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

[Thomas Shey]

Except a lot of folks here seem to think the DM shouldn't get to have a game in exactly the way they want it to be run, because then they're a "tyrant".

Well, sometimes they are. People just have a functional response to that in the end.

 

[KYRON45]

"Should" is doing some heavy lifting there. That could end up being less attractive than simply not playing at all.

Yes...that is the point. We don't always get what we want.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough, but rules that simulate genre conventions and narrative tropes are NOT the only kinds of rules that aren't "harmful to the game".

I have not said to the contrary. But Lanefan made a very general statement as phrased, and I wanted to note that might be a true statement from his specific point of view, but as a general statement it was nonsensical. Rules can serve all kinds of purposes; representing the in-world reality of the situation is only one of them, and not even the most important one to many people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How many of those DMs end up with no players because their play style has alienated most of their available players? Or put differently, what good is having the perfect game if there is no one but the DM to experience it?

As I noted, if the particular things are important enough to them, that may be a more attractive option than running a game they simply don't want to run. As I've noted before, if my option was to run D&D 5e by the book or not run, I'd do the latter. The assumption that all elements of a campaign setup are negotiable is only true for people who do not have things they find unacceptable. Its just that they have to accept that the available pool of players may be unwilling to eat what they're serving.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes...that is the point. We don't always get what we want.

And sometimes the acceptable response to that is simply to do without. Playing/running a game is not food; if you don't do it, you won't starve to death.

 

[KYRON45]

And sometimes the acceptable response to that is simply to do without. Playing/running a game is not food; if you don't do it, you won't starve to death.

We keep agreeing with one another.

 

[Remathilis]

As I noted, if the particular things are important enough to them, that may be a more attractive option than running a game they simply don't want to run. As I've noted before, if my option was to run D&D 5e by the book or not run, I'd do the latter. The assumption that all elements of a campaign setup are negotiable is only true for people who do not have things they find unacceptable. Its just that they have to accept that the available pool of players may be unwilling to eat what they're serving.

We used to say that "no D&D is better than bad D&D". Still, the best DMs took their players experience and expectations into account, the worst shouted their game philosophy at us while we packed up and left.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We keep agreeing with one another.

My only suggestion is a GM who is inflexible and has a very old school top-down approach shouldn't be surprised if at some point that leaves him with no players--and that I don't necessarily consider them presenting an ultimatum on that fact inappropriate, since it might be salutary to make it clear not everyone buys the "GM is God" thing as a given. If that leads him to pitching them, and then not being able to find others, it might be helpful to do some introspection and decide if that actually is an acceptable tradeoff to not changing things up. It may well be.

But the kicker is, you don't get to get soggy because people are not willing to play exactly what you're offering, either. And I see plenty of that around here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We used to say that "no D&D is better than bad D&D". Still, the best DMs took their players experience and expectations into account, the worst shouted their game philosophy at us while we packed up and left.

Yup. As I've noted, the only problem with "no gaming is better than bad gaming" is that some people seem to use a definition of "bad" that is, to say the least, awfully expansive. That's their right, but then, they don't get to be all huffy about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How many of those DMs end up with no players because their play style has alienated most of their available players? Or put differently, what good is having the perfect game if there is no one but the DM to experience it?

Don't know. I don't really have a problem finding players. Is this a real problem in the real world, or just something people who seem to dislike the role of GM in general talk about?