D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

[MGibster]

Fair enough. I do wonder about your decision to so instantly end a campaign that you had obviously put work into. That seems odd, but as you point out, I wasn't there. Was this kind of a final straw situation where you realized that you and the players were just not copacetic and it was never going to work?

Okay, I'm going to address this one last time. I have said multiple times that it was the camel that broke the straw's back. Or maybe the straw that broke the camel's back. I forget which, but you can look at my posts and see I used that phrase more than once. And just so I'm clear in my communication, for the edification of those who might not know, the straw that broke the camel's back is what's known as an idiom, or a colloquialism, meaning the phrase is understood to have a meaning other than what it would literally seem. i.e. When you shoot the breeze you're not really shooting anything. Well, okay, you could be shooting your mouth off. Look, it gets complicated.

In this particular case, there was a series of incidents prior to the PCs deciding to murder an NPC. The murder of the NPC was preceded by other incidents before I finally made the decision to pull the plug on the camapaign. I wasn't having fun and didn't think it was worth salvaging.

I too got curious and offered to consider different perspectives. But MGibster appears to not want to discuss. He's fine with ditching his players on the assumption they're simple murder hobos even though it is possible (if not outright likely) he's just losing friends over a misunderstanding.

You weren't there and you're trying to tell me what happened. The unmitigated gall is difficult to believe.

 

[Lanefan]

You weren't there and you're trying to tell me what happened. The unmitigated gall is difficult to believe.

You're right - we weren't there.

That said, I don't think it's gall to recognize we're only hearing your version of the story and ask how - or if at all - the players might have seen it differently.

 

[Hussar]

Or, instead of trying to second guess someone, we could just accept their version as an example of why mismatched assumptions can be a big problem and not dive down the second guessing rabbit hole for a change.

After all, the example was just that. An example. Not the actual point of the conversation.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry for posting twice in a row like this, but a further thought occurs.

I think it really does need to be hammered home more clearly and much more DMing advice devoted to how to recognize when you should not be DMing for this or that particular group. Because, AFAIK, there's virtually nothing said about this. There's lots about recognizing different playstyles and whatnot and that's great. But, the presumption always seems to be that the DM should be the one to change gears and be a "neutral arbiter". I really reject that.

Neutral arbiter in the sense of being a neutral judge of events in the game? Sure. I am all for that. You shouldn't play favorites nor should you be the antagonist as the DM. You should try to be as neutral as possible.

But neutral in that you should have no preferences for how the game is played? Bugger that. I've gamed far, FAR too long trying to be a "good DM" for groups where I had no business running games. Mismatches in playstyles that are so broad that no compromise is realistically possible. And I spent frustrating session after frustrating session trying to meet in the middle, only to get nowhere.

So, yeah, I do think there should be a chapter in the DMG, or at least a few pages, for "How to recognize that this is an salvageable situation and what to do with it." You SHOULD walk away from groups where you aren't having fun. And you shouldn't feel like it's entirely on the DM to not have any preferences and only present games that the players want to play.

Bugger that.

 

[payn]

Sorry for posting twice in a row like this, but a further thought occurs.

I think it really does need to be hammered home more clearly and much more DMing advice devoted to how to recognize when you should not be DMing for this or that particular group. Because, AFAIK, there's virtually nothing said about this. There's lots about recognizing different playstyles and whatnot and that's great. But, the presumption always seems to be that the DM should be the one to change gears and be a "neutral arbiter". I really reject that.

Neutral arbiter in the sense of being a neutral judge of events in the game? Sure. I am all for that. You shouldn't play favorites nor should you be the antagonist as the DM. You should try to be as neutral as possible.

But neutral in that you should have no preferences for how the game is played? Bugger that. I've gamed far, FAR too long trying to be a "good DM" for groups where I had no business running games. Mismatches in playstyles that are so broad that no compromise is realistically possible. And I spent frustrating session after frustrating session trying to meet in the middle, only to get nowhere.

So, yeah, I do think there should be a chapter in the DMG, or at least a few pages, for "How to recognize that this is an salvageable situation and what to do with it." You SHOULD walk away from groups where you aren't having fun. And you shouldn't feel like it's entirely on the DM to not have any preferences and only present games that the players want to play.

Bugger that.

Doesn’t seem like a good business move to instruct folks how to blow up groups. I think this is just one of those you know it when you know it situations.

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay, I'm going to address this one last time. I have said multiple times that it was the camel that broke the straw's back.

You weren't there and you're trying to tell me what happened. The unmitigated gall is difficult to believe.

No we aren't.

Why are you so incredibly defensive on this? You keep interpreting genuinely helpful advice - or at least that's the intent - as if we're throwing shade and suspicion at you??

You don't need our permission to end your campaign. You don't need to explain to us a crash-landed campaign. Why do you act like you expected us to support or cheer for your decision?

Normally in cases like this ending the campaign early is considered a failure, so we naturally assume you wanted help possibly salvaging the campaign. Not the other way around.

We're not telling you how things went down. We're trying to be open to the possibility you might have looked at it from one angle and your players from another - an angle where they weren't simply murder-hoboing that woman NPC.

Do we know this? No. Do we believe this over your version. Again no! We're just trying to paint a picture which might explain how your players' actions weren't intended to be interpreted as murder-hoboing.

Why would we do that? Again, because when this sort of dilemma pops up, most often the pointer thinks of it as failure, and wants to know if there's anything that can be done to fix it.

Now stop assuming we are out to get you or that we think you are wrong! I'm convinced you believe your interpretation is factually correct, the only question is if your interpretation is the only one, or if the players acted under very different assumptions.

 

[CapnZapp]

Or, instead of trying to second guess someone, we could just accept their version as an example of why mismatched assumptions can be a big problem and not dive down the second guessing rabbit hole for a change.

After all, the example was just that. An example. Not the actual point of the conversation.

MGibster could also just not respond when Lanefan and others reach out a hand to help, much less try to bite that hand...

Anyway, let's return to the thread's original purpose.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry for posting twice in a row like this, but a further thought occurs.

I think it really does need to be hammered home more clearly and much more DMing advice devoted to how to recognize when you should not be DMing for this or that particular group. Because, AFAIK, there's virtually nothing said about this. There's lots about recognizing different playstyles and whatnot and that's great. But, the presumption always seems to be that the DM should be the one to change gears and be a "neutral arbiter". I really reject that.

Neutral arbiter in the sense of being a neutral judge of events in the game? Sure. I am all for that. You shouldn't play favorites nor should you be the antagonist as the DM. You should try to be as neutral as possible.

But neutral in that you should have no preferences for how the game is played? Bugger that. I've gamed far, FAR too long trying to be a "good DM" for groups where I had no business running games. Mismatches in playstyles that are so broad that no compromise is realistically possible. And I spent frustrating session after frustrating session trying to meet in the middle, only to get nowhere.

So, yeah, I do think there should be a chapter in the DMG, or at least a few pages, for "How to recognize that this is an salvageable situation and what to do with it." You SHOULD walk away from groups where you aren't having fun. And you shouldn't feel like it's entirely on the DM to not have any preferences and only present games that the players want to play.

Bugger that.

Yes, sometimes you need to actually say the words. What is obvious to you might not be to your players. Session zero, and all that.

And sometimes it still goes wrong, and the issue becomes whether you can realize in time that there probably is a misunderstanding, or a case where different assumptions leads to very different interpretations.

Thanks

 

[MichaelSomething]

You're right - we weren't there.

That said, I don't think it's gall to recognize we're only hearing your version of the story and ask how - or if at all - the players might have seen it differently.

Which is why I advocate for Enworlders to stream their games. It's a crime that people can see us run games! They could learn so much if they see masters of their craft at work.

 

[Hussar]

Doesn’t seem like a good business move to instruct folks how to blow up groups. I think this is just one of those you know it when you know it situations.

I can see that. But, I don't think it's a bad thing to acknowledge either. After all, it does nothing to help the business for people to get frustrated, to the point where they blow up the group and then leave the hobby. I know that's what happened to me. I quit running for a group after years of frustration and just took a break entirely.

I'm fairly sure that "I had really negative experiences" ranks pretty high with people who drop out of the hobby.

But, yeah, not sure if WotC is the one who should be talking about this, but, I do think it's a subject that has some legs that wouldn't hurt to see talked about more often. It's kinda bizarre really. If you don't enjoy playing golf with Dave, then, well, you just don't golf with Dave. It's generally not a big deal. But, telling someone, "I'm sorry, but, I don't like playing elf games with you" seems to be incredibly difficult.

At least, it's really difficult for me.