Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9508067" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Cool! It's good to hear from other DMs that do this.Sure. That's part of what a good-faith discussion is and must be: nobody is the king of the convo. If something would deeply disturb some folks, let's probably leave that out or keep it very soft-touch. Example: I've had an asexual player, so anything particularly sexual for them would be A Problem, but they also played a Bard with some intent of being flirtatious. Figuring out the right balance point required some discussion. I still made some slight errors from time to time, but nothing so severe as to be harmful, just "ehh not feeling this" type stuff.If something is extremely important to someone, we incorporate it as far as we can, though perhaps with alterations or modifications. Example: I wanted to run an "Arabian Nights"-flavored setting strongly inspired by Al-Andalus, less the slavery. Others wanted to include classic European fantasy things like taverns/bars, which did require me to adjust my expectations, but not in a way that was harmful in the slightest. (Most, albeit not all, Islamic countries have pretty strong rules against alcohol. Although the Tarrakhuna is inspired by Islamic cultures, it is not mimicking them, so ordinary alcohol is consumed, it's just seen as inferior/lower-class compared to the more civilized coffee or extremely expensive imported Jinnistani spirits.)If something is important to one person and a problem for another, we work it out. Example: in the first attempt at this game, I had someone who wanted to take a necromancy-derived feature. This...would not have flown in the setting as I understand it. As in, "you would be run out of town" wouldn't have flown. But I strongly suspected there was a different reason beyond "I want a ghoul pet", because they were specifically swapping out a different elemental pet feature for this. Digging deep enough, their issue ultimately was that they didn't like how it was worded, and were afraid that the elemental pet would be used against them. I promised I would never do that and offered to playtest one or more rewrites of the feature to give them a pet they'd be happy with; they ultimately decided to replace the pet with a "curse" feature instead.Notice that at no point did I become some bend-over-backwards doormat. I advocated for my position, and I listened to the player's position. Sometimes, the appropriate thing for me to do was accept that my position wasn't important enough to insist on it. Sometimes, the appropriate thing was to find a middle ground. Sometimes, the appropriate thing was to figure out where the real issue lay beneath the superficial one, and address that. I'm sure there are many other possible situations that could happen, but I'm confident that if both sides of the discussion are participating in good faith, a resolution can be found that will either please both sides or, failing that, at least please one side and do no harm to the other.Yeah, I only have one friend who is running a game right now, and neither her gaming group, my current DW group, nor the current 5e group I play in have any intersection. Well, other than me as DM in the second and me as player in the third. I know very, very few people who have even the slightest interest in being DMs and with only one exception (the aforementioned woman and another guy I know) don't know anyone in common except me.It's a nice idea. It just doesn't apply for a significant number of people.</blockquote>

Verification