D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

It's funny, hardline DMs want players beholden and answering to those almighty figures able to punish both in-narrative and the mechanics and those power figures are all played by...said DM! No ways the player has any say in this, that would be toxic bullying!

Surprise, surprise.

And petulant players who want to ignore the setting entirely and just do whatever they want without consequence are toxic crybabies and the ruination of many games. Just go.

Both of these statements are true some of the time. Neither is true all of the time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, I view this is a huge violation of the player's agency on par with 'your character wouldn't do that'.

How so? The player controls their PC, and the DM controls the deity.

 

[Xenolith234]

It's a collaborative game, not a battle. No one is supposed to have the upper hand.

I see, however, that Crawford seems to design from this place - rules to protect the players from badwrongfun DMs.

 

[Scribe]

Greek myth, with it's deities who punish Arachne, Narcussis, and Orpheus, are still taught in schools.

Yeah but even that is different that the more Judeo-Christian take, and how Clerics are more typically (imo) conveyed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, but it speaks to the mindset they have in that the players should have the upper hand over their DM.

Show me these players. These players who think that they get to decide what all NPCs do and override everything on the DM's side of the screen.

I am only aware of two players who have ever had the upper hand over the DM - one used to badger him into running one on one sessions for their 15th level wizard 3.X PC when he was getting bored. (For some reason I did not invite that player to my game after the initial meeting). The other was the DM's girlfriend.

The main issue is whether DMs should be allowed to make players beg to use their character's abilities or whether the player has any in setting power at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I see nothing of value lost.

Which is a great example of how this all turns on nothing more substantial than personal preference.

 

[TiQuinn]

The DMG that actually talks about things like how the gm can't take away divine powers for going against a cleric's god and how the bastions are off limits to the gm? That kind of disregard for the GM is reflected in those kinds of restrictions that only function to make it difficult for a reasonable gm to pull those kinds of strings while they do nothing to stop the kind of bad DMs you and a couple others keep bringing up from being bad DMs.

It's a lot easier for the GM to give players something good that they might not normally have than it is to take it away or harm it when that's been marked as off limits.

Again, with the player vs DM viewpoint. Couldn’t possibly be from the standpoint of fairness and enjoyment for the players and avoidance of conflict - yes, they’ve had to undo a lot of bad habits from previous editions.

 

[TwoSix]

No, but it speaks to the mindset they (Crawford specifically) have in that the players should have the upper hand over their DM.

This is almost certainly false. It was theater, pure and simple.

 

[Xenolith234]

This is almost certainly false. It was theater, pure and simple.

If it was theater, where does Crawford post things that say “this is really going to make the players mad!”

 

[Neonchameleon]

I see, however, that Crawford seems to design from this place - rules to protect the players from badwrongfun DMs.

Can you provide evidence for this?