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

[pemerton]

Yeah, it's time for me to walk away from this thread. Y'all have a good one.

You too!

 

[FrozenNorth]

So a DM should always try to please every single player even if it means the DM and the other players are less happy with the game? Sometimes it's just not a good match and you can't fix it.

The specific example was the players not biting ONE campaign hook. In a sandbox, that SHOULD be unremarkable. Why are you acting like it means that « the DM should always try to please every single player even if it means the DM and the other players are less happy with the game »?

 

[AlViking]

Yeah, I would consider it almost the epitome of bad GMing. What kind of an arse do you need to be to just blatantly spoil the players fun? For what? What was gained? I don't even comprehend what would be an excuse for that. Frankly, I've pretty much never walked from a game, but something like that would probably do it.

Saying "trust the DM" doesn't apply to the scenario because she broke that trust. If she didn't want to do a heist scenario for whatever reason she should have just told the players no. That may have meant it wasn't the game for them but at least they wouldn't have wasted time on planning. The phrase "trust the DM" isn't about trusting them no matter what they do, it's about giving them the benefit of the doubt and don't question every minor decision they make. If they make decisions you disagree with that you can't talk to them, although for small stuff I think it should be after the game.

The scenario in question was a major error, something that may have caused me to leave the game. My advice is to talk to any GM that makes this kind of call before walking out because nobody is perfect. Even if it is unlikely for there to be a resolution. But yes, we have an example here of when trusting your GM gets tossed out the window should really be something like "Trust your GM until proven otherwise and accept that no GM is perfect and there will always be little things you don't agree with. Even if it is something you really disagree with you should try to talk to them because maybe they can learn from their mistake." But that's a bit too long for most people.

 

[AlViking]

Unspoken rule my table is rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few.

Players liked that get warned then booted.

They're rare maybe 10% last ten years.

I've got 1 plater he sucked at 5E he's doing reasonably well in 2E.

My rule is more FAFO. One of the players decided to wander off in a game where they knew they were in incredibly dangerous area a while back. The character only survived by incredibly good luck when they ran afoul some optional encounters I had outlined for the entire group. In another game long ago the player decided their character didn't want to go with the rest of the group so I just told them they were welcome to leave or write up a new character.

I make it quite clear before my session 0 that I only have so much time and patience for lone wolf characters and it's not worth wasting the time of 5 other people to run a 1-on-1 session for 1 individual.

 

[AlViking]

The specific example was the players not biting ONE campaign hook. In a sandbox, that SHOULD be unremarkable. Why are you acting like it means that « the DM should always try to please every single player even if it means the DM and the other players are less happy with the game »?

My understanding is that it was an entire group set on a plan of action with 1 player deciding to go a different direction. That's different from the individual convincing the other players to go a different direction. Even then if the GM has made it clear that there are some aspects of the game that are linear I don't see it as a bad thing. I'm playing in a campaign based on Candlekeep Mysteries right now and I simply accept that I have certain lines I have to color inside.

My game is much more of a sandbox and while I may have to take a moment or two to think about how to handle it when the party goes off the rails, I'm okay with it. Not all GMs are able to do things on the fly like that, that doesn't mean I can't have fun playing their game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If a player wants to grind a game to a halt to address an issue, they can, whether or not the GM or the other players want that. It's actually pretty easy.

And as your phrasing shows, they're treated like the villain and there's a lot of social pressure not to do so. I don't consider that a virtue.

 

[AlViking]

And as your phrasing shows, they're treated like the villain and there's a lot of social pressure not to do so. I don't consider that a virtue.

What options are there? If a GM is unwilling or unable to run a 1-on-1 session with an individual that does not go along with the group, what else can be done? I'm fine with short side-encounters myself but not everyone is and it depends on the amount of time and effort involved.

If Bob wants to do X and the rest of the group wants to do Y, Bob can try to convince the rest of the group to do X but I'm not going to tell anyone they have to follow Bob's lead. If you think it's bad to tell Bob "no" what do you do?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And as your phrasing shows, they're treated like the villain and there's a lot of social pressure not to do so. I don't consider that a virtue.

Yep!

As I've said many, many times: Every time folks who promote the...let's call it "DM maximalism" position, players who ever do anything even remotely out of line are described in outright hostile, almost hateful terms. That very thing is a huge part of why I can't help seeing a hostility to any form of player self-advocacy.

Every player who speaks up is treated--so it seems, I guess--as a proud nail to be absolutely hammered down.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What options are there?

I dunno. Conversing with people like adults. Being willing to listen and make accommodations. Being willing to actually give as well as take.

If a GM is unwilling or unable to run a 1-on-1 session with an individual that does not go along with the group, what else can be done? I'm fine with short side-encounters myself but not everyone is and it depends on the amount of time and effort involved.

If Bob wants to do X and the rest of the group wants to do Y, Bob can try to convince the rest of the group to do X but I'm not going to tell anyone they have to follow Bob's lead. If you think it's bad to tell Bob "no" what do you do?

See, again, you are immediately resorting to portraying Bob in the worst possible light, and the GM--yourself--in the best possible light. But when things get turned around the other way, people suddenly get really, really, really offended over how they're being characterized as awful.

Perhaps, when you feel that "how dare you characterize the DM as a monster!!!" feeling, consider applying it to your own characterization of Bob here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And as your phrasing shows, they're treated like the villain and there's a lot of social pressure not to do so. I don't consider that a virtue.

Are you saying one player's need to address a potential problem issue to its conclusion immediately is more important than the enjoyment and time of everyone else present?