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

[DEFCON 1]

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

Well, if the alternative is "whine and complain to WotC to get them to change the rules to something I want so that I don't HAVE to talk to my players"... I for one am glad WotC chooses to ignore those people.

If a person wants their game to be a certain way, then they need to do it themselves. No one should expect to be able to shove that responsibility back onto WotC.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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".

Yep. And those DMs should stand tall and tell their entitled players to take a flying leap.

Now if everyone-- DM and players-- wants to compromise... that's the best case scenario. But like I said... that involves everyone being an adult (or an adult-like person) and talking to one another. If a person can't handle that... it ain't WotC's job to make life easier for that person.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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).

Yeah, well, that's the risk someone takes by having exceedingly narrow likes and dislikes. If one wants to play, sometimes they need to expand their horizons a bit.

 

[KYRON45]

But if we try sometimes, we get what we need.

There are already plenty of people who don't like me, i don't need to go looking for more.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, if the alternative is "whine and complain to WotC to get them to change the rules to something I want so that I don't HAVE to talk to my players"... I for one am glad WotC chooses to ignore those people.

If a person wants their game to be a certain way, then they need to do it themselves. No one should expect to be able to shove that responsibility back onto WotC.

Like I say "communication is hard". Its not a surprise a lot of people would just like the problem to go away. In particular when they see the situation as a consequence of decisions made by outside forces, yelling about that is a counterproductive, but in the end, entirely predictable response.

 

[Umbran]

True, on either side. I'll say it again: a game run by a GM who isn't enjoying it won't last long.

If you are saying it again, you've perhaps missed the point.

Yes, OMG, if the GM isn't happy the game will end! If the players aren't happy, the game will also end.

The obvious result is that BOTH SIDES need to be a bit flexible. And maybe need to find new groups if they find they can't compromise.

This is not rocket surgery, or some surprising new insight.

How willing to compromise must a GM be willing to be?

How much? 17. Exactly 17 Wheedles. The "Wheedle" is the International Diplomacy Standard Unit of compromise, named after George C. Wheedle, top negotiatior for the now defunct League of Nations.

Which is my way of saying, geeze, maybe frame the question in a way that has an actual answer?

I think there is a better question that will get a more useful answer: Why is the GM running a game at all?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, well, that's the risk someone takes by having exceedingly narrow likes and dislikes. If one wants to play, sometimes they need to expand their horizons a bit.

Though at least when it comes to FTF play, it can come down to having relatively broad likes, but ones that just are still out of sync with the available pool. As an example, there are places that if you don't want to play D&D, good luck, even if there's two dozen other game systems you're willing to run.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I just dropped in and checked the most recent pages.

So ... did we solve the Rule of Cool debate?

 

[payn]

I just dropped in and checked the most recent pages.

So ... did we solve the Rule of Cool debate?

Yeap. Use it if you like, dont if you dont.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeap. Use it if you like, dont if you dont.