument rather than support it. I tried to begin the discussion of that hypothetical by clarifying if I was reading it correctly. To explain why I thought I might be misunderstanding, I pointed out the contradiction I saw between the usage of the phrase "best friend" and the behavior described.

I did not intend to try to analyze the hypothetical friendship or cast judgment on it, but after rereading my posts I see that that is an entirely valid interpretation of what I said. I should have taken the extra time to explicitly tie my questions back to Elfcrusher's original point and to consider other ways my question might be interpreted. A thread that revolves around the question of "what is selfish?" was always going to be a minefield, and I navigated this one quite poorly.

I'm sorry. I hope that you and @Elfcrusher will accept my apology.

Anyway, I'm regretting using the "best friend" example at all.

Acknowledged. I regret that the words I chose ended up being far more judgmental than I'd intended. If you'd like to continue the discussion further, let me know, but since we're both regretting the conversation thus far, I'll otherwise assume we're dropping it.

 

[happyhermit]

...
I entirely agree with your last point, but I don't think the analogy you chose illustrates the relevant situation very well. Here are few analogies I think are more apt:

1. Friend X hoping that their favorite team always wins and Friend Y's favorite team never wins.
2. Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite sports team is disqualified, so that Friend X's favorite team can win by default.
3. Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite show is cancelled so that they can always watch Friend X's favorite show, which airs at the same time. (Or, for a more modern audience, Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite show is dropped from the streaming service so that they can always watch Friend X's favorite show.)

My best friend's preferences are as entitled to respect as my own are. When they happen to be mutually exclusive, I'd want to discuss and compromise. I'm not going to hope for an outside restriction to ensure that my preference is always the one that is realized.

Fair enough, I think we agree more or less that A: It's complicated B: Wanting your "side" to win isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially if after honest consideration you think your position is best for the game as a whole). And we probably agree none of these analogies really capture the problems particular to the subject of rpgs, I know mine didn't.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's because there are mutually exclusive options. One game cannot be all things to everybody. So arguing in favor of your position is often arguing against someone elses. As mistwell explained, the very fact something is available in the game changes the game and some people may dislike how those options have changed the game.

So in your position you must attempt to "deny others their fun" because in so doing you are attempting to not have your fun denied.

Yes, I completely agree.

What I'm railing against (apparently opaquely) is the position often taken by those arguing for "optional" rules, who claim that the optional tag means they are not mutually exclusive with anything, and therefore opposition to those rules can only be selfish/mean-spirited/etc.

All I'm saying is that "optional" has a limited meaning in D&D, and that therefore opposition can be valid.

 

[Krachek]

The 4ed DmG have a single page on creating house rule.
In the 5th DmG there is a complete chapter about changing the game rules.
The chapter is well done, giving plenty of advice to test the motive and needs of rules changing.

But it seems to be hard to use for self or allow for others Dm such freedom.
Why?
Today we play the same apps on our phone and computer.
Exactly the same rules all over the planet for a given apps game.
And exactly the same interface for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other common application.
Despite our will to freedom, We are effectively living in a world with a great level of standardization.
Maybe instinctively we just want the same standardization for DnD?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Aww! I thought this was totally going to be a "Do or do not impose your playstyle on others. There is no try."-argument. Misled, I have been. Sad now, I must be. More useless comments, I will make.

 

[OB1]

I was hoping for an argument against the "You're accusing me of BadWrongFun" argument. Cause while there is no right way to play 5e there is an optimal way to play it and it constantly amazes me how many people haven't even tried to play 5e the way it is written to be played and then complain constantly about it.

 

[MoonSong]

In all honestly I'm not actually expecting to persuade any of the people/trolls who use this argument. I'm more trying to draw attention to it so that those who do are called out for it more often.

And it's not that I take offense; it's just disappointing when an interesting and though-provoking discussion is undercut by "Well, if you want to selfishly impose your playstyle I guess I can't stop you." Oh please.

By "not using Feats" I meant not spending your own ASIs on Feats, even if they are allowed at the table.

I.e., "Don't like Warlords? Then don't play one!"

"Don't like magic stores! Don't spend your own gold there."

"Don't like dual-rapier Drow Paladins? Don't play one."

That totally dismisses the valid point of view that just being in a game with certain narrative elements can affect your enjoyment of the game, even if you yourself don't choose those narrative elements.

I've been on both sides of this. On healing side I recent things like Healing word and the non-existence of negative HP. On the other side I like Feats, multiclassing, Sorcerers, Bards, Warlocks and Warlords. But it is ok. it is quite human to be blind to our own biases.

Thank you for changing your reply.

In the specific hypothetical you've presented, if I was asked to make a decision for D&D as a whole, I'd consider whether my preference or my friend's preference was likely to be more widely shared by the rest of the fan base, and then decide based on what I thought was best for the game as a whole. I certainly would not promote my opinion over my friend's opinion simply to stymie him and make it less likely his preference is realized at our table.

By contrast, you said:



That sounds like you're saying you would actively hope that the rules continue to prevent your friend from ever adopting an option he loves. I don't see how such a desire is compatible with considering him your friend, so I wanted to clarify whether I was understanding correctly.



I entirely agree with your last point, but I don't think the analogy you chose illustrates the relevant situation very well. Here are few analogies I think are more apt:

1. Friend X hoping that their favorite team always wins and Friend Y's favorite team never wins.
2. Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite sports team is disqualified, so that Friend X's favorite team can win by default.
3. Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite show is cancelled so that they can always watch Friend X's favorite show, which airs at the same time. (Or, for a more modern audience, Friend X hoping Friend Y's favorite show is dropped from the streaming service so that they can always watch Friend X's favorite show.)

My best friend's preferences are as entitled to respect as my own are. When they happen to be mutually exclusive, I'd want to discuss and compromise. I'm not going to hope for an outside restriction to ensure that my preference is always the one that is realized.

I know this is a tangent, but friendship -like love- is not entirely selfless, you need a little selfishness in order to be someone wants to be friends with. Expressing no will of your own makes you less of a person and more of just a tool to others. In your example if X is always agreeing to what Y wants without even making their case even once and Y always gets what they want without ever giving back, is that a genuine friendship?

On the other hand an external restriction is certainly good for the friendship. While X gets what X wanted and Y is deprived of hat Y wanted, it was decided by neither of them and thus it wasn't personal, there are no hard feelings.

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I thought it was clear that in this hypothetical my friend and I had opposed preferences, not that I was neutral on the issue and just wanted to deny him his preference.

Anyway, I'm regretting using the "best friend" example at all.

(I'm sort of regretting starting the thread, really. Just venting over a pet peeve. Never really does much good, does it?)

Nah, it is actually illustrative. It's human nature, if we can be selfish in zero sum situations involving our best friend on the other side, why not do it when the other party is strangers on the internet? You intent is deep down selfish and entitled... and that is ok, it is just evidence that you are human and an individual and no one has the right to judge you for it.

On the other hand I'm as free to be selfish and tell you to stop trying to impose your playstyle on me. n_n