D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Thomas Shey]

Unfortunately... the concept of 'Talk to your players' is one that too many people just can't handle.

Talking to people is often hard for various reasons in various contexts. Game tables aren't alone in this regard.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Only if you let it be. If that's what the DM wants....maybe switch up DMs. If the problem is that the players don't like how the DM runs the game....what's stopping someone else from DMing? If the problem is some players are getting their way and some players aren't.....that has nothing to do with the rule of anything.

Nothing to say about the rest--but the answer about "what's stopping someone else from DMing?" is "Because they want to play, not DM." The two experiences are not similar and disliking the way someone else DMs does not mean you'd find taking over the job a satisfactory solution.

 

[Thomas Shey]

All valid reasons why someone might not want to DM. Only downside though is that it restricts the types of games a person is able to play, because they are at the mercy of the person who does step up to DM.

The biggest advantage of being a DM is that you get to have a game in exactly the way you want it to be run. Unfortunately though, you just don't get to play a PC in it.

Well, and depending on what exactly you want your game to be like, you may not be able to find players (at least in sufficient numbers).

 

[Thomas Shey]

DM PCs are a bad idea in general.

It depends. Sometimes they can be a good solution for a desirable role in a campaign no one wants to fill. Sometimes you can patch over that by letting someone play two characters, sometimes not. It has a bad rep mostly because too many GMs who do it can't resist the opportunity to grandstand with it, but its not intrinsically bad, at least in a trad game.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

In a world full of crazy wizards that can store their essence in a used peanut butter jar for later use, hippo men fly spaceships and sentient slimes live in underground complexes...I think its safe to say that the word "impossible" is heavy handed.

How about "inconceivable"?

 

[Remathilis]

How about "inconceivable"?

Obligatory

 

[KYRON45]

How about "inconceivable"?

The problem with inconceivable is that once you ask if something is inconceivable or not, you have already conceived it....so it is no longer inconceivable.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The problem with inconceivable is that once you ask if something is inconceivable or not, you have already conceived it....so it is no longer inconceivable.

the problem with inconcieveable is that once you ask if something is inconcieveable or not you've opened the doors to endless princess bride quotes and references.

 

[KYRON45]

Nothing to say about the rest--but the answer about "what's stopping someone else from DMing?" is "Because they want to play, not DM." The two experiences are not similar and disliking the way someone else DMs does not mean you'd find taking over the job a satisfactory solution.

So if someone doesn't or won't DM, shouldn't that mean that to some degree they are at the mercy of the DM? I'm sure people will pull their hair out over that statement. But at the point of adjudication the DM usually has the final say otherwise every game would bog down. D&D by socratic method doesn't sound like something I would enjoy.

If something is happening when you are playing that doesn't appeal to you; communicate with the group. At which point you either come to consensus as a group....grumble under your breath (or on a forum) or leave the group. Were all playing voluntarily.

 

[KYRON45]

Well, and depending on what exactly you want your game to be like, you may not be able to find players (at least in sufficient numbers).

At which point you should conform to the groups that you can find.