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

[Remathilis]

That's a whole lot of words to say "The player decides what options are allowed." I see no room for player compromise.

If you're that adamant that only you can make the final decision then you are free to find another game because I sincerely tried to come up with a compromise that would work and you aren't interested.

That fine. I'm pretty sure your game would be too narrow and hemmed in for me anyway. I'd be a museum tourist allowed to look-but-don't-touch because anything that ruins your fun would get me booted.

 

[dave2008]

Why am I wrong?

I am not saying your wrong, but, as a forever DM, I will argue that the DM has a lot more levers they can pull and adjust. So getting fixated just one seems a bit petty.

 

[dave2008]

That fine. I'm pretty sure your game would be too narrow and hemmed in for me anyway. I'd be a museum tourist allowed to look-but-don't-touch because anything that ruins your fun would get me booted.

Best to stay away from personal assumptions and attacks. As far as I can tell we area all talking hypotheticals here

 

[saviirkad]

That's a whole lot of words to say "The player decides what options are allowed." I see no room for player compromise.

If you're that adamant that only you can make the final decision then you are free to find another game because I sincerely tried to come up with a compromise that would work and you aren't interested.

If "how can I make this work in a way that doesn't break your world" means the same to you as the player getting their way without compromising, then it sounds to me like your stance actually is that only the DM gets the final say and the player gets no say. I know you've stated that's not the case, but this very much reads like that is not true.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Why does D&D always have to assume that every campaign is set in a kitchen-sink fantasy world?

As long as Tortles have been around, D&D has also had restrictive settings (eg the historical green books).

The HR books and the 2E settings come from an older model of D&D, where the game was considered in part a toolkit for running various types of fantasy games. At least one prolific poster on this thread has criticized this as a bad model for D&D, but I think it can be safely said at least that the current dominant model from WotC is that D&D is its own thing, and that settings should be tweaked to reflect D&D, rather than vice versa. Hence the disconnect between "using D&D to play in a DM's world" and "playing D&D because we want to play D&D specifically, with all that that entails."

 

[GobHag]

Thank you. So my understanding is that narrative and setting are not valid reasons in your eyes?

To me you are advocating a culture where the DM is expected to compromise on fiction and tone by default, while players aren’t expected to do the same.

Does this facilitate mutual enjoyment of the game? Or does this prioritize player enjoyment over DM enjoyment? And in the case of the latter, what is the incentive for the DM to partake?

Once you frame “curtailing DM power” as a cultural good, you’ve already decided whose enjoyment is negotiable. And I think you lose incentive on the DM side in that framing.

Why am I wrong?

You are absolutely correct, I however expect the pull from the opposite party to inevitably end up making things more neutral overall.

Or there's such a great split and neither of us(general us) have to meet in a game. Or maybe this destroys D&D(this is good because I can still play other systems)

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I am not saying your wrong, but, as a forever DM, I will argue that the DM has a lot more levers they can pull and adjust. So getting fixated just one seems a bit petty.

Tone, genre, and setting coherence aren’t minor knobs for a lot of DMs; they’re often a primary source of enjoyment in running a game. Saying “you have other levers” doesn’t really address whether it’s reasonable to ask the DM to give that one up by default.

So is it actually petty for a DM to defend something they value, or is it only being framed that way because it conflicts with player preference? If I DM, in large part, because I like the world-building aspect, am I just not welcome as a DM? Or inherently a bad DM? Is my enjoyment worth less?

 

[Belen]

The HR books and the 2E settings come from an older model of D&D, where the game was considered in part a toolkit for running various types of fantasy games. At least one prolific poster on this thread has criticized this as a bad model for D&D, but I think it can be safely said at least that the current dominant model from WotC is that D&D is its own thing, and that settings should be tweaked to reflect D&D, rather than vice versa. Hence the disconnect between "using D&D to play in a DM's world" and "playing D&D because we want to play D&D specifically, with all that that entails."

No.

D&D remains a toolkit. If not, then it will loose market share. The fact that it can be used to run a variety of games and playstyles is its strength. If it becomes a kitchen-sink that allows everything and they push the idea that DMs cannot run games that motivate them, then D&D will fade. WOTC has added a lot of third-party bookks to DDB. Are you saying that all of that content is allowed if a player bought it and wants to use it?

 

[mamba]

Do I need to justify why I want to be a wizard instead of a fighter?. Do I need to justify why my character is an elf to play one?

if the DM has objections then yes, otherwise no, same as with the turtle

Because it interests me is sufficient enough motivation

if you are not needing to find a compromise, sure, and by that same logic the DM not wanting them is sufficient reason to not allow them

 

[AlViking]

That fine. I'm pretty sure your game would be too narrow and hemmed in for me anyway. I'd be a museum tourist allowed to look-but-don't-touch because anything that ruins your fun would get me booted.

Good grief. A "museum tourist"? You know nothing about my games. I run a very open game where the direction of the campaign is always decided by the players. Dramatic and far reaching changes to the world happen because of player decisions even when it goes against what I thought was a cool plot line development. Hyperbolic insults don't make your case.

The separation of roles with the DM controlling the world and the players controlling their characters with the world reacting and being adjusted based on and reacting to the character's actions works well whether I'm DM or player. If a DM starts telling me what my character thinks or does without magical compulsion they aren't the DM for me. If a player demands that they must decide how my world works they aren't a good fit at any table I want to DM or play at.