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

[FrozenNorth]

Maybe to the GM who is unwilling to compromise, "the game" - the thing they want to run - is somehow special. But to the players... not really? In this scenario, we are still talking about compromise around character generation. Play of "the game" hasn't even begun! The players (individually, and as a group) haven't invested much, so no big loss.

In this scenario, the GM, who is apparently invested in this offering enough to reject players over its integrity, is the one who has something to lose.

GMs, and their specific visions, are not irreplaceably special.

Agree 100%. In my gaming circle, in the last two months, two campaigns have fallen apart.

The GM started from the premise “I really like/am knowledgeable about this RPG system and I’m enthusiastic about the campaign. Therefore, the campaign will be great!”

The players duly learned the systems, they duly created their characters, and started playing. But pretty quickly, it was clear that the main draw wasn’t the campaign, it was hanging out. So the campaigns died.

Above someone said (paraphrased) that as long as your vision for a campaign isn’t irremediably selfish, you can probably find players who share your vision.

Conversely though, if you want to play with specific players, you need to know your audience. You need to tailor your campaign to what your players find interesting, or you risk spending additional effort GMing to zoned-out players.

 

[Oofta]

If, within the system, you can resolve every valid action declaration, you have a rule for everything.

So then D&D has a rule for everything? After all, anything that's uncertain comes back to an ability check if the DM wants.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I certainly hope that is the most common. It’s the one that I personally tend to use.

 

[FrozenNorth]

As I've noted before, people end up having trouble with difficult discussions in all kinds of contexts, why should it be more surprising here? Among other things, some people are really conflict-averse.

If I yell at people to stop being conflict-averse, will they engage in difficult discussions so I’ll stop yelling?

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

If I yell at people to stop being conflict-averse, will they engage in difficult discussions so I’ll stop yelling?

Only one way to find out.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If I yell at people to stop being conflict-averse, will they engage in difficult discussions so I’ll stop yelling?

I know this is a joke, but the answer is "They'll just avoid you."

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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.

I think this only happens in games not hosted online. And I think as the percentage, of all games, that are hosted online grows, this becomes less common as a result. There is a strong argument that online, the norm is for the DM to post what they want, and to wait for willing players to join. While DMing online, I've never felt pressure to do anything else, for every posted game always fills.

I think this is important, because it shows that there are two ecosystems, where DM behavior in relation to players is different. I think the abundant access to players online, means DMs have no reason to negotiate or placate but instead state their personal desires as is. In person, social norms and less abundant players, dictate a more accommodating path.

I think the entire discussion on DM "tyranny," largely depends on the ratio between willing DMs and aspirational players within a ecosystem. And that leads to weird splits in people's view on the topic. A DM who only runs games online, might find the idea of negotiating with players over the style of game to be absurd, while one focused on in person games, might find that dismissal of player desires to be equally absurd. Both views are, simply, a reflection of the reality inside the DM's ecosystem.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think this only happens in games not hosted online. And I think as the percentage, of all games, that are hosted online grows, this becomes less common as a result. There is a strong argument that online, the norm is for the DM to post what they want, and to wait for willing players to join. While DMing online, I've never felt pressure to do anything else, for every posted game always fills.

I think this is important, because it shows that there are two ecosystems, where DM behavior in relation to players is different. I think the abundant access to players online, means DMs have no reason to negotiate or placate but instead state their personal desires as is. In person, social norms and less abundant players, dictate a more accommodating path.

I think the entire discussion on DM "tyranny," largely depends on the ratio between willing DMs and aspirational players within a ecosystem. And that leads to weird splits in people's view on the topic. A DM who only runs games online, might find the idea of negotiating with players over the style of game to be absurd, while one focused on in person games, might find that dismissal of player desires to be equally absurd. Both views are, simply, a reflection of the reality inside the DM's ecosystem.

Though I'd suspect even online, the question becomes more sharp when you get away from the D&D sphere.

 

[Lanefan]

Don't confuse "the rules can cover everything" with "anything you choose is equally likely to be successful, or a good idea in the setting".

I'm not confusing those.

A rule that says "while you are free to declare actions that are by their very nature impossible, such as jumping to the moon, the GM is also free to decide that such actions automatically fail" covers a whole lot of ground while promising the exact opposite of success.

Also, I wasn't talking about equality of action-success likelihoods in the first place; what I was getting at was a) that the claim that a game system has a rule for everything implies by extension that said game can equally well handle different playstyles and focuses from its participants and then b) the poster who made that claim went on to almost immediately say that it was designed to suit a fairly specific playstyle and focus. These clauses a) and b) are in disagreement.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Though I'd suspect even online, the question becomes more sharp when you get away from the D&D sphere.

I agree. I think the DM's indifference can scale with the abundance of players independent of online or not. A system with fewer players in relation to DMs, would require more courting of those players by any individual DM.

I haven't, personally, DMed other systems outside of my friend group, so I can't attest to this being the case. But it makes perfect sense that it would.