D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Zardnaar]

To be clear: Are you saying, in long form, "Stop playing D&D. It isn't for you. It's for me."?

And, for the record: I tried. For a whole year. Discord. Roll20. GitP. Here. Myth-Weavers. Never found a single 4e game that lasted more than one adventure (and even those were incredibly rare). Applied to dozens of 5e games--got into maybe a handful of them, all of which died within six sessions (usually much less), in part because of frequent TPKs or near-TPKs.

"Go play other things" is a great argument when someone hasn't tried. I have.

You've mentioned that before.
Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and DM. I've trained my own DM several times. I've got 3 groups, 6 players for 2E only 3 of which are 5E players.

I got tagged two days ago by a guy I played BECMI in 1995. They're trying to start a D&D game in a town of 14k.

I've had one player 22 years another laster 14. Some last a few months.i. ways hustling though. Student city I had two leave because they had to leave the country or move to the top wops.

It's all about the contacts. Old friens, peopke you went to school with, Randoms you meet in a gamestore. I'm checking Facebook groups, private DMs hell I got a whole group via reddit. It's how I've got 3 groups.

OSR game wrapped up at 7 after 14 months, started 2E at level 3/4. 5.5 games are level 4 and 8. One players in SEA until June or so and I've got a potential new player lined up as she's moving her in a few weeks. She knows a guy I played Magic with 20 odd years ago.

Once my level 8 game wraps up a player wants to DM. It's been going since September. 2-6 months left.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is not though. I’ll put the quote here again to remind myself.

What this means is that a good compromise demand that both parties give some ground.

No. What it means is "every compromise should make you angry."

And that is an INCREDIBLY harmful thing to say.

If what you actually wanted to say was, "Whenever you compromise, it means you won't be getting absolutely everything you want", it should be...actually bloody SAYING that. If you want it pithy, "A good compromise means nobody got everything they hoped for."

This should mean a measure of dissatisfaction but since dissatisfaction isn’t an on/off switch this fine. Also if both parties can see that the other has had to make some sort of sacrifice it alleviates some of that dissatisfaction. If only one party is dissatisfied it is a bad compromise and will lead to those “horrible things” of which you speak.

It is NOT guaranteed that everyone should have "a measure of dissatisfaction" though. It may be that everyone is satisfied, even though no one is utterly blissed-out ecstatic over getting literally every single thing they ever wanted. In order for it to be a measure of dissatisfaction, the person would have to have given up something that was a bright-line, "I won't accept a deal that doesn't include this" item. It is 100% possible--not in all cases, but definitely in some cases--that nobody has to give up any of their bright-line items once the terms are laid out and good-faith negotiation has begun.

And I want to reiterate that the quote I responded to--which you are now substituting with a different quote--was "nobody is happy about anything".

What this saying teaches then is that you should always seek mutual compromises, give and take, because anything else would be a bad compromise. It is a saying about reaching a middle ground to put an end to needless conflict.

Again: If you want to say that, SAY IT. Don't tell people "compromise MAKES YOU UNHAPPY". Tell them "you have to decide what really matters to you, and what you merely would like to have but don't need." Tell them, "When you compromise, you have to be happy without getting everything." Tell them, "A good compromise gives both sides what they need, but only some of what they want."

There are SO MANY ways to express this sentiment that do not have the inherent requirement that "if you compromise, it WILL make you unhappy."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You've mentioned that before.
Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and DM.

I DID.

Exactly one player in my game subsequently decided to become a GM. He GMs games that aren't to my taste either--and he knows this. That's why he didn't offer me a place at his table, and he was frank with me about that. But he also said that if he ever ran a game he thought I would like, I would literally be the first person he'd ask (or second, after his SO.)

"If you want to be a player, become GM" has 100% failed. Hell, worse than my attempts to find a game as a player--at least there I did actually get to play a little, even if the games folded for various reasons.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not incorrect.

Compromise IME is just a means of punting the root problem down the road. It rarely if ever actually solves anything.

But it is, and I will die on this hill.

Actual compromise means negotiating. And, yes, sometimes that means you won't be abso-bloody-lutely perfectly blissful about the result. But a """compromise""" in name only that results in literally every single negotiator coming away outright upset about the result...does exactly what you're describing! And when we tell people that that's what "compromise" truly is, what we are telling them is "DO NOT compromise. You'll only be even more angry. Never accept anything less than total capitulation."

That's a recipe for violence. I would really rather not get to that point.

Actual compromise means deciding what matters most to you and what you're less attached to, and focusing on those things. It is completely possible to achieve real compromise. Consider, for example, when Canada and the US reached an understanding about the coal-based pollution that was causing horrible acid rain issues up north. Did we resort to violence? Did everyone walk away unhappy? No! They set their boundaries, we set ours, and we worked it out. And guess what? We solved the problem. There's a reason why children's media in North America doesn't have long hand-wringing episodes about acid rain anymore. We don't have acid rain problems. Because we resolved the problem. We negotiated, we figured out a path forward that was actually satisfactory for both countries--not white-knuckle, teeth-clenched """compromise""", but legitimate, actual sitting down and working it out. It is objective proof that compromise and negotiation DON'T just kick the can down the road. They can, in fact, fully solve a genuine problem.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you want to be a player, become GM" has 100% failed. Hell, worse than my attempts to find a game as a player--at least there I did actually get to play a little, even if the games folded for various reasons

Sure. That’s just life, I very rarely get to be a player. But no one is entitled to be a player. If you want to play an RPG, then you need to either GM, or be very very very lucky.

At least, these days, if you are willing to GM it’s not as hard to find players as it used to be.

 

[Kromanjon]

No. What it means is "every compromise should make you angry."

And that is an INCREDIBLY harmful thing to say.

If what you actually wanted to say was, "Whenever you compromise, it means you won't be getting absolutely everything you want", it should be...actually bloody SAYING that. If you want it pithy, "A good compromise means nobody got everything they hoped for."


It is NOT guaranteed that everyone should have "a measure of dissatisfaction" though. It may be that everyone is satisfied, even though no one is utterly blissed-out ecstatic over getting literally every single thing they ever wanted. In order for it to be a measure of dissatisfaction, the person would have to have given up something that was a bright-line, "I won't accept a deal that doesn't include this" item. It is 100% possible--not in all cases, but definitely in some cases--that nobody has to give up any of their bright-line items once the terms are laid out and good-faith negotiation has begun.

And I want to reiterate that the quote I responded to--which you are now substituting with a different quote--was "nobody is happy about anything".


Again: If you want to say that, SAY IT. Don't tell people "compromise MAKES YOU UNHAPPY". Tell them "you have to decide what really matters to you, and what you merely would like to have but don't need." Tell them, "When you compromise, you have to be happy without getting everything." Tell them, "A good compromise gives both sides what they need, but only some of what they want."

There are SO MANY ways to express this sentiment that do not have the inherent requirement that "if you compromise, it WILL make you unhappy."

At this point I have to conclude that you're just trolling so I'll disengage.

 

[CreamCloud0]

At this point I have to conclude that you're just trolling so I'll disengage.

no, they're not trolling, they're making a good point and i can see exactly where they're coming from, "a good compromise is where both parties are dissatisfied" absolutely is an awful perspective, because it implants in people the idea that 'if you compromise you're going to be unhappy with the result' so it doesn't actually incline people to want to compromise on things, it inclines them to dig in and fight tooth and nail to get things done their way because they're primed to think their experience is going to suck otherwise.

a far better line would be 'a good compromise is where both parties get everything that they needed but not everything that they wanted'

 

[AnotherGuy]

Never found a single 4e game that lasted more than one adventure (and even those were incredibly rare).

If you had to hazard a guess why do you think that is?

Applied to dozens of 5e games--got into maybe a handful of them, all of which died within six sessions (usually much less), in part because of frequent TPKs or near-TPKs.

I suspect the unfamiliarity between DM and players in the online community allows for deadlier combat.
In other words the DM is less invested in the characters since his connection to the players is weak and this also explains why an online DM can disinvest from the campaign a lot easier. One would, I guess, be far more responsible with players and the campaign if they were family, friends and people you meet in-person.
Do you agree?

 

[KYRON45]

If you had to hazard a guess why do you think that is?


I suspect the unfamiliarity between DM and players in the online community allows for deadlier combat.
In other words the DM is less invested in the characters since his connection to the players is weak and this also explains why an online DM can disinvest from the campaign a lot easier. One would, I guess, be far more responsible with players and the campaign if they were family, friends and people you meet in-person.
Do you agree?

Deadlier combat is a choice. You don't have to be a bad DM to enjoy challenging the players.
I'm a DM that prefers deadly combat and my mom says I'm delightful.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Deadlier combat is a choice. You don't have to be a bad DM to enjoy challenging the players.
I'm a DM that prefers deadly combat and my mom says I'm delightful.

I'm certainly not knocking the playstyle as long as that is communicated upfront.
But we are talking about campaigns ending. Sure a TPK can do that - but you could still be having a hell of a time with the group and speak about it fondly after.
That is not what I'm reading from @EzekielRaiden's posts.