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

[Oofta]

Well, I can certainly tell you what I think of when I hear "DM decides."

I think "DM whim, which may or may not have any relationship whatsoever to anything the DM has previously said, anything that is mathematically sound, or anything that is entertaining for anyone besides the DM."

So many DMs who advocate for this style talk about DM trust. I never--ever--see them talking about trusting their players to be upstanding participants. Matter of fact, I find exactly the opposite; they frequently presume the worst of their players, expecting them to be manipulative, deceptive, malcontent, and disruptive unless firmly put in their place.

I find this asymmetry bitterly hilarious. Only one side can demand trust--and, incidentally, it's the side that has all the power. Only one side can question the motives of the other--and it's the side that controls nearly everything. Only one side can unilaterally declare whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want, and change their mind on a moment's notice for any reason or no reason at all.

This all seems like a giant hyperbolic strawman. I trust my players unless proven otherwise, which sadly happens occasionally. I want the DM to make the final call whether I'm DMing or playing because it's worked for me and the people I play with for the past half century or so.

What do you even mean by "DMs don't trust players"? The rest? The DM declaring whatever they want, whenever they want? Complete and utter BS. At least for any DM that wants to maintain a group.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This all seems like a giant hyperbolic strawman.

I have personally seen it happen. I am a DM today because it happened to a friend of mine.

Is reality straw manning now?

I trust my players unless proven otherwise, which sadly happens occasionally.

That is not the attitude I see from the vast majority of people who rave about "DM empowerment".

What do you even mean by "DMs don't trust players"?

They expect players to cheat, to exploit, to intentionally warp and twist anything and everything that happens, to piss all over the spirit and intent of the game if it would even theoretically give them an advantage. I'm fairly sure you are one of the people who has spoken specifically on that. I know for a fact Lanefan has.

The rest? The DM declaring whatever they want, whenever they want? Complete and utter BS.

It is literally, explicitly what at least three specific people on this very board have said. If you think it's BS, take it up with them, not me.

At least for any DM that wants to maintain a group.

Ah, but there's the rub, isn't it? You act like leaving a group can just happen at the drop of a hat. That is not true. In fact, it can be quite difficult to do so, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Remathilis]

I find this asymmetry bitterly hilarious. Only one side can demand trust--and, incidentally, it's the side that has all the power. Only one side can question the motives of the other--and it's the side that controls nearly everything. Only one side can unilaterally declare whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want, and change their mind on a moment's notice for any reason or no reason at all.

"When I am Weaker Thn You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles."

Frank Herbert, Children of Dune

 

[the Jester]

(literally impossble to accidentally kill a character over lvl 2)

I was going to say that this is false, but... "accidentally"? What does that mean in this context? There's a certain level of judgement there that I'm not sure how to interpret. Is a monster killing a 3rd level pc "accidental"? Is falling damage? Is exhaustion?

This is kind of a loaded statement.

It is absolutely possible to kill pcs over level 2 in 5e, and it is equally absolutely possible to do so without intentionally targeting them in an unfair way.

 

[Oofta]

I have personally seen it happen. I am a DM today because it happened to a friend of mine.

So because you had a bad DM, all DMs are bad? Over the course of playing D&D since the 70s, I've had 2 truly bad DMs. One only judged one session, another started out decent but burned out on DMing and rather than just manning up and explaining took a passive-aggressive approach until we all quit.

But that's not what you're saying.

Is reality straw manning now?

Yes. I had a bad hamburger once, doesn't mean all hamburgers are out to kill me.

That is not the attitude I see from the vast majority of people who rave about "DM empowerment".

When? Where? I don't remember anyone other than you bringing this up.

They expect players to cheat, to exploit, to intentionally warp and twist anything and everything that happens, to piss all over the spirit and intent of the game if it would even theoretically give them an advantage. I'm fairly sure you are one of the people who has spoken specifically on that. I know for a fact Lanefan has.

Occasionally I have had bad players, particularly because I've run a lot of public games. Fortunately they're rare, maybe 1%? Just like bad DMs.

It is literally, explicitly what at least three specific people on this very board have said. If you think it's BS, take it up with them, not me.

Who? When? Even if they did, so what? People say a lot of things. While I think I would happily play a game with the vast majority of players on this forum, there are and always be exceptions.

Ah, but there's the rub, isn't it? You act like leaving a group can just happen at the drop of a hat. That is not true. In fact, it can be quite difficult to do so, for a variety of reasons.

Really? You can't? The DM will take a contract out on you and have you eliminated? I'm sorry if you're in a situation where gaming is scarce, but I've quit games before even when there was no other game available. It's as simple as walking out the door. In one case it was just a matter of clashing styles in which case no harm no foul. I don't blame other people for my unwillingness to walk away from something I don't enjoy and that is entirely and completely a voluntary activity.

 

[tetrasodium]

I was going to say that this is false, but... "accidentally"? What does that mean in this context? There's a certain level of judgement there that I'm not sure how to interpret. Is a monster killing a 3rd level pc "accidental"? Is falling damage? Is exhaustion?

This is kind of a loaded statement.

It is absolutely possible to kill pcs over level 2 in 5e, and it is equally absolutely possible to do so without intentionally targeting them in an unfair way.

Kinda like this

D&D 5E - Does “Whack-A-Mole” Healing really happen in games?

I’ve experienced a lot of 5e D&D over the years with players of varied play-styles, and at every level. I have never once seen players purposefully wait to heal someone until they drop to 0 hp, nor has dropping to 0 hp ever felt like a trivial matter. It makes me wonder if the whole phenomenon...

www.enworld.org

combined with the rest of PHB197 ensures that there is no "accidentally". It's not a matter of "I'm not trying to kill you, these monsters are trying to, it just might happen" and "oh these monsters are trying to kill you and I intend to ensure it happens" because after PC death questions for the group like "what could we have done differently" were taken off the table

 

[FrogReaver]

So because you had a bad DM, all DMs are bad? Over the course of playing D&D since the 70s, I've had 2 truly bad DMs. One only judged one session, another started out decent but burned out on DMing and rather than just manning up and explaining took a passive-aggressive approach until we all quit.

But that's not what you're saying.


Yes. I had a bad hamburger once, doesn't mean all hamburgers are out to kill me.


When? Where? I don't remember anyone other than you bringing this up.



Occasionally I have had bad players, particularly because I've run a lot of public games. Fortunately they're rare, maybe 1%? Just like bad DMs.



Who? When? Even if they did, so what? People say a lot of things. While I think I would happily play a game with the vast majority of players on this forum, there are and always be exceptions.



Really? You can't? The DM will take a contract out on you and have you eliminated? I'm sorry if you're in a situation where gaming is scarce, but I've quit games before even when there was no other game available. It's as simple as walking out the door. In one case it was just a matter of clashing styles in which case no harm no foul. I don't blame other people for my unwillingness to walk away from something I don't enjoy and that is entirely and completely a voluntary activity.

Yea. IMO. If one can’t trust their GM or players at least most of the time then they shouldn’t be playing together.

‘Where one seeks to find fault one will’.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I can certainly tell you what I think of when I hear "DM decides."

I think "DM whim, which may or may not have any relationship whatsoever to anything the DM has previously said, anything that is mathematically sound, or anything that is entertaining for anyone besides the DM."

Which takes a rather dim view of, or outright ignores the existence of, those DMs who in their "DM decides" moments do consider what they've previously said, and-or the soundness of the math, and-or whether the non-entertaining result is in fact better for the game than would be the entertaining one.

So many DMs who advocate for this style talk about DM trust. I never--ever--see them talking about trusting their players to be upstanding participants. Matter of fact, I find exactly the opposite; they frequently presume the worst of their players, expecting them to be manipulative, deceptive, malcontent, and disruptive unless firmly put in their place.

It's the same principle as trusting a referee in a hockey game. Yes of course the hockey players are going to try to get away with whatever they can, while at the same time trusting the referee to be fair and consistent in assessing penalties.

At the table, having a fair and trustworthy DM in effect allows the players more freedom to push the borders of deception and-or disruptiveness because they know any DM-side pushback will be fairly and evenly applied.

I find this asymmetry bitterly hilarious. Only one side can demand trust--and, incidentally, it's the side that has all the power. Only one side can question the motives of the other--and it's the side that controls nearly everything. Only one side can unilaterally declare whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want, and change their mind on a moment's notice for any reason or no reason at all.

All other factors aside, a DM who does the bolded is IMO doing it wrong.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So because you had a bad DM, all DMs are bad?

Did I say that?

But that's not what you're saying.

What, exactly, am I saying then? Because I never said "all DMs are bad." I said that DMs who whine and moan and complain about things like "player entitlement" and "uppity players", who feel they need to be protected from their scary players, who demand trust and don't give it, are a real problem that actually happens. I also said--implicitly--that the rules we have SIGNIFICANTLY encourage this behavior from new DMs, because the rules writing is sloppy and this is excused with "rulings not rules."

Yes. I had a bad hamburger once, doesn't mean all hamburgers are out to kill me.

Good thing I wasn't talking about absolutely all DMs then, isn't it? You projected that onto what I said.

When? Where? I don't remember anyone other than you bringing this up.

Previous threads.

Occasionally I have had bad players, particularly because I've run a lot of public games. Fortunately they're rare, maybe 1%? Just like bad DMs.

Then you're quite lucky. Mediocre DMs are extremely commonplace, and bad DMs--particularly with the explicit text support for DM power trips in 5e--are becoming more common all the time.

Who? When? Even if they did, so what? People say a lot of things. While I think I would happily play a game with the vast majority of players on this forum, there are and always be exceptions.

The one I am comfortable naming

Really? You can't? The DM will take a contract out on you and have you eliminated?

No. The group of people you know will ostracize you or "feel awkward" because you "started drama." Because you rocked the boat, because you chose to be the squeaky wheel. Or, you get a reputation for being a "problem player" just because you actually stood up for yourself against a bad DM--who has far more social clout than you, and thus spreads lies about you to others. Or, you're shy and have difficulty expressing your disapproval to others, so a group where you like everyone but the DM is a precious commodity. Or you applied for dozens...and dozens...and dozens of games, and finally, FINALLY found one willing to take you in, so you're kinda desperate to keep a game unless it's so painfully unacceptable you just cannot stand it. Or you've had rough patches with groups before but were able to work them out, so you're holding out hope...and holding...and holding...and holding..... Or...etc., etc., etc.

There are a zillion reasons why one might be reluctant to give up a gaming group even though it's not producing a good experience currently. Your blithe dismissal of the very possibility that there could be a cost other than saying "bye" illustrates how poorly you understand the difficulties others have with social dynamics and finding/keeping games.

I'm sorry if you're in a situation where gaming is scarce,

Very, very much so. I am extremely fortunate that @Hussar has so graciously invited me to a truly excellent gaming group.

but I've quit games before even when there was no other game available.

Good for you. Now, turn your own arguments around: Just because YOU find it dirt-easy to depart a group, doesn't mean EVERYONE finds it easy. In fact, LOTS of people find it very, very difficult.

It's as simple as walking out the door.

No, it emphatically is not.

 

[Oofta]

Did I say that?


What, exactly, am I saying then? Because I never said "all DMs are bad." I said that DMs who whine and moan and complain about things like "player entitlement" and "uppity players", who feel they need to be protected from their scary players, who demand trust and don't give it, are a real problem that actually happens. I also said--implicitly--that the rules we have SIGNIFICANTLY encourage this behavior from new DMs, because the rules writing is sloppy and this is excused with "rulings not rules."


Good thing I wasn't talking about absolutely all DMs then, isn't it? You projected that onto what I said.


Previous threads.


Then you're quite lucky. Mediocre DMs are extremely commonplace, and bad DMs--particularly with the explicit text support for DM power trips in 5e--are becoming more common all the time.


The one I am comfortable naming


No. The group of people you know will ostracize you or "feel awkward" because you "started drama." Because you rocked the boat, because you chose to be the squeaky wheel. Or, you get a reputation for being a "problem player" just because you actually stood up for yourself against a bad DM--who has far more social clout than you, and thus spreads lies about you to others. Or, you're shy and have difficulty expressing your disapproval to others, so a group where you like everyone but the DM is a precious commodity. Or you applied for dozens...and dozens...and dozens of games, and finally, FINALLY found one willing to take you in, so you're kinda desperate to keep a game unless it's so painfully unacceptable you just cannot stand it. Or you've had rough patches with groups before but were able to work them out, so you're holding out hope...and holding...and holding...and holding..... Or...etc., etc., etc.

There are a zillion reasons why one might be reluctant to give up a gaming group even though it's not producing a good experience currently. Your blithe dismissal of the very possibility that there could be a cost other than saying "bye" illustrates how poorly you understand the difficulties others have with social dynamics and finding/keeping games.


Very, very much so. I am extremely fortunate that @Hussar has so graciously invited me to a truly excellent gaming group.


Good for you. Now, turn your own arguments around: Just because YOU find it dirt-easy to depart a group, doesn't mean EVERYONE finds it easy. In fact, LOTS of people find it very, very difficult.


No, it emphatically is not.

What can I say. I disagree. It is as simple as walking out the door. I've done it and was better off for it. I didn't make a scene, I just dropped out politely. I'm sorry you have issues with this, I just don't know what else to say.

I've had good DMs, mediocre DMs, DMs that simply ran a game that simply wasn't for me and only a couple of bad ones over decades with dozens if not hundreds of DMs. Yet you paint one of the core tenets of D&D - that the DM makes the final call - as this terrible thing that is done on a whim by maniacal dictators. But this is nothing new, and there's nothing new in this conversation. Have a good one.