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

[cbwjm]

Problem there is that the "mistake" has in fact happened in the fiction, and a player has an ironclad can't lose argument to have that same thing work the same way next time.

They don't really have an ironclad argument unless you never correct the issue. If the mistake that happened is just a mistake in game rules, you correct it later and then move on.

So a character stealing from random NPCs is fine but the same character stealing from other PCs is not?

Yeah, no; not gonna fly. Why not? Because this runs directly afoul of my position that PCs and NPCs in the setting are - and should be treated as - the same.

Some of us prefer not to have players who are antagonistic towards each other. If I was playing in a game and another player character kept stealing from mine and the DM was fine with it then I'd quit that game. I would rather a game where I play with others, not against them.

 

[billd91]

But if they do only want one game, and that game isn't one I'm willing to run, they're going to find someone else to run it.

Well, that's the main solution for groups that aren't in agreement about what to play (or to be one-game gamers). Splitting the group. But for some people, that's not an attractive or attainable option.

 

[Lanefan]

Complete tangent but I was around in the mid-90s when Magic became big. I initially rejected it as 'not for me; when some of my buddies wanted me to try it, then I did try it, then I took it fairly seriously and travelled to international tournaments including a Pro Tour and some GPs, and even now I still play it semi-casually. Most of the people I have met through Magic either don't ever roleplay or have done it a bit, casually. Most of the people I roleplay with have never played Magic and the one that has only did so casually.

Here, the onset of M:tG almost completely sank our D&D community. Some of our previously-hardcore D&D players became hardcore Magic players (including me for a while), which is fine. What wasn't fine was the scheduling headaches this created, and by 1997-98 our collective D&D hobby was hanging by a thread.

Then something happened. Maybe it was 3e shining a light on D&D, maybe it was just zeitgeist, who knows - but by 2000 we were rocking, with multiple campaigns going and more potential players than we had space for.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, that's the main solution for groups that aren't in agreement about what to play (or to be one-game gamers). Splitting the group. But for some people, that's not an attractive or attainable option.

Having someone run a game they don't enjoy running might be attainable, but it feels to me that someone would have to be pretty selfish to consider it an attractive option. Honestly, I just can't imagine wanting to spend my leisure time hanging out with someone who thinks that I should be doing something I don't enjoy for their entertainment.

 

[Reynard]

Having someone run a game they don't enjoy running might be attainable, but it feels to me that someone would have to be pretty selfish to consider it an attractive option. Honestly, I just can't imagine wanting to spend my leisure time hanging out with someone who thinks that I should be doing something I don't enjoy for their entertainment.

The person that wants to try that other game should run it. And the rest of the group should let them.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The whole line of argument is a strawman and it goes back to another way of putting down people who don't play their games they way others want them to. "Hur hur, ignorant self-saboteur, you only think you're having real fun! By sticking to your one game, you lack important skills that the rest of us develop and your games are worse as a result."

That is not even remotely the argument and if that's your interpretation of what's being said, that's on you. The argument is, broadening your experiences will improve your DMing. I cannot believe that this is a particularly contentious position to take.

Except you literally said it:

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

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?

 

[Lanefan]

They don't really have an ironclad argument unless you never correct the issue. If the mistake that happened is just a mistake in game rules, you correct it later and then move on.

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.

Some of us prefer not to have players who are antagonistic towards each other. If I was playing in a game and another player character kept stealing from mine and the DM was fine with it then I'd quit that game. I would rather a game where I play with others, not against them.

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".

 

[Lanefan]

The person that wants to try that other game should run it. And the rest of the group should let them.

What if the rest of the group isn't interested in learning and-or playing it?

 

[SableWyvern]

The person that wants to try that other game should run it. And the rest of the group should let them.

Yes, that seems like one pretty reasonable solution to me.

 

[Reynard]

What if the rest of the group isn't interested in learning and-or playing it?

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.