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

[Remathilis]

Same--or, rather, it would first be met with laughs and (virtual) clap-on-the-back for a ridiculous joke, only to then be met with confused anger if someone somehow insisted on such a thing.

Likewise, the expectation that if the GM expresses even the slightest discontent, that the players will instantly and permanently banish it from their minds and never even talk about it is just flabbergasting to me. That's a nightmarish dystopia as far as I'm concerned--one person doing little more than waving a hand and everyone immediately jumps to do their bidding.

The DM who I routinely comment on here had a nasty habit of deciding he didn't like specific things after he already okayed them. Not because they were too powerful or game breaking, but because on further reflection he didn't like the idea of it. Early on, in 2e, he decided he didn't like druids after the one and only 2e druid I saw play was made. He conveniently critted that player and they rolled up something else. (He admitted that years later). My sole experience with it was rolling up a 3.5 bard with the sublime chord prc (which was designed to trade out bard abilities for higher level spells). Or was originally a one shot game but people liked it enough to keep going, but the DM came down on everyone to change their characters up because "they were fine for a one shot, but not an ongoing campaign" and specifically my prc was on the chopping block. I actually think he killed that game with that since we never did pick it back up.

 

[DammitVictor]

The DM who I routinely comment on here had a nasty habit of deciding he didn't like specific things after he already okayed them. Not because they were too powerful or game breaking, but because on further reflection he didn't like the idea of it. Early on, in 2e, he decided he didn't like druids after the one and only 2e druid I saw play was made. He conveniently critted that player and they rolled up something else.

Okay, that is some heinous BS. There are a lot of people in this hobby that need to grow the hell up.

 

[Remathilis]

if you have 10 ideas for a character (no idea why you call those deep seated desires) and one or two of them do not fit the campaign, choose one of the other eight to nine. Not sure why that would be a problem for anyone.

If you on the other hand can only have any amount of fun by playing a Tortle Barbarian Path of the Zealot, then maybe the problem is you

We are discussing the notion that a character can be vetoed because a player (including the DM) doesn't like them. No in setting reason, just "I think sorcerers are so offensive that I won't play a game which has one."

 

[Remathilis]

Okay, that is some heinous BS. There are a lot of people in this hobby that need to grow the hell up.

We were teens and he admitted when he did grow up that was the wrong way of handling it. But he never did outgrow the idea that if he didn't like the vibes of your character, he would make you change them. (He was just more honest about it).

 

[Maxperson]

Are you bloody serious?

Your players are so gracious, they'll ignore their deep-seated desires just to make sure they never inconvenience you even slightly?

We all have tons of things we enjoy, so we're going to be decent to one another and not intentionally cause another at the table discomfort, yes.

My players aren't so one note that they can only enjoy one thing at the expense of another person.

 

[DammitVictor]

We were teens and he admitted when he did grow up that was the wrong way of handling it. But he never did outgrow the idea that if he didn't like the vibes of your character, he would make you change them. (He was just more honest about it).

And I'm frankly astounded that there are multiple people in this thread that think that's something a DM needs to outgrow.

I enjoy player-driven and collaborative worldbuilding exercises, but the person responsible for providing the game world isn't allowed to decide what they put into it? What even is this?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

if you have 10 ideas for a character (no idea why you call those deep seated desires) and one or two of them do not fit the campaign, choose one of the other eight to nine. Not sure why that would be a problem for anyone.

If you on the other hand can only have any amount of fun by playing a Tortle Barbarian Path of the Zealot, then maybe the problem is you

So we should be bending over backwards to thank the gracious overlords who cannot have fun if someone does play a Tortle?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And I'm frankly astounded that there are multiple people in this thread that think that's something a DM needs to outgrow.

I enjoy player-driven and collaborative worldbuilding exercises, but the person responsible for providing the game world isn't allowed to decide what they put into it? What even is this?

So instead we instantly and unquestioningly defer to whatever they want, all the time?

That doesn't sound any better. It sounds far worse to me. At least with the latter, an actual conversation occurs.

Remember, I didn't bring up this "no questioning at all" thing. That was Max. He explicitly said so:

I don't have to exclude, because my players, being decent human beings, wouldn't want to play something that causes me even minor discomfort due to dislike. Just as I don't include things in the adventures I prepare that they would dislike. It's how social games work. All I have to do is let them know that I don't like something, and they immediately just drop it of their own accord and go with something else they like.

Instantly dropped, no discussion, no self-advocacy, nothing. All Max need do is express any amount of dislike, and his players will instantly and permanently vacate their own personal interests.

 

[DammitVictor]

That doesn't sound any better. It sounds far worse to me. At least with the latter, an actual conversation occurs.

Sure. It's always a conversation. But sometimes, that conversation ends in a compromise, and sometimes that conversation ends in a "no". I like working with players to help them get the most out of the game, but I put a lot of work into preparing my games and when I say something isn't on the table for this one... that's my call to make, not theirs. If they want to play something that doesn't fit in my game, they're not looking to play in my game or with my players, they're looking for someone to run their game, for them, their way.

I don't have to put up with that kind of nonsense, so I don't.

 

[TwoSix]

And I'm frankly astounded that there are multiple people in this thread that think that's something a DM needs to outgrow.

I enjoy player-driven and collaborative worldbuilding exercises, but the person responsible for providing the game world isn't allowed to decide what they put into it? What even is this?

They shouldn't be defining a setting with strict curation before doing collaboration with the players that will be consuming that setting, no. Have a rough outline, meet with the players to see what they're interested in, and then you flesh out more details.

Nothing is a bigger red flag for me than a GM who's super into their own setting design. Because that means they think the game is about their setting first, and our characters second.