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

[clearstream]

This thread probably contains at least a thousand posts where various people, including me, have pointed out that no, they can't. If this point isn't already clear, it never will be.

That's fair. All I am adding here is to point out that such a commitment is a limit on GM.

 

[SableWyvern]

Depends. Declaring that everyone must play one narrowly-specific archetype probably would leave me quite cold, because I often like to: (a) play against type in at least some way, though generally more in a "invert a sad/dark/negative thing into a happier/brighter/positive thing" kind of way, (b) look at the edges or the un-alike, as that is often a natural source of character growth and interesting exploration, and (c) use or invoke dragonlike or dragon-related character elements because I just really, really like dragons and feel happy when I get to integrate dragon-y things into characters I play.

If you're just talking preferences, then cool. It's clear you don't like certain GM styles. That's OK, we don't have to like the same things.

And I find it concerning when a person feels the need to emphasize at every turn how their power of veto is RIGHT THERE, don't forget it, better remember I have veto power, did you remember that I have veto power, have you forgotten about my veto? Okay just wanted to be sure you remembered I'll veto anything and everything you consider that I don't like for any reason. Or maybe for no reason, because I don't have to justify my veto to you, or anybody.

Concerning?

Now we've gone from preferences to moralising. I'm emphasising it in this conversation because GM power is what the conversation is about.

I don't need to emphasise it at the table, because everyone playing already knows.

What concerns to do you have? What problems is my GMing style causing that you are worried about? What I do at my table doesn't affect you in any way, why do you need to be concerned?

That "I'll take my toys and leave" attitude is not one I find conducive to any degree of collaboration, cooperation, mutual understanding, or consensus-building. I find instead that it actively places something else--such as "GM vision" or "consistency of the world" or what-have-you--above the investment and involvement of the players.

The "you have to stay and run the game, even if it's not the game you want to run," attitude is the problem, because you're imposing your preferences on someone else.

Leaving is choosing not to participate in something you're not going to like. It is healthy. If anything is concerning, it's your ongoing insistence that anyone has an obligation to just keep trying to find a way to appease someone who wants them to do things they don't like and don't want to do.

But of course you would have example after example that proves you right, and never even a single example where something might possibly prove you wrong or even minimally undercut the "have you remembered my absolute veto today?" message.

Well, yeah.

If I had an example that I felt proved me wrong, I would consider myself wrong. Do you actually expect me to post something that proves I shouldn't believe the things I'm saying?

It sure as hell doesn't sound like it from the literal actual things you've just said.

That's OK. I've already said I'm good with you thinking of me as a tyrant; your opinion of me is not going to impact my game in any way.

As in, you've literally given multiple examples where you refused to do so, and none where you did it. Hard to find the working-with, the collaboration, the give-and-take, when the only examples you give are you putting your foot down hard with no discussion whatsoever.

Again, I reference the two years of session reports you asked for as one of the very few things that would satisfy you, which I've provided to you twice and mentioned on a couple of other occasions, but which you continue to ignore while simultaneously accusing me of not providing enough examples ...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It’s almost like, in real life, people talk to each other and game and have fun.

And on the internet, we retreat to extremist positions.

Players should play the games they want. DMs should run the games they want. And what happens at most tables is a discussion about that. After all, if everyone isn’t having fun, no one is having fun.

TLDR; on the internetz, no one knows you are a bard.

 

[SableWyvern]

That's fair. All I am adding here is to point out that such a commitment is a limit on GM.

Seems pretty straightforward to me but, unfortunately, for a lot of people, it doesn't count.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not "letting" anything. It's simply my nature.


I literally cannot mentally do that. I am not cognitively capable of doing that. I will always know that it is just as you say, a pretense.

I also don't see the game as gambling, as I've already said--and I hate gambling anyway. There is a reason you have (almost certainly) seen me say, "If I were a gambling man (which I'm not)" or some variation thereof. I don't do gambling. Gambling messes me up on multiple fronts. Those who wish to participate, more power to them, but for me it's an emphatic Big No, Do Not Want.

The Vegas reference wasn't to gambling (this time) but to the famous saying "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas".

When I roleplay, I am investing part of my self into the character. That's why, for example, I genuinely find it impossible to play a truly unrepentant evil character for anything but a very brief time (maybe a single session at most). I can get away with it with NPCs, because even the most vile NPC isn't going to be getting spotlight time for most of a given session, let alone session after session after session. I can keep my distance. But anything I'm actually playing most of the time, long-term? Yeah, I'm putting some of what I am into that character.

If I don't do that, I can't meaningfully roleplay them. That level of investment, of "immersion" (knowing that word is often over-used), for me, requires that I remove some of the barrier between "myself" and "the character". Running an utterly divorced mental model of the character would be cold, sterile, mechanical.

Where when I get immersed in a character, ideally I leave "myself" behind completely, or as much as possible.

(Incidentally, the same goes for all of my creative work. I can't make things I don't feel at least a little inspired about, and if I'm inspired, I'm putting some of myself into them. I cannot not invest when I am creating, not if the created product is to have any quality whatsoever. This primarily applies to prose and poetry, but it affects anything I create.)

I do poems, song lyrics, etc.* as well - over 10,000 of 'em at last count - but there too almost without exception I just bang them out for kicks and fairly soon forget about them (though I religiously keep every last one of them) and move on to the next.

Same with the game - I play as the character as best I can during the session, but in the end it's all just for kicks. I don't take it anywhere near as seriously as you seem to and would be a bit worried about myself if I did.

* - which reminds me, I knocked this out a month or so back...re-words Neil Young's Into the Black

DEATH NEVER SLEEPS

Hey hey my my
D&D will never die
There's more satisfaction than meets the eye
Hey hey my my

Out of the dark and into the light
They cleaned it up and they hoped we'd bite
And though it's fun, it just ain't right
When it's out of the dark and into the light

The glory's gone but the game's not qutting
Is this the story of 5th edition
It's better to burn out, 'cause death never sleeps
The glory's gone but the game's still kicking

Hey hey my my
D&D will never die
There's more satisfaction that meets the eye…

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If I-as-DM say some creature or other is a monster in this setting and you say it should be PC-playable (and maybe the official game even agrees with you), whose word is final at my table?

 

[Lanefan]

If my intention was to run a game about Vikings, and not about visitors to Norway hanging out with Vikings, I would most likely be disinclined to allow someone from southern Europe, Africa or the like. Whether I ultimately would or wouldn't would depend on all the specifics, who's asking, why and what the other players are doing. The fact that, "In theory, such a person might have been there" is not reason enough for me to just say "Yes".

I would be far more inclined to go with it if this player was the only one with a non-standard concept. I mentioned earlier in the thread an actual example that was given to me by GM who went to run a Viking game, and the players came back with concepts for an English monk, a European adventurer, a north African trader, etc. None of them actually wanted to play a Viking.

Though they each didn't want to play a Viking (at least to start with), how interested were those players in playing in a Norse-based setting and culture? Maybe the setting appealed more than the actual playing of a Viking character. Or, is it possible each thought the others would all be playing Vikings and therefore they could try something different?

It's kind of the same as starting a D&D campaign in faux-ancient Greece and the players roll up a Hobbit, two Dwarves, an Elf and a Gnome. They're still going to be starting out in the ancient-Greek culture and setting, and the players will have to figure out how to incorporate an entirely non-Human party into that very Human-centric culture without getting run outta town.

 

[SableWyvern]

Though they each didn't want to play a Viking (at least to start with), how interested were those players in playing in a Norse-based setting and culture? Maybe the setting appealed more than the actual playing of a Viking character. Or, is it possible each thought the others would all be playing Vikings and therefore they could try something different?

It's kind of the same as starting a D&D campaign in faux-ancient Greece and the players roll up a Hobbit, two Dwarves, an Elf and a Gnome. They're still going to be starting out in the ancient-Greek culture and setting, and the players will have to figure out how to incorporate an entirely non-Human party into that very Human-centric culture without getting run outta town.

Again, to be clear, this wasn't my group. It was a GM talking about what had happened, wondering if other GMs have had similar experiences and looking for people's thoughts. Idle chit-chat in a discord.

It felt to me like they just pitched the basic idea of a game, left the players to come up with ideas, and each player came back with concepts slightly out of left field. No single character concept was a problem, it was the fact that everyone was an outsider that made it an issue. The solution, IMO, would have been more ongoing discourse between players and GM over the whole process.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Depends. Declaring that everyone must play one narrowly-specific archetype probably would leave me quite cold, because I often like to: (a) play against type in at least some way, though generally more in a "invert a sad/dark/negative thing into a happier/brighter/positive thing" kind of way, (b) look at the edges or the un-alike, as that is often a natural source of character growth and interesting exploration, and (c) use or invoke dragonlike or dragon-related character elements because I just really, really like dragons and feel happy when I get to integrate dragon-y things into characters I play.

I suggest you stop trying to fit your particular preferences into everyone else's games and specifically their imaginary themed games (like a Viking Campaign). You will be much happier.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

But anyway, you really need to stop with this all-or-nothing mentality you have. There’s no Universal Law of Sandboxes to be broken.

Then why does every single person in this thread disagree with you? Not one person agrees with the idea that a sandbox setting adjusts to the levels of the PC's. That's the one defining trait of actually being a sandbox.

Why are you arguing with me about this? You should be arguing with every other person in this thread that is saying that you are 100% wrong.