Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8163569" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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.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.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.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.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.I can agree with that.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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification