D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

[payn]

I can see that. But, I don't think it's a bad thing to acknowledge either. After all, it does nothing to help the business for people to get frustrated, to the point where they blow up the group and then leave the hobby. I know that's what happened to me. I quit running for a group after years of frustration and just took a break entirely.

I'm fairly sure that "I had really negative experiences" ranks pretty high with people who drop out of the hobby.

But, yeah, not sure if WotC is the one who should be talking about this, but, I do think it's a subject that has some legs that wouldn't hurt to see talked about more often. It's kinda bizarre really. If you don't enjoy playing golf with Dave, then, well, you just don't golf with Dave. It's generally not a big deal. But, telling someone, "I'm sorry, but, I don't like playing elf games with you" seems to be incredibly difficult.

At least, it's really difficult for me.

Time for Hussar to become an influencer?

 

[Hussar]

Time for Hussar to become an influencer?

Heh. I have a face much more fit for radio.

 

[Weiley31]

I'm starting to understand why @Snarf Zagyg frequently posts his threads and then walks away and doesn't engage anymore.

Well, Bards DO have an effect on people to that degree.

 

[Weiley31]

No, I’ve definitely never had that happen in a game…

Wait, if your Rogue never did that...then-Wait, WHERE'S YOUR PARTY'S BARD!?!?

Runs to alert the king

 

[Weiley31]

One interesting interaction I had in my current game was when I introduced a helpful NPC who essentially believed in the divine right of kings and the very medieval idea that nobles were just "born different." Everyone had their role to play in society, and you are born into your role, and you have certain rights and responsibilities because of your role.

The setting is very fairy tale in nature, and is currently ruled by an evil queen figure that is kind of the main antagonist at the moment, so this NPC was helpful in that he also believed that the wrong person was on the throne, and that this usurper needed to be dethroned.

The ick factor from my players was immediate and strong. This character was immediately slotted into the same space that more overtly hostile NPC's occupied: not someone to trust. They made friends with the overtly self-interested thief and the amoral dark magician figure. But the guy who wanted to restore the king to their "rightful place" on the throne? Don't trust that guy's ideas.

I enjoyed their reaction quite a bit, though I didn't expect it.

Sounds like you did that character right and fitting to the story/setting.

 

[Weiley31]

Can be a slippery slope in a game where anything goes. What happens when the PCs beat the snot out of them so they can become them?

Fine with me, if that's what they decide to do.

I think it's a neat twist if the current BBEGs of one campaign were the PCs of a previous campaign.

 

[Weiley31]

I grew up in the 80s and 90s, thank you.

I miss the 80's(85) and 90's. Early to mid 2000s were nice too.

 

[Reynard]

You said your players weren't horrible people. At the same time, you also said/implied you didn't want to run the game any more because of the horrible things their characters were doing.

To me, that's conflating the players with their characters.

You don't have to conflate anything to not want to engage with a particular kind of story. I don't think Bryan Cranston is a horrible monster of a person,but I still noped out of Breaking Bad when it became clear that the story was going to be morally reprehensible. I'm no more interested in GMing game about villains and sociopaths than I am interested in watching a show about them (significantly less so, in fact) but not because I somehow can't tell the difference between the players and their characters.

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous a take that is. You're welcome to.enjoy players portraying scum, but you don't get to make personal judgements about people who don't enjoy that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Doesn’t seem like a good business move to instruct folks how to blow up groups. I think this is just one of those you know it when you know it situations.

But many people don't know. And a lot of DMs feel an obligation to "make it work". Also, your phrasing is just a little irritating. This isn't about "blowing up groups" as much as it is an assertion... "you are not beholden".

I'm reminded there was a big thing hitting the community a few weeks ago about a DM who posted "44 rules". Well, in the comments to a lot of the videos on the subject, it was revealed the players had been bullying and harassing this GM for a long time. The original post was taken down because the player in question was called on that fact. It seemed this was his attempt to get the group to abandon the game, because he was so completely done with them. So he clearly knew he didn't want to play with these people... yet he couldn't just stop DMing? It feels like some advice about "sometimes it is okay to step away and say 'this is not what I am comfortable dealing with'" would not be harmful, if taken the correct way.

So much in this game is about communication and social skills, it seems valuable to include some of that alongside with the rules of the game.

 

[Umbran]

MGibster could also just not respond when Lanefan and others reach out a hand to help, much less try to bite that hand...

Anyway, let's return to the thread's original purpose.

Mod Note:
Dude.

You're brushing this off as a MGibster problem, when YOU were trying to say when he should and should not post, and making uncomplimentary assertions about him, as a person.

That was not cool. Don't throw stones. Don't make it personal.