D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[jmartkdr2]

Hold on just a minute there, pardner...you're overstating my position just a bit.

I have no antipathy for teamwork where participating in said teamwork is a) my proactive choice and b) has a sound rationale behind it. If being part of the team is the best/safest choice for my character's perspective, then I'll happily stick with the team because that's what the character would do.

What I greatly prefer to avoid is teamwork where I'm forced to participate, even worse if it's teamwork just for the sake of teamwork without any further supporting rationale. In game, these instances often run afoul of my "do what the character would do" mantra, where a character's obvious best move in the fiction is to act alone but (and this I do dislike) meta considerations dictate keeping the party together.

I think this is where the pushback is coming from you not liking the "leader role" in 4e -

4e "leaders" generally only gave other players free stuff, they never forced you to use your actions in certain ways. They might change circumstances which could change what options you might choose - but so might any other aspect of the game like dms, dice, narrative, etc.

The warlord isn't making you use an action to attack, they're giving you an absolutely free attack. The only possible reason to reject it you don't want the party to win the fight, which in-universe means you don't want the party to live, since all fights have the possibility of death.

Sure there are real--life people who would rather kill the whole bus than accept help, but they're usually kicked off teams.

(In my experience, it's not the support characters doing the bullying.)

 

[jmartkdr2]

Another thing I've noticed:

when discussing player agency and dm agency on fora, we tend to try to find a "just" answer that applies in all but extreme scenarios and respects absolute values and rights and so on.

In real life, in 99% of cases, both the player and dm have at least moderate social skills so most conflicts will lead to a conversation and some sort of compromise, even if it's just the player benching an idea until another campaign where it'll work better. Or a dm working with a player to include a concept in a way that gets what the player really wants without being overly disruptive to the setting.

 

[Necropolitan]

Another thing I've noticed:

when discussing player agency and dm agency on fora, we tend to try to find a "just" answer that applies in all but extreme scenarios and respects absolute values and rights and so on.

In real life, in 99% of cases, both the player and dm have at least moderate social skills so most conflicts will lead to a conversation and some sort of compromise, even if it's just the player benching an idea until another campaign where it'll work better. Or a dm working with a player to include a concept in a way that gets what the player really wants without being overly disruptive to the setting.

But that might still result in a player being told "No," which is completely unacceptable to some people for some reason.

 

[TwoSix]

But that might still result in a player being told "No," which is completely unacceptable to some people for some reason.

Sigh.

What’s unacceptable, or at least considerably problematic, is the idea that the GM’s pregenerated notes about setting take primacy over a player’s specific interests, in the context of a game system (D&D 5e) that is intended to be cosmopolitan and accepting of distinct character vision.

 

[jmartkdr2]

But that might still result in a player being told "No," which is completely unacceptable to some people for some reason.

And?

Like don't play with unreasonable players, don't play with controlling dms. It's not rocket surgery.

If you meet a player who won't compromise, move on. If you have such an issue with every player - it might be you.

 

[soviet]

Another thing I've noticed:

when discussing player agency and dm agency on fora, we tend to try to find a "just" answer that applies in all but extreme scenarios and respects absolute values and rights and so on.

In real life, in 99% of cases, both the player and dm have at least moderate social skills so most conflicts will lead to a conversation and some sort of compromise, even if it's just the player benching an idea until another campaign where it'll work better. Or a dm working with a player to include a concept in a way that gets what the player really wants without being overly disruptive to the setting.

I agree with you. When this all came up not long ago I was one of the people arguing that the DM has an obligation to have that conversation in good faith. That's it. If the answer is still no, so be it, but at least see if there is a possible compromise.

Certain people replied absolutely not, no compromise could ever be possible, the GM cannot be challenged.

 

[Necropolitan]

Sigh.

What’s unacceptable, or at least considerably problematic, is the idea that the GM’s pregenerated notes about setting take primacy over a player’s specific interests, in the context of a game system (D&D 5e) that is intended to be cosmopolitan and accepting of distinct character vision.

They take primacy because the DM's the one running the campaign.

If you want something different then ask, but don't act like you're entitled to change anything.

And?

Like don't play with unreasonable players, don't play with controlling dms. It's not rocket surgery.

If you meet a player who won't compromise, move on. If you have such an issue with every player - it might be you.

People here have repeatedly said DMs shouldn't be allowed to reject players/are unreasonable for doing so.

The idea that a good faith DM could still say "No" is apparently antithetical to that worldview.

I agree with you. When this all came up not long ago I was one of the people arguing that the DM has an obligation to have that conversation in good faith. That's it. If the answer is still no, so be it, but at least see if there is a possible compromise.

Certain people replied absolutely not, no compromise could ever be possible, the GM cannot be challenged.

That's not true.

It was accurately pointed out that if a compromise can't be reached that the DM gets to decide because they're the one running the campaign.

In response you claimed that rejecting bad players was treating players like they were 'disposable' as opposed to the entirely reasonable goal of wanting players actually interested in the campaign offered.

If you show up to a Forgotten Realms campaign with an Eberron Ravnica 11th level Druid Elf child princess (which has happened to me as a DM) you don't get to act offended when your character's rejected and then you're ejected for continuing to argue.

 

[soviet]

If you show up to a Forgotten Realms campaign with an Eberron Ravnica 11th level Druid Elf child princess (which has happened to me as a DM) you don't get to act offended when your character's rejected and then you're ejected for continuing to argue.

How is rejecting someone's ideas without discussion and ejecting them for questioning it not treating that person as disposable?

 

[TwoSix]

They take primacy because the DM's the one running the campaign.

If you want something different then ask, but don't act like you're entitled to change anything.

It has nothing to do with entitled. As a GM, you should want to include your player's interests.

If you show up to a Forgotten Realms campaign with an Eberron Ravnica 11th level Druid Elf child princess (which has happened to me as a DM) you don't get to act offended when your character's rejected and then you're ejected for continuing to argue.

As I've stated in many threads, all of my assumptions are that the participants are competent adults who can weed out childish morons like the above example. Players have the responsibility to conform to what has previously been decided when they enter a preexisting game.

 

[Necropolitan]

How is rejecting someone's ideas without discussion and ejecting them for questioning it not treating that person as disposable?

Nobody said that, that's an obvious strawman.