MichaelSomething
Legend
If the DM could not quell the bad energy, then their game deserved to die.
I believe I am consistent in espousing that the weak should be purged so that the strong can be free to do as they see fit.
D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
- Status
I believe I am consistent in espousing that the weak should be purged so that the strong can be free to do as they see fit.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Fascinating.Your anecdotal evidence is just as good as mine. From what you saw, how did the DM’s denial strain the group mechanic? Was it because the DM was already adversarial toward the players? Was it because the group vibe was “anything goes?” I am genuinely curious to hear more about the circumstances here and exactly how the group dynamic was strained so I can better model interpersonal dynamics at a table should I ever find myself in a similar group.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
I think you misunderstand me. I was not demanding submission. I was merely pointing out in that in my experience - which was admittedly anecdotal - when a DM and a player are at loggerheads, players that back down have found that the issue they thought was a big deal turned out not to be so and that player (never mind other players) had a positive experience, while players that refused to back down had negative experiences. Based on those observations, my conclusion was “assuming you want a positive experience, if you are a player at loggerheads with your DM you should back down.”
As I noted in my previous post though, my anecdotal experience is no more important than yours and since you mentioned you have seen it go the other way, I do not demand you accept my conclusion as our anecdotes should carry equal weight with others but more weight with ourselves since they are our own lived experiences. I would again ask you to look back at the interpersonal dynamics and analyze what caused the negativity as I would like to have a model I can apply to a table if ever I find myself in that situation.
Perhaps more to the point, if I were a player who found myself at loggerheads with a DM, I would almost certainly try to take a step back and self analyze to make sure I know the answer to the question “am I the problem here?” (or if you prefer the Reddit paradigm, ”AITA?”) so I not blithely assume the rightness of my position. I am trying to do the same here to gain an understanding of what group dynamics would result in the scenario you outlined since I don’t have personal experience with it and would rather rely on your experience should I encounter it so I don’t have to find out the hard way.
May I humbly suggest you consider my experience an offer to you to check tables you may play at to see if my model of the dynamics better fits that table and if so, I encourage you to use my experience to help you navigate the dynamics of that table in lieu of having to find things out the hard way yourself. But there is no demand that you do so, merely an offer.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
This is very true, though I would add a caveat to your caveat. Negative energy can metastasize from one player to all the players, especially if it comes from more than one player seeing the DM as inflexible or obstinate. To wit, I agree with “if more than one player sees the DM as inflexible or obstnate” but what happens in the case where “only one player sees the DM that way?” (Most likely the one disagreeing with him.) The assumption seems to be that if one player sees the DM as obstinate or inflexible, at least some other players must surely agree with that assessment - but what happens when they don’t?
Negative energy also metastasizes if only one player sees the DM as obstinate or inflexible, and the rest of the group disagrees, but they see the DM as “not having spine enough to remove the one player that does see the DM that way” (ironic since it means the negative energy is borne of the other players thinking the DM is TOO flexible because they aren’t asking the player that sees the DM as inflexible to leave - I.e., “you can’t please everybody” and now the players have negative energy coming out of diametrically opposed perceptions).
I guess my point the whole time has been:
1 - What an individual player wants should matter.
2 - What a DM wants should matter MORE.
3 - What the group wants should matter MOST.
Based on this I have to say if one player has negative energy, it is the responsibility of the one player to change. If the one Player refuses to change, it is the responsibility of the group (not the DM, though he may often feel obliged to spearhead the effort as many players will defer to the DM to set the norms) to intervene and either correct or remove the player from the group.
Likewise, if most players have negative energy, it is the responsibility of the DM to change. If the DM refuses to change, it is the responsibility of the group to intervene and either correct or remove the DM from the group. For the sake of goodwill, I would suggest such an effort is best spearheaded by a player that is NOT bringing negative energy though this may not always be possible.
Finally, if multiple players - but not a majority - in a group have negative energy, it is best to stage and intervention to discuss and re-set the group expectations (which might result in expulsion but might not). Again, the responsibility to initiate such a conversation probably falls most heavily on the DM, but is probably better led by a player that is not exhibiting negative energy. As a DM, I would probably feel my responsibility is to ask a member not exhibiting negative energy whether or not s/he is willing to initiate the intervention (and if not initiate it, allow me to initiate and then hand the floor to that player to lead as a disinterested third party, preferably asking offline in advance but if the energy were bad enough I might do it mid session).
Put another way, I agree with you that things get bad quickly when a player is reasonable but a DM is inflexibleand obstinate. Do you agree with me that things go bad quickly when a DM is reasonable buta player is inflexible and obsinate? And if so, when there is a disagreement, how do you determine with certainty which one is being inflexible and obstinate?
I myself have been in the position of being an obstinate and inflexible player before and in retrospect that ruined the experience for everyone. I have also been in the position of being and obstinate and inflexible DM before and in retrospect that ALSO ruined the experience for everyone. It is one of the reasons that regardless of whether my role is player or DM I try to make darn sure I am not the problem. When there are issues, I always ask, “am I the problem here” and if I conclude I am the problem (this is where the opinion of trusted friends can help me get better perspective), I back down. Even if I conclude I am not the problem, I generally try to recuse myself because loggerheads this early is indicative my expectations do not match the group and things are likely to flare up again in the future so I may as well not set up a future negative confrontation.
Last edited:
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Oye! This whole thread seems like maybe it should be purged, lol. Facts: it is a group of people wanting to participate together in a mutual entertainment activity. They have 2 choices, they can be selfish and spoilish childs, or they can be reasonable adults who know how to 'figure it out'. Well, obviously many people who play RPGs ARE children, they can be excused for whatever. The rest of you/us probably should act like we are NOT childs. I mean, I played when I was a teenager, lot of stupid stuff went down back then, but even when I play with kids nowadays we all listen to each other. I can imagine someone that can't get along with the group, but it has little or nothing to do with being a GM or a player, specifically....
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Your repeated emphasis on players needing to humble themselves before the GM did not do your message favors, then. Because it very much sounded like you were expecting meek, obedient, docile players. And, further, by reasoning that players advocating for their own interests are necessarily disruptive influences unless the DM graciously agrees...well, I'm not really sure how there's any way to read it except as the claim that a player trying to get things they like is always bad. That sounds, to me, no less biased than saying that "in nearly all situations, some kind of compromise or collaboration can be worked out which means that both the DM and the player get what they really want, and thus in most cases saying no, especially without discussion, is bad and should be avoided." Which has been my message the whole time.
Well, in each case, it was because a player had made a request (sometimes me, sometimes someone else) for something they enjoy, but which the DM had rather dismissive and unkind things to say about that thing. The player then, respectfully, tried to open a dialogue, making (or at least attempting to make) a case for their interest. This was then shut down, immediately, without further discussion--usually with the oft-repeated refrain in threads like this, "The DM has the final say." Effectively, the DM "pulled rank."
It works about as well as when a freshly-appointed commanding officer (or supervisor, or whatever) pulls rank in order to ensure total, unquestioning obedience from their subordinates. Doing that on rare occasions, after having earned the trust and loyalty of their subordinates, is perfectly fine--even expected, to some degree. Beginning your professional relationship with such a naked display of power? Not so great, doubly so when it comes across as pretty arbitrary or even petty (crapping on someone else's fun simply because it isn't your own cup of tea, not because there's actually anything wrong with it.)
I'm honestly not sure what else one can do. As I said, invariably these situations have grown out of someone being derisive of player interests and dismissing any attempt at actual discussion. If someone is hostile to things you like, and refuses to even talk with you about it, how would that make you feel? For me, it makes me question whether that person actually values my input and participation. It makes me feel unwelcome and even, in the most egregious cases, antagonized. Hence why I don't really take "I just dislike that, so nobody gets to play it" very seriously as a (claimed) justification--I have seen it used too many times as the DM equivalent of the craptacular so-called justification, "It's what my character would do!"
Seeing as how I've...basically never actually seen the behavior you describe from people I consider good DMs, it's hard to process. Without fail, every good DM I've worked with has, well, worked with me (or the other person; I am not always the one asking for something unexpected or outside scope). If I(/someone) want something that would be out of place, we have a conversation. They ask what I'm(/they're) looking for, and explain what would be disruptive. I(/they, you get the picture) explain what interests me, and point out stuff that I'm not bothered by losing/giving up/changing/etc. In the vast majority of situations where such a conversation is even necessary, it barely takes more than a quick "alright, talk me through it" and then we work something out immediately. In the few cases where we needed more, it was usually to re-frame things in a new light, remove some particular problematic detail, or emphasize some particular difficulty or drawback (usually in a roleplay sense, but occasionally in a mechanical one) relevant to the campaign premise.
Without fail, every good DM I've ever known has seen "put my foot down"/"pull rank"/"my way or the highway" as a serious failure on their part. As a result, they spend the time to listen, state their own case, and actually discuss things, working toward bringing everyone on for a legitimate consensus, not one voice shouting loud enough to overpower everyone else.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
The bolded has been my point the entire time. Nobody should have license to act like spoiled children. Everyone should view it as their responsibility to work toward consensus. Being a DM doesn't get you a special pass. Being a player doesn't get you a special pass. No special passes.
That means players must always be respectful of DM desires and preferences...and DMs must also always be respectful of player desires and preferences. You show respect for a person's desires and preferences by:
- Not saying disparaging/judgmental things about those desires/preferences
- Sincerely asking what the person values about those things, and accounting for that in your future decisions
- Looking for the parts that matter most, and the parts that are mere incidentals
- Genuinely being open to good-faith alternatives, and providing your own
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Have you ever been in a situation where you wanted to do something in character creation that the DM didn't want, ultimately didn't get to do that thing, but stayed in the game anyway and had a positive experience? In short, is every DM who doesn't say yes to what you're asking for (eventually/mostly/whatever) a bad GM in your eyes?
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Have I?
No. Not that I can think of. Not when I was on the player side of things, anyway. In large part because of one critical phrase, emphasis added:
Because there are a lot of ways to "ultimately" do something. Many of them involve doing it in a very different way than you originally conceived, or achieving it only over time, or by a means you had never considered, or in some other way being like, and yet also unlike, what you originally thought.
That's the essence of reaching consensus. Both sides ultimately get what they want. Neither side defeats the other, unless you consider peaceful coexistence and cooperation a form of "defeating" someone. You are bringing to this the notion that the only "ultimate" end is one where one side gets everything they want and the other side gets none of what they want. Such zero-sum thinking is largely incorrect when it comes to pastimes where imagination is the primary involved activity and leisure time is the primary expended resource.
That is not, and cannot be, "in short" for the above. They are completely different things. The former is about my personal experience with DMs, and how they have handled such interactions. The latter is--as so many have done--trying to turn that into "oh, so every possible way of saying no is wrong?"
I've already said--repeatedly--that there are ways to do this right. I just haven't actually seen people use them. I have given my players, for example, one such way of saying no: "I do not run games for evil PCs. This is not because I don't want you to run evil PCs. It is because I know I am not capable of running an enjoyable campaign for evil characters. The things I am able to do that motivate and reward character behaviors won't work for truly, sincerely evil characters. If you want to play someone who was evil but is seeking redemption, even if they stumble along the way, that's perfectly fine. Or someone that is good, but suffers terrible temptation (and may, on occasion, succumb to it), that's fine too. But someone who is just evil and comfortable with that...I can't give you what you need for that."
You will notice, here, that this has nothing--at all--to do with player preferences. It is purely and exclusively an issue of the limit of my capabilities as DM. I do not personally choose to play evil PCs for, pretty much, the same reason--it is not that I dislike them (some evil characters are actually quite compelling), it is that I will, sooner or later (and likely sooner), suffer an irreconcilable breakdown in my ability to roleplay such a character. I can do it with villain characters as DM, because I don't identify with any of them; I cannot help but identify with a character I am roleplaying, to at least a moderate degree, and it is simply not in me to identify with true, unrepentant evil.
I am, probably unsurprisingly, rather skeptical of the idea that any DM is, in any way, incapable of running a game which happens to include at least one reptilian character that might have some kind of similarity or connection to dragons. I in fact find the very notion hilarious--that a single scale-covered character would actually shut down a DM's ability to run a game? Yeah, I find that idea quite funny, like a DM incapable of running games for a character who wears yellow (guess they went to Green Lantern DM school).
I further find the notion, "I am incapable of running a game that accounts for my players' preferences" ludicrous--mostly because that statement reads identically to "I am incapable of running a good game." Noting, of course, that "accounting for" is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOT the same as "perfectly kowtowing to the instant anything is said."
Because, as I said repeatedly but which apparently has always been ignored, nobody gets a pass for acting like a petulant child. Nobody gets license for "my way or the highway." Nobody has unlimited agency. N o b o d y.
I don't really follow your "inability" to GM for evil PCs - I mean, for a start, wouldn't the motivation normally come from the players of those PCs, rather than the GM?
But if we allow that such a thing is possible, then why could it not apply to other "modes of being" for PCs, including reptilian ones. After all, PC race is more than just the colour of their outfit, isn't it?
- Status
