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

[Remathilis]

So it isn't only true if you have a large pool of potential players... it is also true if you're happier sitting home alone on a Saturday night.

In my case, if my players all decided "We're playing 3E or 5e 2024, not 2014" I would rather sit home alone and watch a movie, listen to music, read, draw, etc. than DM or play in a game I don't care for.

I mean, if your take is no gaming is better than a game you don't like, that's fine. I'm not sure everyone is willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, if your take is no gaming is better than a game you don't like, that's fine. I'm not sure everyone is willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Though that requires that there be "good" for "perfect" to be the enemy of. That is, if I found (say) poker to be absolutely the worst experience, just a godawful waste of time not fit to inflict upon my worst enemy, I'm not really sure it's an instance of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" for me to politely decline an invitation to poker night.

Now, if the example had been "all my players decided 'we want to play anything other than 5e'" and that generated the same response, then yes, entirely appropriate application. That's refusing to accept anything other than the one specific thing you want to do, even though it's quite likely there's at least one other game you might enjoy out there.

But, on the flipside, is it allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good if you say, "I'd really like to play some 4e"? If we follow that maxim to the hilt in this context, well, that means nobody's ever allowed to want anything specific, which seems like a pretty silly idea--allowing the mediocre (or unknown) to be the enemy of the preferred, as it were. Within reason, it helps to be flexible--but being flexible doesn't mean being a doormat.

 

[Faolyn]

Ultimately GM doesn't have to compromise.

I'm running 5.5 or 2E no it's or buts. Up to you if you want to play or not.

You often can't account for 5-6 different players tastes. You find 5-6 players with similar enough tastes to yours it will work.

3/6 2E players are 5E players. Hey guys I'm running 2E want to play? Started C&C with 2 now have 6.

Well... if you're running only a particular system and that's it, take it or leave it, and your players want to play something different, you may end up with no players. Or players who ignore your plot hooks, act in chaotic stupid ways, are always on their phones, or showing their disinterest in other ways.

 

[Remathilis]

Though that requires that there be "good" for "perfect" to be the enemy of. That is, if I found (say) poker to be absolutely the worst experience, just a godawful waste of time not fit to inflict upon my worst enemy, I'm not really sure it's an instance of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" for me to politely decline an invitation to poker night.

Now, if the example had been "all my players decided 'we want to play anything other than 5e'" and that generated the same response, then yes, entirely appropriate application. That's refusing to accept anything other than the one specific thing you want to do, even though it's quite likely there's at least one other game you might enjoy out there.

But, on the flipside, is it allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good if you say, "I'd really like to play some 4e"? If we follow that maxim to the hilt, well, that means nobody's ever allowed to want anything specific, which seems like a pretty silly idea--allowing the mediocre (or unknown) to be the enemy of the preferred, as it were.

No. It means if your perfect is playing the edition you want but your choice is playing an edition you are less fond of or not playing at all, you have to weigh if not gaming is worth waiting for your perfect game to come, if ever. You have to weigh that playing something less than your desire is worth it.

To whit: a friend wanted to run Cyberpunk Red. I was less than enthused about the setting and system, but I would rather hang out with my friends than sit home alone. I could have sat out the Cyberpunk game and wait for us to go back to D&D, but I weighed the perfect (play the system I want) against the good (play something I don't care for, but still be with my friends).

 

[Remathilis]

Well... if you're running only a particular system and that's it, take it or leave it, and your players want to play something different, you may end up with no players. Or players who ignore your plot hooks, act in chaotic stupid ways, are always on their phones, or showing their disinterest in other ways.

I am amazed how many people are lousy with players that they can run exactly what they want and have a line of players waiting to get in that they can be choosy. My experience is that if you get too stuck in your way, you find on game night with a bunch of call offs and no shows.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. It means if your perfect is playing the edition you want but your choice is playing an edition you are less fond of or not playing at all, you have to weigh if not gaming is worth waiting for your perfect game to come, if ever. You have to weigh that playing something less than your desire is worth it.

To whit: a friend wanted to run Cyberpunk Red. I was less than enthused about the setting and system, but I would rather hang out with my friends than sit home alone. I could have sat out the Cyberpunk game and wait for us to go back to D&D, but I weighed the perfect (play the system I want) against the good (play something I don't care for, but still be with my friends).

This still depends on there being good for the perfect to be an enemy of.

Again: let's say I personally find playing 3.5e to be actively painful. Like it genuinely generates a headache if I play it. (This has happened...but not often enough to be an always thing.) Is it now "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" if I have to endure a terrible headache because my friends demanded it of me?

Whether or not it is, consider the flipside of this. These players are demanding exactly two and only two games served to them by their GM. Are they not also allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good, by your standard? After all, the example given was that these players would refuse to play any game other than 3e (presumably 3.5e) or 5.5e. I can't see a way that that doesn't also read as this, if we allow your description: these (hypothetical) players' "perfect" is 3.5e or 5.5e, and their "good" is 5.0. Are they not also weighing whether playing something less than their desire is worth it?

 

[ezo]

I mean, if your take is no gaming is better than a game you don't like, that's fine. I'm not sure everyone is willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Let's acknowledge the gray area, shall we?

There are games I dislike (2024 5E), games I find acceptable (2014 5E), and games I like (AD&D). I won't play in a 5E 2024 game as I dislike the power creep and other changes, for example.

So, why would I play in a game I don't like? That seems like a waste of time. I don't know about you, but life is too short to waste time on something I dislike.

Now who said perfect? Really, please don't try to extend my sentiment to beyond what I express. I haven't been able to play in a game I would consider perfect for decades. While I would love perfect, I can accept "acceptable", but I will reject anything I don't care for and find something I do.

If the "perfect" line was just directed towards the conversation in general, my apologies. But, no, perfect is not the enemy of good; or at least, it doesn't have to. Some people might allow that to happen, I don't.

Well... if you're running only a particular system and that's it, take it or leave it, and your players want to play something different, you may end up with no players.

Which for me is fine.

Or players who ignore your plot hooks, act in chaotic stupid ways, are always on their phones, or showing their disinterest in other ways.

Most of those actions will get players uninvited quickly anyway, so I'm better off without the annoyance and frustration.

I am amazed how many people are lousy with players that they can run exactly what they want and have a line of players waiting to get in that they can be choosy. My experience is that if you get too stuck in your way, you find on game night with a bunch of call offs and no shows.

Frankly, I don't have a large player base where I leave that I can call on, so I am always on the look-out for new players. But, I would rather have players I am going to enjoy playing with in a game I am going to enjoy playing than suffer with sub-standard players or a system I dislike "just so I get to play D&D." I have other hobbies, and although D&D will always be my first choice, it is far from my last.

 

[Faolyn]

This still depends on there being good for the perfect to be an enemy of.

Again: let's say I personally find playing 3.5e to be actively painful. Like it genuinely generates a headache if I play it. (This has happened...but not often enough to be an always thing.) Is it now "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" if I have to endure a terrible headache because my friends demanded it of me?

Whether or not it is, consider the flipside of this. These players are demanding exactly two and only two games served to them by their GM. Are they not also allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good, by your standard? After all, the example given was that these players would refuse to play any game other than 3e (presumably 3.5e) or 5.5e. I can't see a way that that doesn't also read as this, if we allow your description: these (hypothetical) players' "perfect" is 3.5e or 5.5e, and their "good" is 5.0. Are they not also weighing whether playing something less than their desire is worth it?

Butting in, what I would do in this case is try to find out why the players refuse to play anything other than those two systems. Then work from there.

One possibility might be to make pre-gen characters so they don't have to go through the effort of learning how to make a new character--which, depending on the game, can be a daunting task.

 

[Faolyn]

Which for me is fine.


Most of those actions will get players uninvited quickly anyway, so I'm better off without the annoyance and frustration.

But then you have no players and thus no game.

So I'll ask you what I just wrote in my last post here: Assuming you have a limited number of systems you want to run, why do you not want to try different systems?

 

[Remathilis]

This still depends on there being good for the perfect to be an enemy of.

Again: let's say I personally find playing 3.5e to be actively painful. Like it genuinely generates a headache if I play it. (This has happened...but not often enough to be an always thing.) Is it now "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" if I have to endure a terrible headache because my friends demanded it of me?

Whether or not it is, consider the flipside of this. These players are demanding exactly two and only two games served to them by their GM. Are they not also allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good, by your standard? After all, the example given was that these players would refuse to play any game other than 3e (presumably 3.5e) or 5.5e. I can't see a way that that doesn't also read as this, if we allow your description: these (hypothetical) players' "perfect" is 3.5e or 5.5e, and their "good" is 5.0. Are they not also weighing whether playing something less than their desire is worth it?

Then sit home alone on Enworld complaining how nobody will play the game you want. I don't know what to tell you.