D&D General DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"

[Chaosmancer]

Not if you remove functionality you can't. And I already showed how it's a tool that I need in my example earlier in the thread. You would remove that ability from me and in the process ruin a good tool.

I've given support multiple times. Once with a specific example recently used by me.

I must have missed it, because I don't remember you giving any solid examples. I remember you saying this recent bit about it grinding the game to a halt if you had to have a talk with your players, but as we are showing, that isn't true.

You do know that a quick explanation isn't the same as an involved discussion, right? You're conflating the two things and in the process getting what I said completely wrong.

And no one said that you would need an involved discussion. You are assuming you need one for no reason I can discern except that it makes your position seem more reasonable. A discussion is different than an involved discussion, and so you can easily have a quick discussion that the players can participate in.

Objectively false. The two words do not mean the same thing at all. A lack of involved discussion doesn't even come close to meaning without explanation.

How about the lack of a quick discussion? Because I've been using the word "discussion" without the adjective "involved" you are adding that and changing the meaning of the point.

No. There was no conversation. I informed them that I was going to include magic weapons without pluses as weapons unable to harm creatures with resistance/immunity to magical weapons. Then I explained that it was so that I could give them some cool magic weapons, rather than them finding none at all or nearly none, which was to their benefit. Explanation =/= conversation.

Dictating a rule without giving them a chance to respond. Actually worse, because they did respond if I remember this story correctly, voting to allow those weapons to harm monsters with resistance. However, you withheld information from them, which is that you would give them fewer magic items in that case, and then justified ignoring their wishes, because of a rule you homebrewed (the frequency of items) and basically gave them an ultimatum that if they didn't go along with your desires, they would get less interesting gear.

And you are probably going to defend this by explaining to me something about the game balance or the threat of monsters with resistance to non-magical weapons, but it is hogwash. There were other solutions, including laying out your real concerns first, and allowing the players to discuss that in session zero, intstead of telling them "actually, that discussion we had previously doesn't apply, because that result is one I don't like"


And, if you have the time to say all that, then you could easily fit in a quick conversation with your players to get their opinions on the matter. You simply choose not to.

They are intertwined. You cannot take away a tool that I use to great effect without reducing my personal enjoyment of the game. Discussing my role as DM and the tools available invites my personal enjoyment to be part of the discussion as it has relevance to the discussion.

No, it doesn't. If we were discussing the role of the umpire in baseball, and their ability to make certain calls, like kicking coaches or fans out of the game, the umpire saying "But I like having the power to kick coaches out of the game" is a meaningless distraction. It doesn't matter if you like it, it matters what is best for the game. There are many things we like, that we don't get to have or do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And then, because it's absolutely the DM's prerogative to say that Orcus does not find the PC acceptable, that way is officially closed. Does it make it inconsistent ? No, it's actually a common fantasy trope "the chosen one" who does not have to be a PC.


It is absolutely not the case. No PC apart from Gandalf can decide to wield magic (assuming that it is what Gandalf does). No PC in the fellowship can hope to match the Witch-King of Angmar or have any of his powers. As for the One Ring, it's just an item, and gaining it does not give you the powers of Sauron. For example, Gollum never acquires them, and neither of the two hobbits do when wielding the ring. And neither did Isildur, for example. There was no path to Sauron's power, who is a being of a higher order any way.


And again, no one can hope to match Anakin, who is the chosen one, apart from another Skywalker. The path is closed to a few chosen ones, and not all PCs (depending who you see as PCs) can chose to be whatever they want despite the race they were born in. Even being a Jedi is not race specific, it's a gift.

You are very much ignoring the point. The point Lanefan and Maxperson are making isn't that every path to power must be open to the PCs, but that paths of power must be potentially open. The example with Orcus is actually the prime example here, you say that the DM declares that Orcus won't make a PC a Chosen One, and then act like that refutes their point. But it doesn't. In fact, I'd say Max and Lanefan both would agree that it is the DMs prerogative to have Orcus deny the PCs access to his power. The point is though, that if the PCs DID gain his favor, and become his chosen one, then they would gain those powers.

To give another example, a Lich has a necrotic touch that paralyzes foes. The players may declare "Wow, that is awesome, how can I do that?" The answer is simple... become a lich. If you become a lich, you can gain access to this power. You also will likely also lose your character and have to roll a new one, because most DMs aren't cool with you becoming a Lich. But the potential is there. It isn't "you can never gain this power because the laws of reality prevent it, you are a Player Character, not a Non-Player Character"

To take the example of the Witch-King of Angmar. How did he gain his power? By wearing one of the Nine rings, falling to Sauron's Corruption and becoming a Ring Wraith. If Aaragon got one of the Nine Rings, put it on, fell to Sauron's Corruption, and became a Ring Wraith... then he would very likely have very similar if not identical powers to the Witch-King. The point though, is that that power came with a cost that Aaragon doesn't wish to pay, because it is a sign of moral weakness to have given in to Sauron.

The potential exists, not the actuality.

 

[Lyxen]

You are very much ignoring the point. The point Lanefan and Maxperson are making isn't that every path to power must be open to the PCs, but that paths of power must be potentially open. The example with Orcus is actually the prime example here, you say that the DM declares that Orcus won't make a PC a Chosen One, and then act like that refutes their point. But it doesn't. In fact, I'd say Max and Lanefan both would agree that it is the DMs prerogative to have Orcus deny the PCs access to his power. The point is though, that if the PCs DID gain his favor, and become his chosen one, then they would gain those powers.

No, I'm saying that it's not even a question of Orcus "making the PC" a chosen one, just of the PC being born one or not. Anakin was born the chosen one, nobody else in the galaxy could have gained the power he gained. Sometimes, in particular in the genre, exceptional creatures are born, some end up PCs, other NPCs, but there is no justification for forcing the fact that all could be interchangeable.

To give another example, a Lich has a necrotic touch that paralyzes foes. The players may declare "Wow, that is awesome, how can I do that?" The answer is simple... become a lich. If you become a lich, you can gain access to this power. You also will likely also lose your character and have to roll a new one, because most DMs aren't cool with you becoming a Lich. But the potential is there. It isn't "you can never gain this power because the laws of reality prevent it, you are a Player Character, not a Non-Player Character"

And the only thing I'm saying is that sometimes the laws of the universe will permit it (the Lich) and some other times they won't (being born the Chosen One of Evil as a prerequesite).

I claim that there is no law in D&D or in fiction that prevents both being consistent in the world.

To take the example of the Witch-King of Angmar. How did he gain his power? By wearing one of the Nine rings, falling to Sauron's Corruption and becoming a Ring Wraith.

Actually no, he was already a powerful king and sorcerer before this. None of the player characters can decide to be a sorcerer.

If Aaragon got one of the Nine Rings, put it on, fell to Sauron's Corruption, and became a Ring Wraith... then he would very likely have very similar if not identical powers to the Witch-King.

And again, probably not. A Ringwraith, very probably, but the witch-king, no. And the same for Sauron. They are simply different, there is no path to becoming a sorcerer or a maia-type for PCs in general, nor is there need to be for it to be consistent.

 

[Lyxen]

Look, you want to be offended because I didn't remember every detail you've told me about your life over the last 3 weeks, I can't stop you. I'm not wasting more time telling you I didn't call you a liar if you refuse to believe me.

No, again this is not what happened. To took a specific statement and said that I had to be wrong because it does not fit with your idea of the gaming world. I'm sorry, but it's not about details of my life.

Which is exactly what I just said, so how am I wrong, if you just parrot what I said back at me? Seriously, is someone hacking my posts and rewriting them?

And again, if it's just a different style, how come this translates into a horror story ?

No, complaining about railroading isn't entitlement. Calling someone a Bad DM for railroading by removing player agency isn't bad in and of itself. You don't get to call players whiners and then obfuscate that by making ridiculous hyperbolic claims.

No, I'm sorry, but claiming that someone is "a Bad DM for railroading by removing player agency" is bad in and of itself. There is no such holy thing as "player agency" and over my rather long TTRPG "career", mu characters have been possessed, charmed, directed and railroaded, and I still had a lot of fun doing it.

Again, you are calling a different playstyle the mark of a "bad DM", and in and of itself, it's bad.

Note that you acknowledge asking players if they want something "more guided" or "more sandboxy". This acknowledges the need to communicate with your players and get their consent.

No, it's asking for their preference. After that, as all players in our games, they accept that they will be railroaded now and then, because it's the nature of (epic) stories, and they trust ut to do it to the extent that they are having fun.

Instead, many DMs just decide that the will limit the player options until they can only do what the DM wants to happen. This is worthy of complaining, because it is not a preference of style, it is forcing a style upon someone against their will.

No, it's YOUR playstyle that refuses to trust a DM with some agency in your character history, and by participating in a DM's campaign, you should trust him anyway. After that, if you did not clarify it with him during session 0, it's at least as much your responsibility as his, because if it was that important to you, you, you, you should have said it at the start, and refused to participate.

Once more, if you look at session 0 in Tasha, the basic social contract is laid along the lines of: "The players will allow you to direct the campaign." THere might be different contacts for different tables, but this is the one that I've been playing under all these years, I allow the DM to direct the campaign, meaning that I don't take offense when he dares do so with a bit of railroading.

But you seem invested in the idea that the players can never be in the right.

Sometimes they can, but once more I want to see both sides, especially because once more the DM has a very difficult job in addition to his preparation work, whereas players can just come, sit on their backside and complain.

And yet, your position if taken literally, is that that one evening was something they deserved. Again, it isn't. It is likely little more than chance and convenience that brings people together, and no one deserves that turning into a rotten evening because of bad people.

Again, no D&D is better than bad D&D. And if you chose your games that casually, then you should not complain that sometimes it's not exactly to your preference.

That line gets tossed around like that solves anything. "No DnD is better than Bad DnD!" but, have you considered it in practice, when paired with social norms? Have you considered what happens in a small community where you were the only player to speak up, and the only one to walk out, and the DM declares to the community that you were just an "entitled little-" of a player who couldn't stand not getting their way? At best it is your word against theirs, unless the other players speak up for you.

And on the other hand, you have no problem tossing around "he's a bad DM" and adding this to "DM horror stories".

And if the other players do not speak for you, but remain silent or speak for the DM, does it not tell you something ? That you were the odd one in the game, with just different preferences ? And that you should maybe, just maybe, consider that you were the disruptive one in that game ?

And not everyone has the luxury of playing with friends. Sure, that's the ideal, but a lot of us end up playing with strangers who hopefully become friends.

And sometimes it does not work out because of different preferences. Does this make the other people horrible players, worthy of being slandered all over the world ?

There is a lot that goes into these decisions, it is more complicated than just refusing to play if the game isn't to your liking. Especially if the pervailing culture is one of placing the blame with the players consistently.

And on the other hand, there is an extremely heavy trend of blaming the DM and colporting "DM horror stories". From my experience, yes, the DMs are not perfect, but all I've seen were really trying their best, whereas I've seen tons of naughty word players that just wanted to have their way despite what the rest of the table wanted. And look at Lanefan's story.

I'm not saying that all DMs are blameless, but at least they are, in general, trying to run games for other people, whereas there are lots of players who just want to be entertained.

I disagree with just about all of that. And you seem to be ignoring my point in favor of just blaming the player, because the DM is the "master" and all trust and good things must flow too and from him. I mean, wow, it is literally pointless to do anything other than offer absolute trust to the DM, because he is the master of the world. Yet, you want to believe that arrogant DMs who abuse trust and twist the rules to leave their players helpless and confused in the game world, for some measure of power over other people don't exist? That it is all people making up stories because they are whiners and entitled?

Yep, because unless given cause to distrust the DM (and again, in 42+ years, I don't recall any instance where I was wrong to do this, ever), I just trust him and maybe, just maybe, it's why I did not have trouble with them. Because coming with the attitude of "but the rules say this and this, and I'm therefore entitled to seeing when they are casting a spell and therefore you are wrong" is the best way to appear confrontational and, yes, entitled.

And again, considering DnD is a team game and people have abiltiies that affect more than just their own character, I don't see "it isn't even his character" as being relevant to the discussion.

But it is, the DM is describing that is happening to a specific character, why can't that annoying guy just wait for his turn, instead of butting in, which apparently he does all the time ? Let him wait for his turn, if he needs more information about playing his character, he can always ask it at that point in time.

At our tables, we multiplied the combat resolution speed by at least a factor 3 by not letting players speak out of turn (unless using reactions, etc.). Not all players were culpable of interrupting and making suggestions and generally slowing down the game and hogging the spotlight, but at least it controlled the most annoying ones.

There is only one DM, there are many players, they all deserve about the same amount of air time, you know, just for fairness and general politeness sake.

So, you tell them that they can turn into any animal no larger than a bear. Which first of all, is telling them the rules, which as I said, is practically no different than reading them.

No, this is not what the rules say. Read them, they are way, way longer and technical.

Except, that the practical differences are vast here. Because if that is what you told them, you have altered the rules to such an extent that I can't believe it. I could dig into the vast vast differences in the rules you have proposed, and the rules in the book, but that doesn't address the point.

But I thought what I had said was no different from reading the rules ? Please make up your mind.

If "you can turn in any animal no larger than a bear" are the only rules, then you telling the rules is the same as them reading those rules themselves. If they aren't, then the player is going to run into invisible barriers constantly as they find more things you didn't tell them (like the fact that they can't turn into a bear, nor can they turn into a sparrow). The game actually assumes that the players likely either read or had their abilities explained to them.

No it does not. If you think this, prove it, I think that you will find it extremely difficult to prove, I'll be waiting.

And the game additionally assumes that those rules are likely going to be followed.

Again, prove it. I'll be waiting.

And yes, if you take the rules to a point where they in no way resemble DnD, then you are playing some TTRPG, but it isn't DnD 5e. Especially, if you just let the players sit down and declare abilities that they might be able to do, based on your whims, then you are likely playing a different game. Unless your position is that any time someone is playing in a fantasy world they are playing DnD, which I think is unsupported by the existence of multiple other Fantasy TTRPGs which are not DnD.

Ah, I was waiting for this line. Please prove to me that I'm not playing D&D. Please show me where the designers have put limits about what can be customised in the game and still call it D&D. Again, I'll be waiting a long long time.

Official words, though: "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

I find it fascinating that despite the fact I have constantly said I do not believe a single DM in this thread has ever cheated, that people are taking personal offense and seeing personal attacks in the very concept that a DM might be capable of cheating.

We are taking offense because you are basically saying that people who fudge are cheating, so yes, cheating is a bad word and when you are saying that people are cheating when they are doing absolutely nothing of the kind, they take offense. Why are you surprised ?

Especially since, once more, you are wrong in your definition of cheating, as has been pointed out multiple times.

I have not said that you are a cheater. I have not said you are an abuser. I have not said you are a Bad DM. I have simply stated that such things are possible. Railroading, to my understanding, is the equivalent of handing a group of players a theatrical script, letting them know what their roles are, what their lines are, and what they are supposed to do to put on the performance desired.

And again, why do you have to take that to such an extreme ?

And yes, I have directly experienced the sensation of that being what the DM wanted out of a session, so I will call railroading a bad thing. If you think that means a linear adventure where you guide the party past logical points (such as which road you turn down to get the Viridian City) to get to the fun part, then I apoligize that we have different conceptions of what the term means, but you seem uninterested in exploring ideas, you simply want to blast me as advocating your style is badwrongfun, when I have done nothing of the sort.

And yet you have, because (as with the DM using weighted dice) you are taking things to such an absurd level. Look at HotDQ. There is certainly no handing out of a script, there are plenty of opportunities for roleplaying, getting different results of encounters, and these matter. What feels like railroading to some people is just the fact that each location only points out to one next location, so the string of locations is pre-determined. We are very, very far from your claim.

And still, HotDQ is not that bad, players can have tons of fun even in the first situation, where there are at least 6 or 7 missions that can be done in the town in any order, with consequences from one to the other, etc.

Kicking someone from a table can be malicious. I've seen and heard enough to know that is very possible. Many DMs who take any disagreement from a player as a sign they aren't right to game together, and kick them to "nip the problem in the bud".

Yeah, right, more hearsay, such a great proof.

Maybe the player should find a different group, but if their attitude is such that they are just mildly annoying to be around... that is going to be a constant problem for them. And I'm more than willing to put up with some mild annoyance if it isn't intentional or based in them trying to be malicious in some capacity.

And have you ever considered that even expressing disagreement during the game is extremely disruptive ? That the usual advice is to play the game and if really important, bring it up at the end ?

And, I'm also never going to apologize for speaking up about a DM who is engaging in poor practices.

And here you go. "poor practices" according to who ? To your holy book of "good practices" ?

If a DM decides to take away player agency without consulting the players first, then I'm going to call them out on it. Because behavior doesn't change if you never address it.

And again, you are wrong about this. See the standard social contract above. Nothing in the books say anything about that holy "player agency" of yours. Sometimes, bad guys charm or possess your character. This happens in books and movies and shows. Why is that a huge problem ? Why is that a "bad practice" ?

I'll match your story about your cousin with a story about a really good friend of mine. He was deeply into Magic the Gathering, and believed himself to be very very good at the game. I collected cards more by accident than anything else, but I had a few cards that gave rise to a very powerful combo, if I understood the interactions correctly. So, before we started playing a game, I pulled out those cards, showed them to him, and explained what I believed would happen with those effects. He agreed with me, and said it was fine to use them.

They got drawn, and played, and he started throwing a fit because he was losing. So, I surrendered the game and packed up my cards. I have never played Magic with him again. We are still very good friends. I understand why he is the way he is. We haven't talked much recently, because he moved states to get away from certain people and cut off his social media use, but that is life. I don't begrudge him being the way he is. I'll also call him on BS when he is acting out of line, because we can't change if we aren't aware of the need to change.

And again, who do you think you are to think that you are right about his need to change to meet YOUR standards of a perfect person. Are you that perfect yourself ? Don't you need to change at all ?

Because, honestly, with this righteous attitude of yours and principles like "I'm entitled to my player agency", I really think that you could use a bit of a reality check on the game and how it can be played differently. Your attitude might be OK for some games, but it does not mean that it's good for others, and considering these other games inferior and in need of "calling them out" because you disagree spells "badwrongfun" all over the place again.

I'm not proud of it, but certainly I needed to have my mind expanded a bit and it was friends (real ones) who gave me a few talks down that I totally deserved before I changed my attitude about the game. And I feel much better about it, although it certainly was painful at the time.

Just think about it, OK ?

 

[Maxperson]

Well, it's bizarre that every single edition of D&D provides a list of novels that they offer you to use as inspiration. Again, reading the intro of the PH: "They were tired of merely reading tales about worlds of magic, monsters, and adventure. They wanted to play in those worlds, rather than observe them."

Next time you see a movie "inspired" by something, look up and see how accurate it is. Inspiration =/= the same.

 

[Maxperson]

I must have missed it, because I don't remember you giving any solid examples. I remember you saying this recent bit about it grinding the game to a halt if you had to have a talk with your players, but as we are showing, that isn't true.

You said that the table should have a discussion and decide. I said grinding the game to a halt to have a discussion and vote would ruin the session and I wouldn't do that. You then conflated discussion with explanation and declared that I don't explain things. Now I have to correct you again, because you assume things way too often.

And no one said that you would need an involved discussion. You are assuming you need one for no reason I can discern except that it makes your position seem more reasonable. A discussion is different than an involved discussion, and so you can easily have a quick discussion that the players can participate in.

Maybe most of your players just sit there during a discussion and don't add much. Mine have opinions and during a discussion, they all give theirs and then want to talk about those opinions before coming to a decision.

Dictating a rule without giving them a chance to respond. Actually worse, because they did respond if I remember this story correctly, voting to allow those weapons to harm monsters with resistance. However, you withheld information from them, which is that you would give them fewer magic items in that case, and then justified ignoring their wishes, because of a rule you homebrewed (the frequency of items) and basically gave them an ultimatum that if they didn't go along with your desires, they would get less interesting gear.

No information was withheld. They knew what would happen if they voted no. And I love your choice of words there. There was no ultimatum about desires or threat of less interesting gear. I explained how the +weapons destroyed encounter balance and they all agreed that it happened. Informing them that would not be destroying encounter balance this campaign =/= threats and ultimatums. I also know them as I've played with them for a minimum of 14 years(the newest player in the group) and they will enjoy having these sorts of weapons more than not having any. A lot more.

But hey, thanks for playing the "I know your group better than you know it." like you played with @Lyxen.

And you are probably going to defend this by explaining to me something about the game balance or the threat of monsters with resistance to non-magical weapons, but it is hogwash. There were other solutions, including laying out your real concerns first, and allowing the players to discuss that in session zero, intstead of telling them "actually, that discussion we had previously doesn't apply, because that result is one I don't like"

That's exactly when it happened. Session 0, and there was discussion. And they voted no. And I overruled it for the reasons set forth. Stop assuming you know everything about situations where you weren't present. If you are unsure, ask.

No, it doesn't. If we were discussing the role of the umpire in baseball, and their ability to make certain calls, like kicking coaches or fans out of the game, the umpire saying "But I like having the power to kick coaches out of the game" is a meaningless distraction. It doesn't matter if you like it, it matters what is best for the game. There are many things we like, that we don't get to have or do.

And now you're conflating D&D with sports. D&D, a game where enjoyment is literally the goal of the game, making enjoyment(including the DM's) what is best for the game. Sorry bud, enjoyment is what is most important and relevant here.

 

[Lyxen]

Next time you see a movie "inspired" by something, look up and see how accurate it is. Inspiration =/= the same.

Yes, but inspiration does not mean "completely different and throwing all concepts out of the window" either. The concept of "chosen ones" with specific powers that no-one can have, whether on the hero or the villain side (and usually linked to some prophecy) is absolutely key to these works of fictions, and it does not make them less consistent for havings path of power that only selected characters can get.

 

[ad_hoc]

I am not going to allow a player to choose to be a mind flayer as their race.

I just don't see how that creates inconsistencies in the fiction of the world.

 

[Lanefan]

And again, even if it was the case, there is not rule anywhere that prescribes that all members of any population can do whatever the PCs and their adversaries can do.

The basics is that the PCs are exceptional, but also that their adversaries are exceptional, and nothing prescribes that the mass population can do what these do, and nothing prescribes that the paths to power that the PCs can follow are the same the NPCs. Nothing except your own views that it has to be so, but it has nothing to do with consistency.

And that is the exact contrary of the D&D paradigm since the beginning of time. PCs are exceptional.

The question then becomes - when comparing a starting-out PC to a common member of the same population - one of how exceptional is acceptable; and my own answer is "not very".

Sure, PCs tend to become exceptional as they level up, gain magic items, and so forth; but IMO it's a bit much to assume they start out that way.

Huh, no, in general constraints stifle creativity, or at best channel it along very narrow paths.

Were you never in an art class where the teacher said "today you can only use purple paint"? Or a writing class where the prof said "for this essay you must keep it grammatically correct without use of the word 'the' if at all possible"?

I know from my own experience that constraints engender creativity; in that you have to figure out how to work within those limitations. A very simple example is if I want to write a poem* but all I've got on hand is a small scrap of paper. Clearly this forces me to keep it short, meaning that whatever I want to say I have to say it in very few words. The limitation of paper size forces me to think in ways I might otherwise not have, and thus directly causes me to be more creative in my thinking.

* - I'm usually good for a few hundred a year.

And then, because it's absolutely the DM's prerogative to say that Orcus does not find the PC acceptable, that way is officially closed. Does it make it inconsistent ? No, it's actually a common fantasy trope "the chosen one" who does not have to be a PC.

Fine. As long as the PC had the potential (i.e. could go to Orcus and present a case), consistency is maintained even if Orcus tells the petitioner to get lost.

It is absolutely not the case. No PC apart from Gandalf can decide to wield magic (assuming that it is what Gandalf does). No PC in the fellowship can hope to match the Witch-King of Angmar or have any of his powers. As for the One Ring, it's just an item, and gaining it does not give you the powers of Sauron. For example, Gollum never acquires them, and neither of the two hobbits do when wielding the ring. And neither did Isildur, for example. There was no path to Sauron's power, who is a being of a higher order any way.

Gandalf is a PC member of a very-highly gated class. The Witch-King, in D&D terms, roughly equates to an undead monster; and as this is not PC-playable the only thing it needs to be consistent with is other Witch-Kings...and there ain't too many of those.

Someone else in the setting could quite well have become Sauron if Sauron hadn't got there first. Saruman was certainly trying, though he clearly still had a long way to go.

 

[Lanefan]

No, I'm sorry, but claiming that someone is "a Bad DM for railroading by removing player agency" is bad in and of itself. There is no such holy thing as "player agency" and over my rather long TTRPG "career", mu characters have been possessed, charmed, directed and railroaded, and I still had a lot of fun doing it.

Again, you are calling a different playstyle the mark of a "bad DM", and in and of itself, it's bad.

No, it's asking for their preference. After that, as all players in our games, they accept that they will be railroaded now and then, because it's the nature of (epic) stories, and they trust ut to do it to the extent that they are having fun.

Possession, charm, domination, and similar effects are a generally accepted risk in most games; with the main out-clause being that they don't last forever.

Railroading, if done quite infrequently and-or gently, can certainly make for a better game. I mean, a classic example is the transition from A-3 Slave Lords into A-4 Slavers' Dungeon - that transition simply can't happen without the party getting captured; and so the end of A-3 railroads the party into captivity. Fine.

Problem is, there's far too many DMs out there (and I've been guilty at times as well) who simply overdo it.

Once more, if you look at session 0 in Tasha, the basic social contract is laid along the lines of: "The players will allow you to direct the campaign." THere might be different contacts for different tables, but this is the one that I've been playing under all these years, I allow the DM to direct the campaign, meaning that I don't take offense when he dares do so with a bit of railroading.

I agree. The problems arise when the DM wants to go one way and one or more players want to go another (a simple example being the players are biting a different adventure hook than what the DM has prepped); who takes precedence. My own take is that ideally the players' ideas should take precedence in these situations; but it's only a should, not a must.

But it is, the DM is describing that is happening to a specific character, why can't that annoying guy just wait for his turn, instead of butting in, which apparently he does all the time ? Let him wait for his turn, if he needs more information about playing his character, he can always ask it at that point in time.

At our tables, we multiplied the combat resolution speed by at least a factor 3 by not letting players speak out of turn (unless using reactions, etc.). Not all players were culpable of interrupting and making suggestions and generally slowing down the game and hogging the spotlight, but at least it controlled the most annoying ones.

Given this, how can your players engage in any free-flowing in-character conversation during a combat?

And have you ever considered that even expressing disagreement during the game is extremely disruptive ? That the usual advice is to play the game and if really important, bring it up at the end ?

The problem there is that by the end of the session it might be too late to fix whatever's gone wrong without invalidating or needing to ret-con everything that came after the point of dispute.

Far better IMO to sort it out then and there, even if sorting it out consists of no more than people having their say followed by the DM handing down a non-negotiable and precedent-setting ruling.