Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9465449" data-attributes="member: 7635">No, it implies that neither camp has the final word. Let's take a hypothetical scenario. A DM and their players sit down to play a game of D&D. The players want bog standard D&D as the PHB presents it. The DM wants a low-magic grim and gritty style game with only humans and no full casters. The players balk at this for various reasons (one player likes elves, one likes their wizards, etc). The two sides are at a stalemate. How do we resolve this? The God Emperor DM declares they are running their LMGaG game and you either play it or get to stepping. Maybe they browbeat some players into staying (those who didn't protest as hard or feel they don't have a choice). Others leave. Assuming the ratio of quitters to stayers is high, the game ends up dying while the DM tries to find new players. Likewise, if the players veto the game and the DM acquiesces, then the DM has a miserable time and eventually drops. Maybe a different player steps up, but barring that, game dies.So total victory is bad on either side. But if the DM is open to making his game a little more open and less grim dark while the players are willing to accept some restrictions on options, you can negotiate a truce. It requires both sides to be flexible in their expectations, willing to change elements, and open to accepting they won't get 100% of what they want. But most DMing advice often comes down to the idea that the DM never needs to compromise their vision and the players must make the compromise in order to experience the joy of said vision. That, in my experience, ends with DMs finding their play groups have found better things to do on game night. Seen it, been part of it. And yes, entitled players are just as bad faith as entitled DMs. No side is without flaws, but one side gets told by people on the Internet that its flaw isn't bad, is a right given by their title. And that needs to change.</blockquote>

Verification