D&D General A Rant: DMing is not hard.

[cbwjm]

Correcting it later means one of two things has to happen:

1 - The erroneous action needs to be retconned to its correct version, which potentially invalidates every second of play that happened after it due to the one-thing-leads-to-another effect; or
2 - The erroneous action is allowed to stand in isolation, meaning that your rulings are now inconsistent with themselves (which I think we all agree is bad bad bad).

And so, getting it right the first time becomes important.

Note that characters being antagonistic to each other does not mean the players are being similarly antagonistic. The players might be laughing their hearts out while their characters chop each other to bits.

If I'm playing in a game and I know or find out someone is stealing from me, I'll do something about it in character; and whether the person stealing from me is a PC or an NPC makes no difference whatsoever to what my character does next.

Ditto if I'm the one doing the stealing; if my character's dumb enough or unlucky enough to get caught I-as-player am well aware there's likely to be in-fiction consequences (and would, in all fairness, be annoyed were there not; if that lack of repercussions was based solely on the rationale that my character is a PC).

As both DM and player, I don't believe in "PC glow".

You don't need to retcon anything, you can just say "Hey everyone, that was incorrect, we will run it the correct way from now on". No retcon needed, the game keeps on running fine.

Sure in some groups players might be laughing, but if I ask the player of the thief to stop stealing from my PC and they don't then I'm done with the game, because, as I said I don't like games where the players are antagonistic to each other.

 

[cbwjm]

Presumably, we are talking about a group of friends. It would seem strange to me that if one of my friends was really interested in trying something new, that I would veto them. For what? Because I couldn't trade a few sessions of my favorite half orc thief, or the game I am running?


I sometimes wonder if other people don't play with friends.

Yeah, I'm happy to try out other rpgs, but the one suggesting it has to be the one to run it. Same with if I'm wanting to try something new; I'll run it, the other players don't even necessarily have to know how to play, I'll explain things as we go.

 

[Lanefan]

Presumably, we are talking about a group of friends. It would seem strange to me that if one of my friends was really interested in trying something new, that I would veto them. For what? Because I couldn't trade a few sessions of my favorite half orc thief, or the game I am running?

Just because someone is a friend doesn't necessarily mean you have to go along with whatever they suggest.

If I'm the DM and intend to keep my campaign going, and someone wants to run something else*, then that someone can propose a different night to run and we each get to make our own decision as to whether we'll join in or not. As DM of my own game I also get to choose between shutting my game down while the other one runs or continuing to run with whoever still wants to play.

If I'm a player in that situation the same applies, and I then get to decide whether I'll 1) stay in game A only, 2) play in both games A and B, or 3) drop out of game A to join game B.

* - or even just start their own campaign using the same system.

I sometimes wonder if other people don't play with friends.

I only play with friends, and speak from long experience.

 

[Lanefan]

You don't need to retcon anything, you can just say "Hey everyone, that was incorrect, we will run it the correct way from now on". No retcon needed, the game keeps on running fine.

And now your rulings are inconsistent - it worked that way the first time and this way the second time - which is widely seen as very poor DM form.

Sure in some groups players might be laughing, but if I ask the player of the thief to stop stealing from my PC and they don't then I'm done with the game, because, as I said I don't like games where the players are antagonistic to each other.

If I'm the player of the thief and you asked me that out of character, I'd tell you to deal with it in character. And if I'm the DM in that situation I'd pull out the (gentle, to start with) smackdown hammer and tell you to keep character disagreements and issues in character; you'd have already been told up front that in-character issues are not to spill over to the table, so this should come as no surprise.

 

[Hussar]

But it's gone far beyond "suggesting" which is the whole issue. It's that "You will never rise to our level of expertise unless you do what we do". Because for a lot of us, it would take significant effort and disruption of games we are having fun playing to "try out" other games. It's just not practical for me or the people I game with.

Again, this is entirely on you and has absolutely no relation to anything anyone here

 

[SableWyvern]

Again, this is entirely on you and has absolutely no relation to anything anyone here

Well, no. @Swarmkeeper did just quote you clearly stating that people who don't play multiple games will never be any good.

So, no, I don't think you can be a good player or a good DM without ever trying another game.

 

[Hussar]

Except you literally said it:



Ergo, if you're not a "good player or a good DM" you are...
So you see how some folks might come to the conclusion that you are putting others down?

Yup. when you cherry pick quotations out of context, you really can make them say anything. Particularly when you ignore the fifteen subsequent posts that further clarify a point.

On the other hand, the opposite of "better" is not "bad". You can be a better player (which is honestly what I should have said in the first place but typed too quickly) without anyone else being bad.

 

[SableWyvern]

Yup. when you cherry pick quotations out of context, you really can make them say anything. Particularly when you ignore the fifteen subsequent posts that further clarify a point.

On the other hand, the opposite of "better" is not "bad". You can be a better player (which is honestly what I should have said in the first place but typed too quickly) without anyone else being bad.

The context is that the part that was quoted was phrased as a summation of the entire proceeding post.

However, if you're saying you're now walking that back and you don't really believe that you can't be a good player or good GM without playing multiple games, I'm happy to accept that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Which is 100% true. If I've been to France multiple times, and you've once looked it up on wikipedia, I know more about what France is like than you do. If I've read 100 games and played 20 of them, and you've only ever read or played D&D (the figurative 'you') I know more about RPGs and RPG design than you do. These are just facts.



That's fine. I don't say you must do these things. I don't say that doing these things is free of opportunity cost. I don't say that prioritising the opportunity cost of trying them over the potential benefits of trying them is incorrect. I simply say that doing these things would not have zero value, I simply say that doing these things would increase your overall understanding of the field. Valuing your fun over 'possible learning experiences' is fine but it doesn't mean that those learning experiences wouldn't be real.

Counter argument using your own logic. I know more about D&D than you.

And youre posting on a D&D forum.

 

[Hussar]

The context is that the part that was quoted was phrased as a summation of the entire proceeding post.

However, if you're saying you're now walking that back and you don't really believe that you can't be a good player or good GM without playing multiple games, I'm happy to accept that.

Sure? Happy to oblige. NOt really sure how you got "now" considering that I had clarified the point repeatedly, even within the post that was quoted out of context. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. We are finally communicating clearly and that's all that matters.