D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[TwoSix]

Instantly dropped, no discussion, no self-advocacy, nothing. All Max need do is express any amount of dislike, and his players will instantly and permanently vacate their own personal interests.

I mean, I would do that too. But I'm strongly in favor of the idea that any participant should strive to be accommodating. If I'm the GM, I accommodate my players. If I'm a player, I accommodate my GM.

Just be chill. Your PC isn't that important. The setting isn't that important. Getting together and having fun playing with something mutually agreeable; that's what's important.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They shouldn't be defining a setting with strict curation before doing collaboration with the players that will be consuming that setting, no. Have a rough outline, meet with the players to see what they're interested in, and then you flesh out more details.

Nothing is a bigger red flag for me than a GM who's super into their own setting design. Because that means they think the game is about their setting first, and our characters second.

Precisely! Could not have put it better myself (most likely much worse).

When the world is so precious to the GM that they nail down 95% of it before it ever encounters a player, I can tell where the GM's priorities lie--and it isn't with the players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, I would do that too. But I'm strongly in favor of the idea that any participant should strive to be accommodating. If I'm the GM, I accommodate my players. If I'm a player, I accommodate my GM.

Just be chill. Your PC isn't that important. The setting isn't that important. Getting together and having fun playing with something mutually agreeable; that's what's important.

And I'm strongly of the opinion that people should advocate for their interests rather than shaving off any part of themselves which might ever cause the tiniest inconvenience for someone else.

One does not need to be vacant in order to be accommodating. Being accommodating means respecting others and taking into account their desires and preferences. It doesn't mean "oh okay you frowned, I don't get any of the things I wanted now I guess, I'll try to find some other kind of fun..."

 

[TwoSix]

And I'm strongly of the opinion that people should advocate for their interests rather than shaving off any part of themselves which might ever cause the tiniest inconvenience for someone else.

One does not need to be vacant in order to be accommodating. Being accommodating means respecting others and taking into account their desires and preferences. It doesn't mean "oh okay you frowned, I don't get any of the things I wanted now I guess, I'll try to find some other kind of fun..."

It is, admittedly, a fine line to walk.

 

[Maxperson]

Instantly dropped, no discussion, no self-advocacy, nothing. All Max need do is express any amount of dislike, and his players will instantly and permanently vacate their own personal interests.

And vice versa, yes. If they dislike something, I drop it from my game. Why on Earth would we want to intentionally inflict discomfort on another person when there are 12764636211877676 fun things to play in D&D?

 

[billd91]

Is there a good reason the GM curation vs Player PC choices conversation has polluted this thread now?

 

[CleverNickName]

You guys lost me. The hypothetical players and DMs that y'all are talking about are my real-life friends. We respect each other a lot more than what's being implied.

Maybe your situation is different but we don't treat each other like-- (gestures at the last dozen pages of comments) --this. We wouldn't be friends for very long if we did.

 

[TwoSix]

You guys lost me. The hypothetical players and DMs that y'all are talking about are my real-life friends. We respect each other a lot more than what's being implied.

Maybe your situation is different but we don't treat each other like-- (gestures at the last dozen pages of comments) --this. We wouldn't be friends for very long if we did.

Other than @Remathilis's post at 691, I don't see a ton of example cases of how people are treating each other. Can you elaborate?

 

[TwoSix]

Is there a good reason the GM curation vs Player PC choices conversation has polluted this thread now?

I'm happy to talk about another topic. What are you interested in today?

 

[Remathilis]

And I'm frankly astounded that there are multiple people in this thread that think that's something a DM needs to outgrow.

I enjoy player-driven and collaborative worldbuilding exercises, but the person responsible for providing the game world isn't allowed to decide what they put into it? What even is this?

He never outgrew the "sure, you can play X" and then a few weeks later saying "on second thought, I don't like X. Change your character." Which is frankly bull pucky unless the character is disruptive or broken. You deciding you don't like the idea of a druid, or a bard with 8th level spells, or a shadeling (in a planar campaign, which it was written for!) weeks after you allowed the character to be played is entitled and immature.

The only difference is that he doesn't hide it by intentionally killing your PC and making it look like a random death.