I have, both in person and from friend's reports. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, these DMs do not even realize they are being stifling. They see it as being "fair," or "realistic"/"historical"/"grounded"/etc., or preventing players from "controlling" the game. That last one is part of why the examples for other threads about "well why don't you just declare 'we win' then??" hit me so hard. That is quite literally logic I have seen used to squelch player creativity.
That is a shame and I am sorry you have had to deal with that. Maybe it just really boils down to how one views creativity.
Certainly. I would however argue that the power differential between ordinary players and literally world-defining DMs means the latter has a lot more to proverbially "see past," as it were.
Agreed.
Sadly, I've dealt with that kind of thinking IRL, too. I once got threatened with disciplinary action by a teacher at my high school for daring to challenge her to point out the fact that the City of Troy actually existed. She was adamant that Troy was purely a myth...despite the thing that prompted me to mention it being a poster IN THAT CLASSROOM talking about the Troy dig site. I decided the battle wasn't worth fighting and relented, but it really stuck with me as an incredibly disquieting demonstration of how "authority figures" can be simply dead wrong and totally intolerant of even the most congenial efforts at correction, let alone dissent.
That is disheartening to say the least. Most authority figures, especially teachers that I know (I know many), would actually want to know the real answer. It may not make them alter the assignment (like you have to research an ancient city that once was), and may not make them alter their list, but that's more for grading purposes. My guess is most of them would add it to the list for next time once they have the proper information and can spend time weaving it into the lesson.
That is a shame it left such an indelible mark on you. Because in the end, it literally is nothing. A speck on your learning life, and to let it have such a hold on how you perceive things, such as authority figures, is... well there is no other word that I can think of other than disheartening. Sorry it happened to you.
It's a diverse community. I find a lot of the people who stick around in it have gotten lucky-ish and had very few Really Bad DMs, while those who bounced out often did not get so lucky. Most of the experienced players in my group (and even one of the newbies) for instance, had bounced off tabletop roleplaying games because of DM poor behavior, with the vast majority being excessively strict or inflexible. (The newbie had been in only one previous game, the one with the doormat DM who DID let a player completely control things to such an extent that it made my friend miserable. That's what gave me the kick in the butt to start my campaign, with about two and a half years of weekly sessions if you cut our the occasional breaks.)
I can't speak for others, but this is where I just feel fortunate. My friend and I left one campaign in my entire 30 years playing. And we were young (19) and didn't like him throwing sci-fi in the mix. (Silly when I look at it now.) It wasn't a falling out though, just a series of excuses of being too busy to play.
Every place: Alaska, California, Illinois, Virginia, Texas, Florida; every private table, which includes an average of two per state; and every convention: GenCon, OrcCon, Gamex, GaryCon, SoCal Slam, one in Seattle I can't think of, etc. have been nothing but great people. (Well, there was one DM at GenCon that insisted he played with Gygax, and then proceeded to run the worst D&D game I have ever played. But, I can't imagine I wouldn't just walk out of his campaign after one session, or insist on being DM.) Heck, even my gaming store experiences have been pretty good - although those seem to be the most hit or miss for me.
Like I said, I am just incredibly lucky and feel even more fortunate to have had the groups I have had. It makes me want to thank them each time I think of playing.
I mean, wouldn't your logic here mean that the existence of any cliché phrase means ALL phrases are cliché, since truly novel phrases are extremely rare? That the existence of one hackneyed plot means all plots are hackneyed, since stories depend on relatable characters and conflicts rather than the truly never-before-seen? That the existence of one trite well-wishing means all such sentiments are trite, since you can be sure any given line has been said in one form or another since time immemorial?
I wouldn't compare a single phrase like: "A thief in the night," to an entire story. That is my point. There is so much more an elven community not getting along with a dwarven community than saying elves and dwarves don't get along. That is what I don't understand. So when someone sees a trope like that, and says - ugh, why? You have no idea the belly of the story that lies underneath.
My point is there shouldn't be an ugh. It should be, I wonder what makes this one different. And even when there is no difference (for a game like D&D), there is still all the other stuff going on: friendships, laughter, roleplaying, exploration, combat, spells, etc. And the characters are different. They are the key drivers in the story. So why ugh because two races have the same style of relationship that they have had for 50 years.
I am being sincere, I don't get it. I feel like it is the same people that say: I refuse to watch this movie because I have seen many like it before. OR I refuse to read this book because it seems a lot like this other book I already read. Surely there are nuances that are different, and part of the fun is identifying and exploring them.
