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

[clearstream]

Pretty much, yeah.

Otherwise, soon enough it's bohemian catgirl ninjas all the way down.

I think you were mistaken on that last one -- the part about GMs can never be limited.

When it comes to following the rules, some GMs hold themselves to be outside them (either wholly, or in given respects) while others hold the rules to apply to them (they're not free to disregard or break them.) Either can participate in a sandbox mode of play (the quality is orthogonal to the mode of play.)

But when it comes to upholding what has been established, I believe that is a limitation that GMs commonly impose on themselves as part of their participation in a sandbox mode of play. (Call that (iv), continuing my qualities numbering above.)

(@EzekielRaiden as possibly of interest.)

 

[SableWyvern]

Your flippant dismissal of perspectives other than your own is precisely why I don't have a whole lot of patience for the endless requests for understanding and empathy etc. etc. You have shown precisely none here, and instead dismissed my position as so much risible nonsense.

Other than the very final comment about catgirl ninjas all the way down, all my responses were serious. As a GM, I absolutely do feel entitled to decide what races, cultures, classes, species, backgrounds etc are appropriate for a game I'm planning to run. If a player wants something outside that, I might see if we can work it in, but I am also entirely comfortable with just saying no.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think you were mistaken on that last one -- the part about GMs can never be limited.

When it comes to following the rules, some GMs hold themselves to be outside them (either wholly, or in given respects) while others hold the rules to apply to them (they're not free to disregard or break them.) Either can participate in a sandbox mode of play.

But when it comes to upholding what has been established, I believe that is a limitation that GMs commonly impose on themselves as part of their participation in a sandbox mode of play. (Call that iv, continuing my qualities numbering above.)

Yes, as I just mentioned to @EzekielRaiden, that particular response was a flippant one. That said, I made it in large part because it doesn't seem to me that ER would care in the slightest about that nuance and would, indeed, believe that the GM with all the previously listed powers to say "no" is as good as an unfettered tyrant

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Other than the very final comment about catgirl ninjas all the way down, all my responses were serious. As a GM, I absolutely do feel entitled to decide what races, cultures, classes, species, backgrounds etc are appropriate for a game I'm planning to run. If a player wants something outside that, I might see if we can work it in, but I am also entirely comfortable with just saying no.

Given you started with the catgirl ninjas as early as the third answer, no, I don't really take your answers as having been entirely serious. You may have been illustrating a point. You did so in a way that was intentionally flippant and disrespectful.

There have been multiple times where you and others have admonished me for far, far lesser "offenses" of disrespect to your preferences.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, as I just mentioned to @EzekielRaiden, that particular response was a flippant one. That said, I made it in large part because it doesn't seem to me that ER would care in the slightest about that nuance and would, indeed, believe that the GM with all the previously listed powers to say "no" is as good as an unfettered tyrant

Then you have not actually read what I have said.

In part because you'll find I've never--not once--said that in this thread, and I'm fairly confident I've never said it in any prior thread either.

But when a DM does say those kinds of things to me, when a DM depicts any deviation from their iron will as being exactly the same as trying to play "a bohemian catgirl ninja in [your] historical Viking game"? Yeah, yeah I probably am going to interpret that as "oh, so this person is not actually going to respect me or my preferences and will instead dismiss a lot of my ideas or proposals without due consideration on the basis that 'I'm the GM, my word is law', so I probably shouldn't join their game."

People who make such a severe and dramatic point of indicating that it is THEIR game probably don't have enough room for it to be our game, and I'm not really interested in that.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, as I just mentioned to @EzekielRaiden, that particular response was a flippant one. That said, I made it in large part because it doesn't seem to me that ER would care in the slightest about that nuance and would, indeed, believe that the GM with all the previously listed powers to say "no" is as good as an unfettered tyrant

Continuing this thought, would you agree that it is upholding what has been established, regardless of who establishes it?

It's common for GM to do so, but a GM could run L5R in Rokugan using game designer prep, and they would uphold it. Similarly, I've played in sandbox campaigns where individual players came to author regions and aspects of the world. If any of that prep (GM, designer, contributing player) excludes bohemian catgirl ninjas, then those are canonically excluded, as you assert, but I think that turns out to be about adherence to canon more than GM empowerment.

 

[SableWyvern]

Given you started with the catgirl ninjas as early as the third answer, no, I don't really take your answers as having been entirely serious. You may have been illustrating a point. You did so in a way that was intentionally flippant and disrespectful.

There have been multiple times where you and others have admonished me for far, far lesser "offenses" of disrespect to your preferences.

Fine. My choice of example did suggest how little energy I have left for the argument you're making. Replace catgirl ninjas with storm troopers or Japanese traders or French nobles or aliens or Chinese animists or elves or Norse gods. I'm still a tyrant in your eyes and I'm OK with that.

 

[SableWyvern]

Continuing this thought, would you agree that it is upholding what has been established, regardless of who establishes it?

It's common for GM to do so, but a GM could run L5R in Rokugan using game designer prep, and they would uphold it. Similarly, I've played in sandbox campaigns where individual players came to author regions and aspects of the world. If any of that prep (GM, designer, contributing player) excludes bohemian catgirl ninjas, then those are canonically excluded, as you assert, but I think that turns out to be about adherence to canon more than GM empowerment.

Typically, I establish what the canon will be in a game I run, so I don't see much of a difference.

As I've mentioned, my next game is likely to be set in the 1e Savage Frontier but, anywhere they differ, my vision trumps any and all official Forgotten Realms material. I feel zero obligation to adhere to published material, although where there is a shared foundation we're all drawing on, I do have an obligation to ensure my players understand where our game setting will differ from existing understandings.

Note that I will always work with a player to help them realise whatever character they prefer, but I will give a hard no any time I feel it necessary.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Expected by the GM but did not happen" strikes me as an odd way of describing ostensibly player-driven RPGing.

That’s because you have it wrong again. I prepare a lot of encounters that I do not “expect” the players to encounter, because the players often surprise me and I try to be prepared for anything.

Overall, I would say the players actually encounter maybe 10% of the stuff I prepare.

 

[SableWyvern]

Then you have not actually read what I have said.

In part because you'll find I've never--not once--said that in this thread, and I'm fairly confident I've never said it in any prior thread either.

But when a DM does say those kinds of things to me, when a DM depicts any deviation from their iron will as being exactly the same as trying to play "a bohemian catgirl ninja in [your] historical Viking game"? Yeah, yeah I probably am going to interpret that as "oh, so this person is not actually going to respect me or my preferences and will instead dismiss a lot of my ideas or proposals without due consideration on the basis that 'I'm the GM, my word is law', so I probably shouldn't join their game."

People who make such a severe and dramatic point of indicating that it is THEIR game probably don't have enough room for it to be our game, and I'm not really interested in that.

You don't like GMs having the power to decide what is acceptable in their game or not. I do. The difference is that you seem genuinely upset that GMs like me even exist (and won't admit we're wrong and unreasonable and power hungry), whereas I am perfectly OK with you gaming happily with a GM more to your liking.

You haven't used the words "unfettered tyrant" but I truly believe, based on the things you have said, that this is what you think of me.