Chaosmancer
Legend
Sigh
Look, you want to be offended because I didn't remember every detail you've told me about your life over the last 3 weeks, I can't stop you. I'm not wasting more time telling you I didn't call you a liar if you refuse to believe me.
It isn't "only" that. I was responding to you randomly bringing up people being called stupid, which no one did.
Which is exactly what I just said, so how am I wrong, if you just parrot what I said back at me? Seriously, is someone hacking my posts and rewriting them?
... Because "That is probably wrong" was me talking about my observation, not your statements. Something I would have been glad to clarify if you hadn't jumped boot first down my throat with your indignation.
So, please explain, as I add in the clarity, how this is calling you a liar? "In fact, I think Lyxen is about the only person I've seen on these forums who has seemed to not have had expeirenced a truly bad DM. And that [observation and recollection of what I believe he said about his 4 decades of experience] is probably wrong, they probably have [because statistically it is more likely, and I may be misremembering]."
No, complaining about railroading isn't entitlement. Calling someone a Bad DM for railroading by removing player agency isn't bad in and of itself. You don't get to call players whiners and then obfuscate that by making ridiculous hyperbolic claims.
Note that you acknowledge asking players if they want something "more guided" or "more sandboxy". This acknowledges the need to communicate with your players and get their consent. Instead, many DMs just decide that the will limit the player options until they can only do what the DM wants to happen. This is worthy of complaining, because it is not a preference of style, it is forcing a style upon someone against their will.
But you seem invested in the idea that the players can never be in the right.
And yet, your position if taken literally, is that that one evening was something they deserved. Again, it isn't. It is likely little more than chance and convenience that brings people together, and no one deserves that turning into a rotten evening because of bad people.
That line gets tossed around like that solves anything. "No DnD is better than Bad DnD!" but, have you considered it in practice, when paired with social norms? Have you considered what happens in a small community where you were the only player to speak up, and the only one to walk out, and the DM declares to the community that you were just an "entitled little-" of a player who couldn't stand not getting their way? At best it is your word against theirs, unless the other players speak up for you.
And not everyone has the luxury of playing with friends. Sure, that's the ideal, but a lot of us end up playing with strangers who hopefully become friends.
There is a lot that goes into these decisions, it is more complicated than just refusing to play if the game isn't to your liking. Especially if the pervailing culture is one of placing the blame with the players consistently.
I disagree with just about all of that. And you seem to be ignoring my point in favor of just blaming the player, because the DM is the "master" and all trust and good things must flow too and from him. I mean, wow, it is literally pointless to do anything other than offer absolute trust to the DM, because he is the master of the world. Yet, you want to believe that arrogant DMs who abuse trust and twist the rules to leave their players helpless and confused in the game world, for some measure of power over other people don't exist? That it is all people making up stories because they are whiners and entitled?
And again, considering DnD is a team game and people have abiltiies that affect more than just their own character, I don't see "it isn't even his character" as being relevant to the discussion.
So, you tell them that they can turn into any animal no larger than a bear. Which first of all, is telling them the rules, which as I said, is practically no different than reading them.
Except, that the practical differences are vast here. Because if that is what you told them, you have altered the rules to such an extent that I can't believe it. I could dig into the vast vast differences in the rules you have proposed, and the rules in the book, but that doesn't address the point.
If "you can turn in any animal no larger than a bear" are the only rules, then you telling the rules is the same as them reading those rules themselves. If they aren't, then the player is going to run into invisible barriers constantly as they find more things you didn't tell them (like the fact that they can't turn into a bear, nor can they turn into a sparrow). The game actually assumes that the players likely either read or had their abilities explained to them. And the game additionally assumes that those rules are likely going to be followed.
And yes, if you take the rules to a point where they in no way resemble DnD, then you are playing some TTRPG, but it isn't DnD 5e. Especially, if you just let the players sit down and declare abilities that they might be able to do, based on your whims, then you are likely playing a different game. Unless your position is that any time someone is playing in a fantasy world they are playing DnD, which I think is unsupported by the existence of multiple other Fantasy TTRPGs which are not DnD.
Sure you have.
I find it fascinating that despite the fact I have constantly said I do not believe a single DM in this thread has ever cheated, that people are taking personal offense and seeing personal attacks in the very concept that a DM might be capable of cheating.
I have not said that you are a cheater. I have not said you are an abuser. I have not said you are a Bad DM. I have simply stated that such things are possible. Railroading, to my understanding, is the equivalent of handing a group of players a theatrical script, letting them know what their roles are, what their lines are, and what they are supposed to do to put on the performance desired. And yes, I have directly experienced the sensation of that being what the DM wanted out of a session, so I will call railroading a bad thing. If you think that means a linear adventure where you guide the party past logical points (such as which road you turn down to get the Viridian City) to get to the fun part, then I apoligize that we have different conceptions of what the term means, but you seem uninterested in exploring ideas, you simply want to blast me as advocating your style is badwrongfun, when I have done nothing of the sort.
Kicking someone from a table can be malicious. I've seen and heard enough to know that is very possible. Many DMs who take any disagreement from a player as a sign they aren't right to game together, and kick them to "nip the problem in the bud".
Maybe the player should find a different group, but if their attitude is such that they are just mildly annoying to be around... that is going to be a constant problem for them. And I'm more than willing to put up with some mild annoyance if it isn't intentional or based in them trying to be malicious in some capacity.
And, I'm also never going to apologize for speaking up about a DM who is engaging in poor practices. If a DM decides to take away player agency without consulting the players first, then I'm going to call them out on it. Because behavior doesn't change if you never address it.
I'll match your story about your cousin with a story about a really good friend of mine. He was deeply into Magic the Gathering, and believed himself to be very very good at the game. I collected cards more by accident than anything else, but I had a few cards that gave rise to a very powerful combo, if I understood the interactions correctly. So, before we started playing a game, I pulled out those cards, showed them to him, and explained what I believed would happen with those effects. He agreed with me, and said it was fine to use them.
They got drawn, and played, and he started throwing a fit because he was losing. So, I surrendered the game and packed up my cards. I have never played Magic with him again. We are still very good friends. I understand why he is the way he is. We haven't talked much recently, because he moved states to get away from certain people and cut off his social media use, but that is life. I don't begrudge him being the way he is. I'll also call him on BS when he is acting out of line, because we can't change if we aren't aware of the need to change.
