D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

This just seems to be 100% pure preference.

Some players feel more invested in a setting they helped create or ARE helping create as they go. The setting feels more "real" and more a product of their own.

Others feel that they want to have their character and their character only affect the setting, the rest is for the DM. Anything else takes them out of the setting because they don't WANT to look behind the curtain much less contribute to what's behind it.

It's like someone who dislikes strawberries because they've tried them at various times and with various pairings and just don't like them.

At that point, no amount of "you just haven't had them correctly..." will matter and will just irritate the person.

I specifically said it was a preference thing.

 

[Faolyn]

Is it?

One could argue - and I will, just for kicks - that there's sometimes a case to be made that the one to boot is the one who is trying to impose the limitation rather than the one who is violating said limitation.

I had this come up many a time in much younger years when two (or more) people would be friends of mine but weren't getting along with each other. Eventually one of them would say to me something like "You've gotta choose which one of us you're gonna hang around with", and almost invariably my response would be to choose against the one who had tried to limit my friendships by forcing that choice.

Same principle applies here, unless the 'X' people are being asked not to do runs well beyond the bounds of common decency. If a player says "Don't do X" where X is something fairly harmless (e.g. speaking with a funny accent for a character, playing a character sub-optimally, etc.) I'm going to be looking far harder at the player making that request than at the player to whom the request is made; and even more so if it comes down to a "him or me in the game" choice. You force that choice, you're very very likely going to lose.

Indeed, but there was also nothing in the rules (in 1e anyway) banning me from choosing to play any one of the nine alignments; nor was there anything banning me from playing a character of any given personality. Which meant, I could play a happy-go-lucky chaotic-evil airhead and the game couldn't stop me...unless I tried to play a class that wouldn't accept my alignment (e.g. Ranger, Paladin).

Sure, that makes sense.

But. Let's talk about funny accents. What sort of accent? If one person puts on a funny accent in an otherwise serious game, it may destroy everyone else's immersion. I have that problem with another player in my group who likes to give her characters extremely silly names, and it drives me crazy because I'm trying to play a more serious game. And that's not even getting into that sometimes, "funny accents" are actually rather nasty and sometimes bigoted stereotypes. Back in college, there were always a few players who would put on "swishy gay" or "ghetto Ebonics" voices for characters, not because it was appropriate for the character but because it was funny to make fun of those voices. So if someone is upset because you put on a "funny accent," they may have a perfectly legitimate reason to be upset.

But we're not talking about that. What we're talking about is, quite frankly, well within the bounds of common decency. If someone says "don't do this thing," and you continue to do that thing, then there's a very good chance you're being very rude and possibly deliberately so. Obviously what this thing is is going to depend heavily on the circumstances but still. Why be deliberately rude?

And really what we're really talking about is that if the GM says "I don't run for evil characters," and someone decides their character is going to be evil, then they're breaking the GM's rules. The GM is not obligated to run for you. The game may allow it, but the GM isn't the game. If you don't like it, run your own game.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't think lines and veils normally work under the description "evil".

Ish. If there's a line that says "no rape, no torture, no killing children," then it really doesn't matter if it's a player or the GM who makes that line. There are things I wouldn't include in the games I run (such as rape) even if everyone at my table was OK with it, because it's my line as a GM.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why be deliberately rude?

More importantly, why is deliberate rudeness on the players' part always apparently the most important and relevant thing, but deliberate rudeness on the DM's part should never ever be considered and is a totally irrelevant aberration?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ish. If there's a line that says "no rape, no torture, no killing children," then it really doesn't matter if it's a player or the GM who makes that line. There are things I wouldn't include in the games I run (such as rape) even if everyone at my table was OK with it, because it's my line as a GM.

Which is an actually useful description as opposed to evil.

"Your character lied! EVIL! Fall. Now."

 

[Stalker0]

Yes, there are ways to make it work.

But, IMO doing it to "teach the players a lesson..." is never a good reason to do it and is highly, highly unlikely to get a good result.

I mean sure, if the dm gets surly and snarky as he is smacking the PCs around it’s not a good experience. The covenant is that the dm gets great power and should use it to enhance the story, not to invoke a power fantasy.

But on the flip side, if the players legitimately think they can kill who they want with impunity…that subtracts from the immersion of a believable world. In a believable world actions do have consequences, and if the PCs need to learn that lesson so be it.

The key of course is do it in a way that enhances the story. Creating a high level murder machine isn’t very interesting. Creating a foil party to the PCs with their own interests, ones who would interact with the PCs…that can create some cool unique scenarios

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, that makes sense.

But. Let's talk about funny accents. What sort of accent? If one person puts on a funny accent in an otherwise serious game, it may destroy everyone else's immersion. I have that problem with another player in my group who likes to give her characters extremely silly names, and it drives me crazy because I'm trying to play a more serious game. And that's not even getting into that sometimes, "funny accents" are actually rather nasty and sometimes bigoted stereotypes. Back in college, there were always a few players who would put on "swishy gay" or "ghetto Ebonics" voices for characters, not because it was appropriate for the character but because it was funny to make fun of those voices. So if someone is upset because you put on a "funny accent," they may have a perfectly legitimate reason to be upset.

But we're not talking about that. What we're talking about is, quite frankly, well within the bounds of common decency. If someone says "don't do this thing," and you continue to do that thing, then there's a very good chance you're being very rude and possibly deliberately so. Obviously what this thing is is going to depend heavily on the circumstances but still. Why be deliberately rude?

And really what we're really talking about is that if the GM says "I don't run for evil characters," and someone decides their character is going to be evil, then they're breaking the GM's rules. The GM is not obligated to run for you. The game may allow it, but the GM isn't the game. If you don't like it, run your own game.

Sure, but as @pemerton says, this is an issue of being clear and honest about what your preferences mean. In this case, you are saying that the consequence of playing an evil character in this game is that you no longer control that character. Since D&D as written allows evil characters, you are in fact restricting the actions of the PCs, personally, in a stricter fashion than the game itself does.

Now, this has nothing to do with the value of restricting evil PCs. Just the fact of it and what it means.

 

[Oofta]

This just seems to be 100% pure preference.

Some players feel more invested in a setting they helped create or ARE helping create as they go. The setting feels more "real" and more a product of their own.

Others feel that they want to have their character and their character only affect the setting, the rest is for the DM. Anything else takes them out of the setting because they don't WANT to look behind the curtain much less contribute to what's behind it.

It's like someone who dislikes strawberries because they've tried them at various times and with various pairings and just don't like them.

At that point, no amount of "you just haven't had them correctly..." will matter and will just irritate the person.

It goes both ways. I prefer D&D's approach which includes the DM being final arbiter of the rules and author of the world the game occurs in, I want death of my PC to be a possibility. Other people want collaborative story telling, think that DM having final say is inherently bad or think that PC death is awful.

Ultimately all of us are just talking about preferences.

 

[Oofta]

More importantly, why is deliberate rudeness on the players' part always apparently the most important and relevant thing, but deliberate rudeness on the DM's part should never ever be considered and is a totally irrelevant aberration?

If the DM is rude the players always have the option to walk away. I have.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the DM is rude the players always have the option to walk away. I have.

Okay. Why does the DM need special protection from rude players, but players should just put up, shut up, or walk away from rude DMs?

Why, when it seems there should be other options, are we left with "accept absolutely everything that the DM happens to fancy, or nuke the game from orbit"?