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
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8163411" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The limit is going to be different for every DM.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, I agree with that.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8163411, member: 6779196"] 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. The limit is going to be different for every DM. 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. 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. 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. 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. Yeah, I agree with that. 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 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM Authority
Top