Sure, it’s entirely possible that the players will have better ideas than me. But, I’m not really looking to solicit worldbuilding ideas from my players. Not because I don’t think they’ll be good, just because that isn’t really the way I’m looking to engage with the game. I’m not trying to co-create the best world I can with input from all of my players. I’m looking to present crafted, curated worlds for the players to explore, and to see what comes out of it.
Which... is most DMs.
Like, between DMs who only run RAW AP's and settings, and DMs who present crafted curated worlds, there is very very little space where DMs are willing to collaborate.
And that is made worse I think by this invasive perception that somehow doing so is bad. Which isn't something you've claimed, but it is something I've seen a lot of people express over the years. That somehow allowing this freedom to co-create will inevitably lead to a mess.
Right, which is why it seems to me like your objection is to the phrasing, rather than the idea it’s being used to express.
Perhaps, but again, it is hard to tell when people say they are fine working with their players, yet still feel the need to argue over the fact that they don't NEED to work with their players, they simply choose to.
The player isn’t obligated to do something they don’t want to do either. Both parties have the same scope of options when the rest of the group overrules them: compromise on their desires, or leave. Everyone will have different thresholds for what they’re willing to compromise before leaving.
It is the perception of the compromise though.
Some DMs seem to think that them compromising with their players is... anything from a sign of weakness to a strange and baroque idea. Not all DMs, but it is pervasive enough to notice.
But, a player compromising is, practically ideal. Even better if the player is just perfectly in-line with the DM to begin with.
I know you didn't follow the other thread, but there was a moment where I was asking about a player in a situation with a DM who was banning an idea explicitly because they thought the idea was stupid and not worth playing. They were explicitly judging the player. The person gave a lot of responses of potential things, but ended with "or better yet you could trust your DM"
And so, this bothers me. This bothers me that it seems so easy to set up a scenario where the DM is in the wrong, but the player's best course of action is just to assume that the DM is right.
I mean, yeah. That’s a product of there being significantly more players than there are DMs. Is it fair? Not really. But that’s just kind of the nature of the market. DMs are in high demand and short supply, which gives them more bargaining power.
Which is why I think there is a need to point out that DMs should be more cautious with how we present things. If we present this facade that we are more important than our players, it becomes even harder to find DMs who aren't abusing their power and bargaining power.
I don’t think I agree with this assessment. When I say I’m willing to run a game in another setting if mine doesn’t suit the players’ needs, or when others say things like “I have ultimate authority, but I’m not a dick about it,” what we’re expressing is a willingness to compromise on certain things. I would rather be running a game in my setting than one in Forgotten Realms, but I’m willing to compromise on that if that’s what the players want. I’d love to run a game that’s been hacked and house-ruled to pieces to suit precisely my play preferences, but I know that’s not going to appeal to many, if any, players, so I compromise by picking a few of my favorite house rules to propose to the players. The DM is constantly compromising between the game they ideally want to run, and the game they can practically find interest for. Different DMs have different thresholds for what they’re willing to compromise, but the idea that, because the DM is the final arbiter of the rules and the world details, they never have to compromise just doesn’t scan for me.
Perhaps, some DMs have also expressed that they have so many players that if they don't agree with exactly the rules the DM prefers, the DM just finds new players.
Again, that’s going to be different for everyone. Personally, the point where I draw the line is when a DM tries to set rules around how the players are allowed to play their own characters. That’s why that one open call sent up red flags for me with the “role play is in first person” comment. The players’ characters are the one thing they are afforded control over by the rules, so it rubs me the wrong way when DMs try to control that as well. Others will draw the line elsewhere.
I can agree with that.
I don’t either. And I’m always willing to hear a player out. For example, one of the players in the next game I plan to run wanted to play a character who’s part of a sort of dynasty of gravekeepers tied to a particular graveyard, and when the previous grave keeper dies, their ghost forms a sort of bond with their successor and acts as their guide (using the rules for Kalashtar, but replacing the astral spirit with a ghost). I had no plans for such a dynasty to exist in the setting, but also no real reason it couldn’t or shouldn’t, so I agreed. If I’d had some reason I thought that wouldn’t have fit, I would have tried to work with her to come up with a way to make it work within my setting that would still satisfy what she wanted from the character, but fortunately that wasn’t necessary in this case.
All that said, I think what you seem to want out of the game - the ability to have an impact on the setting through your character’s backstory? I don’t think that really jives well with the sort of game a lot of DMs who are into exploratory play are looking to run. Nor, for that matter, the sort of game a lot of players who are into exploratory play are looking to play in.
When I create a character for a game I’m going to play in, I’m not looking to carve out a niche in the world for them. I’m looking to find an existing niche and create a character to fit into it. I don’t want to come up with a backstory and ask the DM if it’ll work in the campaign, I want to ask the DM for details about the campaign world so I can create a character that I feel fits well into it. I’m looking to find an interesting space to explore within the scope of the available options, rather than asking the DM to add options to accommodate a space I’ve already decided I want to explore. And I like to run the kind of games I would want to play in.
Of course, I know not every player wants to play this way, and I’m not so rich in interested players that I’m eager to exclude any player who doesn’t want to play exactly the sort of game I would. So naturally I compromise on this a bit. If a player comes to the table with an idea they’re already excited about, of course I’m going to work with them to try and find a place for it in the campaign. But there are limits to how much I’m willing to tailor the campaign to suit the players’ characters, and I think it’s fair to expect the players to be willing to tailor their characters at least a little to suit the campaign.
Right, I think it is less that I come in with an established idea, and more that knowing I have the freedom to make that impact means I'm less worried about overstepping while I'm riffing on an idea.
Because when I'm coming up with ideas, they don't always limit themselves to easy borders. I might hear an idea from your setting, remember a piece of lore from a class and ideas start popping and I end up creating NPCs and building a bit of something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can and do understand. The problem is that many DMs already run fun games without having to compromise. In addition to that, the game of D&D is setup for the DM to not have to compromise. The DM is in charge, as others have pointed out, it even says that in the PHB and DMG.
Just because the books say something doesn't mean that that is the best way to run the game.
And just because a DM has found a group that enjoys everything they do without ever needing to question it, doesn't mean no DM ever needs to compromise.
I capitalized only to highlight the idea. Also, there are no rules in D&D for the player to affect the narrative in any way other than through PC action. In a game like Burning Wheel or Savage Worlds where the players have a resource for direct manipulation of the narrative, the DM is not forced to do anything. The rules state that the players have that resource specifically to manipulate the narrative directly. D&D doesn't have a resource like that, so the players can't manipulate the narrative directly. That's the rules. If you want to play D&D then you must accept the fact that direct manipulation of the narrative is something only the DM gets to do. Unless you can find a DM that has a houserule that allows for a resource that lets the players directly manipulate the narrative.
Just because there are no direct rules, doesn't mean that DnD doesn't and can't have those interactions.
Building a backstory can involve manipulating the narrative. But there are no rules in DnD about writing a backstory for your character.
I don't think you are against DMs at all. I think you want DMs to make their games more open to player input. However, this is not how D&D is set up. D&D is built to have the DM run things with little to no player input. The players play their PCs and the DM runs everything else, this is how D&D has always worked to my knowledge. That is why I encourage you to try to find other games to play. I encourage you to be brave and find an online game to play that uses systems that allow for the kind of collaboration you desire. I hate to say, but I think very few D&D games are run in a collaborative manner.
Encourage me to be brave? Dude, you aren't helping your case at all.
Again, just because DnD isn't explicitly set up for DMs to be more open to ideas from other people, doesn't mean that it can't be done.
