D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Oofta]

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"?

There's no special protection. But as a DM why should I allow any behavior even if it destroys the enjoyment of the game for me?

Everyone has limits whether they admit them or not. If I'm playing a druid that shapeshifts into a monkey, I can't imagine any group putting up with my extreme roleplaying as I jump up on the table and start throwing feces at fellow players. Hopefully the extreme roleplaying example won't happen in the first place but if it did I can rest pretty safe knowing that the perpetrator wouldn't be part of the group any longer. I've been in games where there was truly disturbing and graphic imagery shared by one of the players and the DM didn't stop it. It was the last time I played with that group.

If a game isn't for me, I'm not going to play any more. If I'm DMing I can either disallow certain behavior, which may mean a player leaves, or I can stop DMing for that group. This idea that DMs should allow any behavior at their table is just foreign to me. It's also BS. Everybody has limits.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I do appreciate the implication that such a DM is to fragile of ego to handle conflict in the same way the other players are expected to though.

This is why more people need to learn to DM: such DMs would be easily game-stared to evolution or extinction.

 

[Faolyn]

Which is an actually useful description as opposed to evil.

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

You're rather assuming that people like who say "I don't GM for evil PCs" don't actually explain what they mean by evil to their players.

If they don't explain, and end up using it as a hammer to get rid of people for any ol' reason, well, then that's a good reason to not play with that GM again.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

There's a big difference between what's allowed in the game and what's allowed at the table. Those are two separate things with two separate sets of social codes. You need to be at the table as a player in order to be in the game as a character.

That's why I brought up lines and veils. If you have a "no rape or torture" policy at the table, that means that neither the GM nor the PCs should be using rape or torture. Doing so breaks the table's rules. Your character can rape or torture because the game allows it (or at least doesn't disallow it), but the player can go do it a different table.

Just like if you're the most wonderful roleplayer in the world, but you're a jerk in real life, you're not welcome at my table.

 

[Faolyn]

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 players have an awful GM, then they shouldn't play with them either.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This idea that DMs should allow any behavior at their table is just foreign to me. It's also BS. Everybody has limits.

Name one person who actually argued this point.

 

[Oofta]

Name one person who actually argued this point.

You just stated:

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?

How is the DM in your statement being deliberately rude? When has anyone ever said anything about a rude DM other than to acknowledge that if a DM is rude I won't continue playing at that table?

Or how about

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"?

Seems really, really condescending and dismissive of people who don't allow evil PCs. Everybody has limits on how they will engage with others at the game table and what makes the game not enjoyable for them.

Or are you saying that my extreme RPer monkey scenario would be allowed at your table? If the answer is "no", which I assume it is because I acknowledge that it's an extreme example, then you also draw the line somewhere. Where different people draw the line is up to them.

 

[Lanefan]

I was using the sport analogy because that was what Lanefan used. It applies just as much to narrative challenge, hence my references to things like growth and changing who and what yoy are, which is mostly irrelevant to sporting.

And yes, sometimes just rolling over a challenge is great! Sometimes fleeing to fight another day is great!

But terminating the story is not great. It's actually really boring. Hence, don't make that one of the available failure states. Let there be real failure! Without it, the story is dull. But don't use "and thus nothing else happened forever" as a failure state, because then the story is dull too.

Depends. If one is in fact looking to wind up a campaign then having the potential for a hard end state is very useful.

It's why "save the world" plots are so boring, unless used as vehicles for other, more interesting developments. Because no story actually worth reading will let that failure happen. Just deleting the world entirely is a narrative dead-end and deeply unsatisfying. But if we know the world will be saved, then dangling "the world is in danger!!1!one!" in the audience's face is pointless.

Yes, which means - and I'm paraphrasing @Clint_L here from another thread - don't make threats you're not prepared to deliver.

If the world is at stake and they mess it up then the world ends, or enters a cataclysm, or whatever; and maybe remains playable afterwards but is vastly different: it becomes some sort of post-apocalyptic setting. So be it. If I put that threat on the table it means I'm willing and ready to see it through if that's how things end up going. In other words, calling my bluff is a very poor strategy.

Random, irrevocable permadeath is fine, if you're cool with completely unsatisfying endings in 90% of cases. I'm not. I'm here for a cool story that even I as GM don't know where it will go or how it will end. (I may know some bits before the others do, but I don't know what those bits will mean until they do too.) So I don't make dull, pointless consequences—or "nonsequences," if you'll grant me the terrible wordplay. Only roll the dice if consequences for both success AND failure are interesting. Random, irrevocable permadeath is usually not an interesting consequence. Thus, I won't generally roll for it.

But that doesn't mean death isn't an option. It just means:
It won't be irrevocable (you can be raised, but what terrible cost might be paid to do so? What dark alliance might have to be made to secure your revival?), or
It won't be permanent (you'll come back...but what will your allies suffer in your absence? What goals might fail because your critical aid was missing?), or
It won't be random (either you as player accept the death and choose to roll with that as an interesting consequence along the way, or you decide this is a good stopping point for your participation in the game and thus stop playing.)

Once the PCs gather enough resources to make revival effects an option, I'm fine with those resources being used. But low-level types often simply can't afford revival effects, and so...

All of these are simply more interesting than "you failed to avoid being gutted by the kobold. You are now dead, and nothing you cared about matters to anyone else now. Roll up a new character. Hopefully this one lasts longer."

...there's a lot of this, as the wheat slowly rises from the chaff.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You're rather assuming that people like who say "I don't GM for evil PCs" don't actually explain what they mean by evil to their players.

If they don't explain, and end up using it as a hammer to get rid of people for any ol' reason, well, then that's a good reason to not play with that GM again.

Based on observations, whenever a DM says 'No Evil PCs' they mean one of three things:

1) I don't actually have any consideration toward morality and actually just mean 'disruptive', following a woefully lacking social shorthand that will eventually lead to my game being disrupted by non-evil disruptions like lawful stupid and making sure no one gets to play more nuanced 'evil' that wouldn't be disruptive.

2) I do have a consideration about morality and assume everyone follows my morality, which will end up disrupting the game when I discover otherwise and can't handle it. There's also a good chance some of my 'good' can easily be read as nuanced evil.

3) I aggressively have a consideration toward morality and know that not everyone follows my morality. I will therefore use the word 'evil' as a cudgel against those people until they at least ct that way I expect them to in game. This will probably end up disrupting my game because my 'good' is almost certainly disruptive.

 

[Lanefan]

There's a big difference between what's allowed in the game and what's allowed at the table. Those are two separate things with two separate sets of social codes. You need to be at the table as a player in order to be in the game as a character.

That's why I brought up lines and veils. If you have a "no rape or torture" policy at the table, that means that neither the GM nor the PCs should be using rape or torture. Doing so breaks the table's rules. Your character can rape or torture because the game allows it (or at least doesn't disallow it), but the player can go do it a different table.

I see what you're saying and recognize the difference between player and character, but my take on it is that what happens in character stays in character - you can play the biggest jerkface of a character the world has ever known but that doesn't have to reflect on you-as-its-player provided you-as-player aren't a jerk when out of character.

I've seen this many a time.

Just like if you're the most wonderful roleplayer in the world, but you're a jerk in real life, you're not welcome at my table.

My concern is when that formula gets flipped around; when someone who is wonderful in real life gets flayed for playing a complete jerk of a character.

In short: the ability and willingness to roleplay a jerk does not in itself make a player a jerk.