Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM Authority
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8162811" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Again, you are seeking a group who won't disagree with you.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Completely in charge" is a real misnomer. </p><p></p><p>The Referee can't decide which players are allowed on the field, unless they are breaking the rules. </p><p></p><p>The referee can't tell them they can't run a particular formation, unless they are breaking the rules.</p><p></p><p>And those rules? The referee has no control over them. They enforce them, they don't make them. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, to go back a step, when you responded to my post about action like these, you were not understanding the context. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Sure, DBZ power levels are far and above what players can expect to do. But DBZ stories aren't. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>And, there is Fantasy were planet destroying characters are not hard to come across. </p><p></p><p>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm going to refrain from my first comment, because I'm getting frustrated and that makes me snappy. </p><p></p><p>So I'll go with my third. </p><p></p><p>Who cares if being a DM is hard? That literally has nothing to do with anything.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And we come back to this same old chestnut. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Oh, and the player is demanding again. Good to know. We can't have reasonable players asking for things, it must be demands. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Players are bad for having that same attitude. Terrible even. Horrible selfish entitled snowflakes who don't care about anyone but themselves. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>Probably in a way that makes you look good, because it always is perfectly fine for the DM to take that position.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Missing the point. </p><p></p><p>Where some DMs are unwilling to bend on their setting, they are also unwilling to bend on a published setting. </p><p></p><p>The entire table is asking for something. Every player is asking you to bend, and what is the general response I've gotten? </p><p></p><p>"I should be more careful in choosing my players." </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Buy in to what? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>But the pitch doesn't tell them everything. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Unless by pre-existing you were assuming the discussion happens after session 0, which has never once been the position put forth.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8162811, member: 6801228"] 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. "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. 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. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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. 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. 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" 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM Authority
Top