D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Thomas Shey]

You are right. Players are allowed to opt out and have standards. That is not controversial. Your issue is your framing and the sneering.

I'll just note I've seen GMs on this very board bemoan when they do. There was a thread about "circus parties" not long ago that was filled with people who were grumpy that they had players who were only interested in the more non-human PCs. So I'd say "not controversial" is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[Minigiant]

Again I think posters are posting past each other.

I think we are all agreeing that restricting a few classes or races is fine. There shouldn't being argument between the DM and the player since the player most likely will have other concepts in their head besides the banned ones. The DM bands gnomes, goliath, druids and sorcerer. The player can choose to be a dwarf wizard instead of a gnome sorcerer. If the player only want to play a dwarf wizard then they have to get up and opt off the table. It's their prerogative to have a preference and only want to play their number one preferred character.

However the typical mentality within the D&D community social discussion is that a player does not sit down at a table with a single concept for a character as their only option without getting declaring of the DM well before they come to the table.

The part danced around is when the DM heavily restricts character creation option on their end.

And I get it.

It's easier to say that I as a player want to play a gnome wizard to the DM than I as a DM say

"No dragonborns elves gnomes tiefling aasimar, goliaths can only be Hill or stone. No clerics no droids no warlocks no paladins, no rangers, no Wizards". It's a lot.

However if you inform the players of all your restrictions and they choose not to play, fine.

You as a DM have to be able to accept the rejection and accept that somebody might not find your setting interesting. And you as a player have to accept that you might not be able to play a specific player character concept at any given table.

 

[Remathilis]

You are right. Players are allowed to opt out and have standards. That is not controversial. Your issue is your framing and the sneering.

I bolded some clearly mocking phrases. Why are you mocking DMs? Once we start mocking the DMs, we stop having a neutral opt out, and instead we have an opt out while sneering. There is a real possibility, that DMs aren't snowflakes, but simply don't care for the opinions of players who opt out of their game. Why would they care, they are there for their own fun. I know for my private games, I could care less what you or anyone not at the table thinks.

The WotC comparison is incorrect. WotC products are commercial goods sold to a mass audience. A DM’s campaign is a private, unpaid creative offer to a small group. It is very different to criticize a commercial product, than to criticize someone's private fun you are not a part of. You are doing the latter, and doing it on a broad scale.

You can believe what you believe, but when you use the tone you are using about a community, expect social friction. I can say “System X isn’t for me,” and the reaction is very different from me saying, “System X is lazy garbage and anyone who likes it has low standards.” One is a difference of opinion, the other is elitism in it's purest form.

So I think we should not broadly insult wide swaths of the community, because we disagree with their fun. But who knows, maybe that is a lazy opinion to have.

I'll be blunt: I have stated repeatedly that I have a standard I hold for new games I'm joining: no options less than what the core rulebook gives. If I don't see that, I will walk. I've been told I am entitled and wrong for having that standard. I can only imagine this is because people have a problem with me, as a player, having said standard because they feel if I'm going to walk because of it, that I must be calling them a bad DM rather than a DM who I feel I won't have fun playing with.

I've given up trying to explain that. So now I am calling them a bad DM.

Because it all comes back to the DM is Always Right and the Player is Always Wrong mentality that this board in particular exposes at every opportunity. Every DM is above reproach, every DM immune to criticism. I'm sick of it. So if you want to make players the bad guys, I'll play that role. To be fair, I think a lot of DMs are high on their own farts and could stand the reminder they aren't Tolkien or Martin and that those carefully considered visions aren't any better or worse than a kitchen sink gonzo game.

So yeah, your game (editorial, not personal) sounds terrible and I don't think I'll have fun playing it. Thanks for the invite, but no thanks. Either accept the criticism that your pitch doesn't interest me or don't. I don't care. But you (editorial) can quit trying to defend that since I didn't like it, I'm the one that's wrong.

 

[Remathilis]

You as a DM have to be able to accept the rejection and accept that somebody might not find your setting interesting. And you as a player have to accept that you might not be able to play a specific player character concept at any given table.

My guess is that people here are taking that personally because D&D is a personal endeavor. If you invited me to play a video game with you and then explained the game and I said, "no thanks, that doesn't sound like a game I will enjoy" you probably won't take that personally because you didn't have a say in the creation of that game. But do the same with D&D and it's personal because you do have a say in the creation. You created/chose the world. You put time and energy into it. It's your passion project. So me saying "that sounds unfun, no thanks" isn't a rejection, it's an insult to you. Which is the only reason I can think why so many people are in a twist about a player who sets a threshold for what they expect of a game. They can't accept that someone else is yucking their yum.

 

[Belen]

I'll just note I've seen GMs on this very board bemoan when they do. There was a thread about "circus parties" not long ago that was filled with people who were grumpy that they had players who were only interested in the more non-human PCs. So I'd say "not controversial" is a bit of an overstatement.

It was nearly the same argument as this thread: DMs should not restrict players and their setting should accommodate kitchen-sink D&D.

DMs running a stock setting should just allow the options that are in that setting. I would never run Eberron and deny Warforged. Of course, I would never run Eberron, but point made.

If I have taken the time to write a campaign world and there is a setting theme that I want to base the campaign around, then I create a document, ask if people want to play, and if it is a go, then I run it. If a potential player(s) says no, then that is fine. I move with the folks who want to play or I do not run that game.

I learned a while ago that I cannot just run a game if I am not going to have fun. The game has to be a social contract agreed by everyone at the table or it just will not be fun.

For me, I doubt I will ever allow Orcs and Goliaths. I have not moved to 5.5, so at least no one can say I am forced to use everything in the PHB. Of course, my setting does not have Drow either. I use Winter Elves to fill that niche. I fell in love with them from Tad Williams Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn and I incorporated my own version into my setting.

In any event, I get why some folks do not like the "circus party" concept and why some may not want to incorporate certain species. I have been burned by players who took got a bit too off the rails in the past.

 

[Belen]

Because it all comes back to the DM is Always Right and the Player is Always Wrong mentality that this board in particular exposes at every opportunity. Every DM is above reproach, every DM immune to criticism. I'm sick of it. So if you want to make players the bad guys, I'll play that role. To be fair, I think a lot of DMs are high on their own farts and could stand the reminder they aren't Tolkien or Martin and that those carefully considered visions aren't any better or worse than a kitchen sink gonzo game.

Really?

I see a lot of "DMs are evil" all the time on ENWorld. I have found it highly annoying to see a constant theme of players using the worst, most extreme examples of bad DMs and applying that to every DM.

Personally, I never said a kitchen-sink game is worse than my setting. I am pretty consistent in saying that if I am doing the work to prepare and run the game, then I also need to make it fun for me. Have I run a kitchen-sink game? Yes, when it is something that interests me. If I am putting in 3-5 hours a session for people who only have to update their characters and show up, then I am going to run a concept that will keep me engaged.

It may not be better than an alternative but it is better for me because it keeps me wanting to run the game.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I'll be blunt: I have stated repeatedly that I have a standard I hold for new games I'm joining: no options less than what the core rulebook gives. If I don't see that, I will walk. I've been told I am entitled and wrong for having that standard. I can only imagine this is because people have a problem with me, as a player, having said standard because they feel if I'm going to walk because of it, that I must be calling them a bad DM rather than a DM who I feel I won't have fun playing with.

I've given up trying to explain that. So now I am calling them a bad DM.

Because it all comes back to the DM is Always Right and the Player is Always Wrong mentality that this board in particular exposes at every opportunity. Every DM is above reproach, every DM immune to criticism. I'm sick of it. So if you want to make players the bad guys, I'll play that role. To be fair, I think a lot of DMs are high on their own farts and could stand the reminder they aren't Tolkien or Martin and that those carefully considered visions aren't any better or worse than a kitchen sink gonzo game.

So yeah, your game (editorial, not personal) sounds terrible and I don't think I'll have fun playing it. Thanks for the invite, but no thanks. Either accept the criticism that your pitch doesn't interest me or don't. I don't care. But you (editorial) can quit trying to defend that since I didn't like it, I'm the one that's wrong.

They can't accept that someone else is yucking their yum.

But why? That was my whole point. Why bother to yuck their yum? Why is it worth your time? Is this actually about the argument or is it just about catharsis? Like you seemed to completely abandon the entire "can opt out" line of thinking. So are we just in pure hostility mode? Because that's how it reads to me.

I mean if so, live your best life. But I'd love to know, because if you have an argument, you lost me.

 

[Minigiant]

My guess is that people here are taking that personally because D&D is a personal endeavor. If you invited me to play a video game with you and then explained the game and I said, "no thanks, that doesn't sound like a game I will enjoy" you probably won't take that personally because you didn't have a say in the creation of that game. But do the same with D&D and it's personal because you do have a say in the creation. You created/chose the world. You put time and energy into it. It's your passion project. So me saying "that sounds unfun, no thanks" isn't a rejection, it's an insult to you. Which is the only reason I can think why so many people are in a twist about a player who sets a threshold for what they expect of a game. They can't accept that someone else is yucking their yum.

Thank you for saying it. I didn't want to be the one.

I think a lot of DMs do not fully explain or describe their personal project settings out of fear of rejection or to get yeses from specific potential players.

Then they get rejected anyway.

And then you have people who post online the concepts behind their settings and don't go in detail because they're not actively recruiting.

But it's the internet so that there's people who have no problem flat out saying "oh I think that's boring".

 

[mamba]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I think I could name a number of other games that are selling within the genre D&D is; its usually pretty obvious.

That is what I wrote, they are not outselling anyone else because they are the only ones creating a game in this genre, they do it through name recognition, marketing, and their distribution channel.

 

[mamba]

I'll just note I've seen GMs on this very board bemoan when they do. There was a thread about "circus parties" not long ago that was filled with people who were grumpy that they had players who were only interested in the more non-human PCs. So I'd say "not controversial" is a bit of an overstatement.

players being allowed to opt out is not controversial, the DM might have preferred them not to, but I doubt the same DM would say they had no right to