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

[Maxperson]

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."

Yeah. That's good. I tend to just say the bolded portion. Probably because I assume that the player(s) would talk to the DM about it.

 

[Faolyn]

Again, this is a thing I just don't get. It's sounds like a dysfunctional game set up.

Wait, one person not biting at a hook is dysfunctional to you? OK then... I mean, sure, that player was obnoxious, for that moment and for a few other moments, and I'm not sorry that he's playing in someone else's game instead of mine, but I wouldn't call that dysfunctional. In a "Dysfunctional Player" scale of 1-10, that particular moment was maybe a 1.5 at most.

Why is the GM hoping for the players to do X rather than Y, if the premise of the game is that the players can do any of X, Y, Z, . . . etc.

Or, to put it another way, if the GM's hope is supposed to be determinative, then why not communicate it up front? Or if it's not - if there is meant to be coordination among participants - then why not actually coordinate?

I never said my hope was supposed to be determinative. I set up an encounter hook that didn't get bitten. It would have been cool if they bit, because I enjoy narrating horror scenes--I find GMing horror fun and evocative in a visceral way--but it's not the end of the world, or even the end of the session. It's just a monster going hungry in the woods.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To me, that does totally sound like railroading. I fully understand you dropping the game. I would have been really upset as well.

Okay, but like...I genuinely do not see the difference between this and the (entirely made-up) example I gave up-thread with Ranakht the Paladin and the Hyksos priests of Sutekh-Garyx. (Link, in case you missed it.) Like if this is so blatantly bad, what wasn't bad about the example I gave? Why is this a totally justifiable moment for players to walk, but my example is exactly the reverse, something the player should just accept without question?

But, counter, counter example: I ran a game once (yet another Ravenloft game; I've put a moratorium on them because I've run too many and there are other horror games I want to play), the players were en-route from point A to point B (they either really wanted to go to point B, or they really wanted to get away from point A; can't remember), , and I had them notice weird, spooky things in the woods. One of the players said "I keep on walking and wave goodbye to the nice plot hook." (This guy has since moved on to games that were more to his taste.)

Okay. So you've had a player who doesn't want plot hooks in his sandbox games. We had already discussed, at length IIRC, how plot hooks can be pretty controversial in a campaign claiming to be a "sandbox"--because some people see them as necessary and others see them as opposing the very premise; some see them as only there to get the ball rolling and then avoided thereafter; some see them as a "sometimes food" as I like to call it, an occasional tool any time the action bogs down but not something to be relied upon.

I don't see how this in any way addresses or even really responds to Hussar's point.

You said the game was based on Keep On the Borderlands. I've never played it or read it, but Wikipedia says it's about investigating caves filled with monsters. To me, unless you can do a lot more than just fight those monsters, a heist sounds a lot more interesting. But it's entirely possible that all those other people who have gamed with her were never railroaded by her because they wanted to go fight the monsters, while you just waved goodbye to the nice plot hook. But where I sighed and tossed that encounter away, she tried to force you back on track.

(I could be completely wrong, of course. Maybe she set up the heist as a possible event and then pulled it away at the last minute because of Reasons. I dunno.)

I mean even if she did pull it away at the last minute because of Reasons, how could we tell the difference?

Because that's what Hussar's (and my) point is here: If this is a breach of trust....but it looks indistinguishable from things that trust is specifically relied upon in order to get past...then how on earth are players supposed to, as people have said so many times in this thread, trivially easily distinguish a fair-to-good DM from a poor-to-bad DM? Like you literally said this would have "really upset" you, and yet here you are now defending it!

 

[Maxperson]

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.

If they're causing a major disruption of the game for anything less than their PC is going to die if it doesn't get resolved right now, they should be looked at poorly. If a player did that in my game, they'd get one warning to wait and talk to me afterwards. If they disrupted the game badly a second time, there would be no chance for a third. The game doesn't belong to one person and grinding the game to a halt for lesser reasons is not and should not be acceptable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Then it should not be used to excuse behavior that players find troubling.

That is how it has been used. Repeatedly, in this very thread. Indeed, every single time I have brought up a player being concerned about something the DM has said, you and numerous other people have said "wow, sucks you can't just trust people".

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.

Okay. I would say I think it's really important to not take an overly-generous definition of "small stuff" (and yes, I'm pretty much of the opinion that most folks here consider anything short of outright campaign destruction to be "small stuff"). But if we have a more reasonable definition, e.g. "a single, temporary ruling to get past a logjam 'cause nobody could find it in the book" or "a single weird description that totally failed to effectively communicate what the DM was thinking", then yes, leave small stuff for after the game.

That's why I gave my example of something that wasn't small stuff--and even then, the player waited and gave the DM a chance to work it out privately, rather than making a big public stink about it. And guess what? I was told that the DM straight-up stonewalling the player, refusing to give any response whatsoever beyond "nope, you just can't" to a perfectly reasonable course of action, and that the player SHOULD just trust them--regardless of their seemingly very railroad-y behavior.

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.

Okay. How about what I said before?

In pithy form: Give your GM allowance, so they have time to earn your trust. Then, small issues are water under the bridge, and big ones you have a reason to stick around and listen.

That's the really nice thing about recognizing trust as something that is built and earned, not something that is automatic and guaranteed merely by putting on the GM's hat. (I like to think the non-autocratic GM would wear a tricorne as opposed to a "viking hat"--both nautical, but one much more jaunty than the other.) That is, when trust is something you build rather than something automatic, the player can look back and point at specific times where they were unsure, and the GM came through for them. They can know, from actual lived experience and not a dismissive "you just HAVE to trust me", that the GM actually puts her money where her mouth is, that she goes the distance, that when it isn't of critical importance she really will work with them to resolve an issue. Rather than taking all of that on total blind faith, rather than presuming that trust comes in two and only two states (perfect or shattered), it recognizes trust as something that grows and changes with time, something that can come in fits and starts or that can be damaged or weakened and later repaired.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If they're causing a major disruption of the game for anything less than their PC is going to die if it doesn't get resolved right now, they should be looked at poorly. If a player did that in my game, they'd get one warning to wait and talk to me afterwards. If they disrupted the game badly a second time, there would be no chance for a third. The game doesn't belong to one person and grinding the game to a halt for lesser reasons is not and should not be acceptable.

Seriously?

Anything less than "instantaneous death" is not serious enough?

I'm sorry, I just...I can't wrap my brain around having such a ridiculously extreme position here.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No, the bolded portion are wrong. There's a huge difference between a player saying, "Hey, I though X, so why is Y happening to me?" and a short discussion afterwards, and grinding the game to a halt and being a major disruption to game play.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

It depends on the scope. If it's a quick easy fix over a misunderstanding, then addressing it to its conclusion is fine, because it's only a minute or two. If it's not an easy and quick fix, it's not fine to continue on and needs to wait until after the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Seriously?

Anything less than "instantaneous death" is not serious enough?

I'm sorry, I just...I can't wrap my brain around having such a ridiculously extreme position here.

Yes. Everything else can be fixed afterwards without causing major issues to the game if the player is correct. The player has no right to ruin everyone else's night in order to resolve the issue right that moment. He can talk to the DM after the game and resolve it.

The important part is that it gets resolved in the player's favor if the player is correct, not that it happens RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!

Edit: If a player is willing to sacrifice everyone else to his petty need to make sure it happens right then and there, they are not the kind of person I want in my game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It depends on the scope. If it's a quick easy fix over a misunderstanding, then addressing it to its conclusion is fine, because it's only a minute or two. If it's not an easy and quick fix, it's not fine to continue on and needs to wait until after the game.

No, the bolded portion are wrong. There's a huge difference between a player saying, "Hey, I though X, so why is Y happening to me?" and a short discussion afterwards, and grinding the game to a halt and being a major disruption to game play.

Okay but now we're getting two conflicting standards which functionally add up to "never bring up anything".

Because on the one hand, we're supposed to never sweat the small stuff. Just let it go. We just had that from @AlViking.

And yet here, we also have never respond to big stuff, because then you're being a selfish jerk halting everyone's fun.

So...when exactly are problems supposed to be fixed? Because the message I'm getting here is "never ever during play, no matter what". And, as I've said multiple times now, things don't get fixed between sessions.