D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Maxperson]

How many of those DMs end up with no players because their play style has alienated most of their available players?

Not many at all, relatively speaking. Folks tend to find players that like their style of DMing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh, I know. But @pemerton has said many times that he ran 4e in a manner that conceptually seems much closer to the playstyles of PbtA than it does to non-4e D&D and its ilk.

I would argue so, yes. In part because PbtA is all about heavily tested, purpose-focused design. The purposes are different, but the concerted effort to make that purpose happen is shared.

Is a particular player or DM gaming desire a fair comparison to an abusive relationship? I've seen many people on this board chastised for suggesting similar comparisons.

And I've seen plenty of discussions of bad game experiences that absolutely were abusive or coercive relationships, regardless of whether they were romantic or platonic. Saving a friend from a group where one of the players had a coercive relationship with the DM (giving said player utterly unacceptable advantages, to the point that it was genuinely causing great emotional distress to my friend) was the impetus for me to start being a GM myself. I may not believe I'm a great GM, but even impostor syndrome couldn't get me to believe I'd be so bad that it would make said friend actually cry.

"I'm the only one you can turn to, so it's my way or the highway" is, at the very least, knowingly coercive. It casts a pall over future actions, even if nothing untoward actually happens.

How many of those DMs end up with no players because their play style has alienated most of their available players? Or put differently, what good is having the perfect game if there is no one but the DM to experience it?

Few, but I do not take anywhere near as rosy an interpretation as Maxperson does. Some of them guaranteed do seek out players that actually match their style. But, as some old guys writing an angry letter once wrote, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that [relationships] long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Some DMs just don't care about doing that.

Bad gaming is certainly worse than not gaming; but it needs to be more than just "worse" when history and emotional connections are putting a thumb on the scale. A bad or unhealthy relationship of any kind can last long, long after it's soured for a variety of reasons. Because it's comfortable, or because one fears one may never replace it, or because the few good times still happen now and then, or because there's the glimmer of hope that it might get better again, or...etc.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Unfortunately... the concept of 'Talk to your players' is one that too many people just can't handle.

Didn't you just tell me that leaving a game with a rule you don't like is the first option?

The irony of course being all the people who continually call WotC chicken for not taking risks with the game, while at the same time being unwilling and afraid to talk to their players and tell them "No".

Didn't you just tell me that putting a guideline for verbal components hurts people's feelings?

So they keep whining about how WotC won't put the rules into the game they want so that they don't HAVE to tell their players "No". They can just shrug their shoulders and say "I'd like to let you do X, but the rules say you can't! Blame WotC, not me!"

Ah this is your stance. It is not a matter of being able to decide, but sometimes guidelines for the games help to ake fair decisions.

Otherwise, why not just play without any rules. So now you tell other peoples they whine if a rule is not in the game.
Which is quite dismissive.

Just voicing a perference is not whining.

 

[pemerton]

Oh, I know. But @pemerton has said many times that he ran 4e in a manner that conceptually seems much closer to the playstyles of PbtA than it does to non-4e D&D and its ilk.

No I didn't. And don't.

Apocalypse World had no influence on how I ran 4e D&D. I drew on the RPGs that (it seems to me pretty obviously) the 4e designers also drew on - Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, and Burning Wheel. These are all scene-based RPGs, very much like 4e D&D in that respect, and they all have extended conflict resolution systems, similar in broad outline to 4e D&D skill challenges.

I'm not going to say it is impossible to run 4e D&D in a way that is influenced by Apocalypse World, but I'm not sure what that would look like. For a start, 4e D&D does not have an "economy" of player-side moves that operate under the rubric "if you do it, you do it".

I have often posted that I have drawn on Apocalypse World to help me run Classic Traveller. But unlike 4e D&D, Classic Traveller is chock-full of sub-systems that are, in effect, player-side moves operating under the rubric "if you do it, you do it". For instance, many of its skills (eg Vacc Suit, Ship's Boat, Streetwise, Admin, Bribery) and other elements (eg operating starships) are described in exactly those terms: when you do <such-and-such a thing>, then roll the dice and establish the outcome within such-and-such parameters depending on the result.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's a big difference between...

"Ha ha! You have no choice in the matter! You have to play this D&D game in the manner I have put forth!"

and

"These are the genre, atmosphere and rules for the gamer I am running. If you don't wish to play D&D in this manner, then you do not have play in this campaign. You're free to decide."

And I think it is an extreme exaggeration if someone suggests that the former is the primary thing we see of the two. Because most DMs just don't care who plays in their games or not. There are almost always players out there looking for games. So a DM with reasonable campaign set up and some preferred specifics will be able to find players to fill those seats more often than not... also because many players just don't care about campaign specifics either. "No dragonborn and warlocks in this game? No problem!"

And for the few players a restriction like that is a hill too far? Well... they can just choose not to join the campaign. And the DM doesn't have to "force" or "coerce" anybody.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Didn't you just tell me that leaving a game with a rule you don't like is the first option?

Didn't you just tell me that putting a guideline for verbal components hurts people's feelings?

Ah this is your stance. It is not a matter of being able to decide, but sometimes guidelines for the games help to ake fair decisions.

Otherwise, why not just play without any rules. So now you tell other peoples they whine if a rule is not in the game.
Which is quite dismissive.

Just voicing a perference is not whining.

You are correct. Voicing a preference is not whining. If that's all you do. But you know as well as I do that most of the time around here the "voicing a preference" is coupled with insults to the designers of D&D for being morons who didn't get the "obvious rules" right, and usually no reference to actually fixing their problems themselves, giving the impression with their words that they are going to just be mad because they aren't getting what they want.

Is this everybody? Nope. Does it happen way more than it should if this place was full of mature adults? Abso-freaking-lutely.

The D&D game that was published in 5E14 and the one that will be published in 5E24 have a lot of rules... many of which I don't prefer to use. Why? Because that's what WotC wrote. Now I cannot change any of that. The book is written and nothing I can say or do will go back in time and re-write things. So if I come here and state my preferences... they should be coupled with the understanding and inference from the readers that I know the game is the game and my comments are not trying to change anything. For me personally? My comments on rules preference are usually attached to how I have changed the rules myself to give me what I want. I don't like X rule... so I've decided to use Y rule instead.

Why? One, because it makes me look like less of a schmuck. I had a problem, and I fixed my problem. I didn't just show up here and write posts that seem to imply I'm just holding my breath until WotC solves my problem for me by re-writing the rules to my satisfaction. And two... who knows, maybe someone with a similar problem will see how I've house ruled my game to fix it and think "Hmm, that's a good idea! I think I'll yoink that!" Granted... I suspect that's a much lower occurrence, because I personally suspect that most of the time when posters come on here they aren't looking to solve their own problems, they are just looking to vent. And while some are reasonable about it, a lot of times it seems like it doesn't matter to them who they insult when they do so-- whether it's the designers for not writing things they want, or other players for not having the same feelings they do and thus contributing to the groupthink or survey results that keeps WotC from changing things to they way they want.

As far as expressing displeasure at the table (and not here on EN World)? If (general) you as a player/DM are not willing to state some preferences you have, or listen to the preferences given (whether they be players or DM)... there is absolutely no reason to think you are ever going to get the experience you want because the other people at the table won't KNOW the experience you want. Which means one of two things... either you play the game as it is and are not happy... or you leave the game without giving any indication why. Both aren't great, but the latter will probably result in less bad feelings over the course of the game. But the better scenario in either event is for everyone at the table just be freaking adults and have a conversation. Come to a compromise. And if a compromise cannot be found (because everyone has specific wants/needs/desires and usually the DM gets final say if it's something they aren't willing to compromise on)... then at least everyone has heard each others statements and can know specifically why someone decides to step away from the game. No guesswork. No mistaken inference. The DM was running a game one way... a player did not wish to play in that way... the player says they are going to step out of the game for everyone's happiness... the DM finds another player to take the spot... and the game goes on with everyone on the same page.

As far as I can see... none of this is hard.

 

[Remathilis]

...that's not gaslighting being described, though. gaslighting is making someone believe certain events happened differently to how they actually happened. what's being described is more invoking the fear of missing out then anything else.

Umbran literally said in his example "I'm your only option, you'll never find another DM to play with." Micah suggested the two aren't comparable, but I think it can be.

D&D is a social activity and like any social group is susceptible to manipulation, pressure and abuse. The Internet is littered with "nightmare DM" stories. And while you all may live in places where eager players rain from the sky, my experience is one where the RPG sphere is smaller, more connected, and insular. Quite frankly, "go ahead and leave, you're not going to find another DM" is and was a viable threat. Again, age and technology has defanged it somewhat, but as teen/young adult in a small town with limited travel opportunities, it often did result in a "no D&D" vs "bad D&D" decision to be made.

I'm not suggesting a DM should cater to their players every whim, but I am suggesting that DMs with a "my way or the highway" style of play often find themselves on the highway.

 

[Remathilis]

Not many at all, relatively speaking. Folks tend to find players that like their style of DMing.

Sometimes a DM finds people that are a fit and sometimes they don't. I've seen both. We assume that "well I would just leave if our play styles clash" but that ignores social and external factors like distance, scheduling, friendship circles, etc. A player might play because his friends play, even if he's not having as much fun. Sometimes a DM can't find anyone but players who want a certain style of gaming. I've said no D&D is better than bad D&D, but it's a harder question if no D&D is better than mediocre D&D.

 

[TiQuinn]

It’s strange that no one has talked about a middle ground which I’ve found more common, frankly:

The GM/DM suggests a few different types of systems and genres they are willing to run and let the group discuss and decide what interests everyone.

 

[Remathilis]

It’s strange that no one has talked about a middle ground which I’ve found more common, frankly:

The GM/DM suggests a few different types of systems and genres they are willing to run and let the group discuss and decide what interests everyone.

That's what I've done for years and it works well.