Which only means that as DM I want to be somewhat careful when inviting players that the players I invite are likely to be more or less on board with what I'm intending to run, right?
That said, mistakes both long- and short-term inevitably happen on both sides of the screen, and a certain level of tolerance and-or forgiveness is essential.
Again, you are seeking a group who won't disagree with you.
And if you had a group who would disagree with you, you would feel like you made a mistake, and should have found a different group.
More than that, the referee is there to enforce the rules and - in at least hockey and soccer-football - is noted in the rules as being in complete charge of that game.
"Completely in charge" is a real misnomer.
The Referee can't decide which players are allowed on the field, unless they are breaking the rules.
The referee can't tell them they can't run a particular formation, unless they are breaking the rules.
And those rules? The referee has no control over them. They enforce them, they don't make them.
The DM has to have some control or greater say over when you meet, if not where, as if the DM can't be there there's no game. In contrast, when a player can't make it the game can still sail.
Further, IME the DM is almost invariably also the host; mostly for practical reasons: nearly all the materials* for that game are at the DM's residence and to carry that stuff around every week soon becomes a nuisance.
* - over a long campaign this can build up to a rather impressive amount of stuff. That said, putting some of the game materials online has reduced the need-to-carry slightly - probably by about half a box.
Right.
In charge of the game setting, the game time, the game's participants (by choosing the players), the games theme, the games rules, the games location.
They are put in charge of pretty much everything. But, for some people even all that seems to not be enough. They need to be controlling more, and the players aren't responsible for any of it. They are... passive in the entire affair.
Yes, neither of these would fly here.
Including me.
Taking your word here, as I didn't follow this other thread. Still, that's pretty over-the-top.
If they're not breaking the rules then how are they doing something they know they're not supposed to do?
Hell, I'm no powergamer by any stretch but if I stumble over an exploit in the rules that works to my advantage I'm going to use it till the DM tells me to stop.
So, to go back a step, when you responded to my post about action like these, you were not understanding the context.
And really... I wouldn't. I mean, I'd likely go to the DM and see if this is just a combo or if it is a loophole. Because, why would I want to do something that I know the DM is going to ban the second I do it? Not only is that no fun, but it is also just... poor sportsmanship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goku was capable of casually blowing away a planet as a teenager. There's nothing trivial about inserting Goku into any setting.
Again, if this is purely power level, then I'll remind you of the Immortals series of DnD. The one where the players literally became gods.
Sure, DBZ power levels are far and above what players can expect to do. But DBZ stories aren't.
Putting Goku as a character into DnD is not hard. Putting Goku who can explode Moons is, but he is only that powerful because his enemies are that powerful.
And, there is Fantasy were planet destroying characters are not hard to come across.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Chaosmancer I'm not engaging with an obvious strawman.
Sure why not, obviously your point about the DM being 100% neccesary to the functioning of the game can't be disproven by... literally talking about the rules of the game which allow you to play without a DM.
Clearly I'm just twisting your words and creating strawmen, by talking about the literal rules of the game, which tell you how to play without a DM.
Being a DM is undeniably harder than being a player.
I'm going to refrain from my first comment, because I'm getting frustrated and that makes me snappy.
So I'll go with my third.
Who cares if being a DM is hard? That literally has nothing to do with anything.
Furthermore...
I'm perfectly willing to flex on issues in order to make everyone else happy, but, what I am not willing to do is fundamentally alter a ruling or a pre-existing element of what I want to play to facilitate someone else's play, because that ruins my own. I don't expect players to play my game, and I don't expect a DM to run their game differently if I object to the setting or a ruling. Certainly, DMs should listen to players, but weighing the options against your judgement is equally as good for facilitating fun as acquiescing to the demands of any player is.
And we come back to this same old chestnut.
A player with your attitude gets brought up all the time as a bad player. Being unwilling to alter what they want for their fun no matter what is a sign of anything from being selfish to being a special snowflake. At least, according to the people who bring them up as examples.
Oh, and the player is demanding again. Good to know. We can't have reasonable players asking for things, it must be demands.
But, you are the DM. You are different. Being selfish and unwilling to change the things you find fun no matter what is a virtue. I've been told that over and over again.
Players are bad for having that same attitude. Terrible even. Horrible selfish entitled snowflakes who don't care about anyone but themselves.
But as a DM you do so much work, and the game couldn't even exist without you, so you are... well I can't say entitled, you deserve to have your preferences be more important than everyone elses.
And I'm just a horrible troll, twisting your words to mean something they don't mean, because I'm always the troll putting up strawmen and twisting people's words.
But, you said it. You are unwilling to alter something that you want, in favor of someone else's opinion. How else am I supposed to take that?
Probably in a way that makes you look good, because it always is perfectly fine for the DM to take that position.
I think the issue of DMs bending on the lore of their setting is a pretty minor one, explicit restrictions aside. Depends on your style, I guess. If thye players understand that you like to act as an arbiter of the setting, it's fine. If you run a game like mine, where players can author in pretty much whatever to fit a character concept, it's just a non-issue.
Arguing from this point doesn't alter anything which has been said about player buy in and the duty of DMs to facilitate player enjoyment.
Missing the point.
Where some DMs are unwilling to bend on their setting, they are also unwilling to bend on a published setting.
The entire table is asking for something. Every player is asking you to bend, and what is the general response I've gotten?
"I should be more careful in choosing my players."
Not that the DM should change anything, but that they should find players who already want to do what the DM desires to do. I guess DMs should only facilitate the enjoyment of players who agree with them.
Seriously, two threads and hundreds of posts, and I have yet to find a single DM who would commit further than "I'd take their concerns under consideration, but I would decide what we do, not them"
Okay, you don't get to judge what the real situation was or is. Furthermore, under this argument, you seem to be implying that the DM's fun should not go before the fun of the players, which is perfectly valid, I completely agree.
However, if a player buys in to the DM's preexisting restrictions, there's no loss of player agency in the choice of what the fun is.
What kind of game exists where the DM invites players, forces them to play, and never makes room for anyone else's fun? I've always found that player buy in prior to the game negates pretty much all of these issues of DM entitlement.
Buy in to what?
Look back at the example. The pitch was made. During session Zero more details were given, and the players asked for a change. Not one player. Five of them.
What agency did they give up? They aren't asking to change the pitch, they are asking to change a setting detail. A detail they were not aware of before session 0. They are still bought into exactly what they agreed to, the pitch.
But the pitch doesn't tell them everything.
And "what kind of game?" I don't know. It took me having the entire table having a problem for people to even consider that there might be a change needed. And one of the first responses was dropping the group and finding a new one. Players were still bought in, but the DM would rather find a new group than change things to match what the group wants.
And, again, mostly in the other thread, but restriction after restriction is possible. During Session 0 is when those restrictions come to light. This is the time to have these discussions. But, they keep getting presented as one-sided discussions. The DM is under no obligation to do anything. If the players don't like that? No game. After all, you said yourself you wouldn't change anything that you enjoy for someone else's enjoyment.
Unless by pre-existing you were assuming the discussion happens after session 0, which has never once been the position put forth.
