Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Panda-s1" data-source="post: 7762979" data-attributes="member: 59554">I said the DM should work together with players who want something specific in their game. Together. I'm not sure how "working together" somehow infers only the DM is compromising in this situation. I find it a little disconcerting that saying this has given people the impression that I believe if I came up to a DM demanding I play a half-dragon drow sorcerer with a +5 wand at first level they must agree to it otherwise they're a bad DM, especially when I've also said that the DM gets the final word and have agreed that extreme situations should not be allowed. Hell I know DMs that do this with all their players anyway to help them make sure their character can have a background that makes sense in their setting. Myself included, and believe me when I say I've had to make some players tone their character down lest they go on a rampage.As another aside, I'm wondering why people are getting defensive at the idea of bad DMs. Like me and others in this thread have pointed out a lot of hyperbole gets thrown at any sort of criticism concerning how DMs deal with players' desires for their characters. I also see "player entitlement" being thrown around which to me sounds pretty silly given how D&D is set up.EDIT: I suppose I should be more specific about that scenario, but I don't like thinking about it because I was handed a situation in which there's clearly a consensus for the DMs preferred style of game and asked what is correct resolution for this scenario, which is quite frankly a bit condescending. This is also why I flipped it around so that the DM was in the minority. At that point it feels unfair to the entire group to have to play that DMs game when most of them would rather not. The DM could talk with everyone else and come up with an idea that works for everyone; maybe the setting is gritty/realistic, but magic still exists, it's just rare and players who play a caster might warrant unwanted attention if they use their magic publicly. Or maybe they end up running a kitchen sink game but everything is just a lot more deadly. Realistically the third DM should probably step in and run a game that presumably everyone will want play, 'cause the scenario where the DM doubles down and runs the game exactly as they want will get only two players and that group would probably just fall apart as far as RPGs are concerned. Like I said, there's all sorts of games I wish I could run but could never get the players to play it, that's just how gaming is.</blockquote>

Verification