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.
No, again this is not what happened. To took a specific statement and said that I had to be wrong because it does not fit with your idea of the gaming world. I'm sorry, but it's not about details of my life.
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?
And again, if it's just a different style, how come this translates into a horror story ?
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.
No, I'm sorry, but claiming that someone is "a Bad DM for railroading by removing player agency" is bad in and of itself. There is no such holy thing as "player agency" and over my rather long TTRPG "career", mu characters have been possessed, charmed, directed and railroaded, and I still had a lot of fun doing it.
Again, you are calling a different playstyle the mark of a "bad DM", and in and of itself, it's bad.
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.
No, it's asking for their
preference. After that, as all players in our games, they accept that they will be railroaded now and then, because it's the nature of (epic) stories, and they trust ut to do it to the extent that they are having fun.
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.
No, it's YOUR playstyle that refuses to trust a DM with some agency in your character history, and by participating in a DM's campaign, you should trust him anyway. After that, if you did not clarify it with him during session 0, it's at least as much your responsibility as his, because if it was that important to you, you, you, you should have said it at the start, and refused to participate.
Once more, if you look at session 0 in Tasha, the basic social contract is laid along the lines of: "The players will allow you to direct the campaign." THere might be different contacts for different tables, but this is the one that I've been playing under all these years, I allow the DM to direct the campaign, meaning that I don't take offense when he dares do so with a bit of railroading.
But you seem invested in the idea that the players can never be in the right.
Sometimes they can, but once more I want to see both sides, especially because once more the DM has a very difficult job in addition to his preparation work, whereas players can just come, sit on their backside and complain.
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.
Again, no D&D is better than bad D&D. And if you chose your games that casually, then you should not complain that sometimes it's not exactly to your preference.
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 on the other hand, you have no problem tossing around "he's a bad DM" and adding this to "DM horror stories".
And if the other players do not speak for you, but remain silent or speak for the DM, does it not tell you something ? That you were the odd one in the game, with just different preferences ? And that you should maybe, just maybe, consider that you were the disruptive one in that game ?
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.
And sometimes it does not work out because of different preferences. Does this make the other people horrible players, worthy of being slandered all over the world ?
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.
And on the other hand, there is an extremely heavy trend of blaming the DM and colporting "DM horror stories". From my experience, yes, the DMs are not perfect, but all I've seen were really trying their best, whereas I've seen tons of naughty word players that just wanted to have their way despite what the rest of the table wanted. And look at Lanefan's story.
I'm not saying that all DMs are blameless, but at least they are, in general, trying to run games for other people, whereas there are lots of players who just want to be entertained.
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?
Yep, because unless given cause to distrust the DM (and again, in 42+ years, I don't recall any instance where I was wrong to do this, ever), I just trust him and maybe, just maybe, it's why I did not have trouble with them. Because coming with the attitude of "but the rules say this and this, and I'm therefore entitled to seeing when they are casting a spell and therefore you are wrong" is the best way to appear confrontational and, yes, 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.
But it is, the DM is describing that is happening to a specific character, why can't that annoying guy just wait for his turn, instead of butting in, which apparently he does all the time ? Let him wait for his turn, if he needs more information about playing his character, he can always ask it at that point in time.
At our tables, we multiplied the combat resolution speed by at least a factor 3 by not letting players speak out of turn (unless using reactions, etc.). Not all players were culpable of interrupting and making suggestions and generally slowing down the game and hogging the spotlight, but at least it controlled the most annoying ones.
There is only one DM, there are many players, they all deserve about the same amount of air time, you know, just for fairness and general politeness sake.
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.
No, this is not what the rules say. Read them, they are way, way longer and technical.
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.
But I thought what I had said was no different from reading the rules ? Please make up your mind.
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.
No it does not. If you think this, prove it, I think that you will find it extremely difficult to prove, I'll be waiting.
And the game additionally assumes that those rules are likely going to be followed.
Again, prove it. I'll be waiting.
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.
Ah, I was waiting for this line. Please prove to me that I'm not playing D&D. Please show me where the designers have put limits about what can be customised in the game and still call it D&D. Again, I'll be waiting a long long time.
Official words, though: "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
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.
We are taking offense because you are basically saying that people who fudge are cheating, so yes, cheating is a bad word and when you are saying that people are cheating when they are doing absolutely nothing of the kind, they take offense. Why are you surprised ?
Especially since, once more, you are wrong in your definition of cheating, as has been pointed out multiple times.
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 again, why do you have to take that to such an extreme ?
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.
And yet you have, because (as with the DM using weighted dice) you are taking things to such an absurd level. Look at HotDQ. There is certainly no handing out of a script, there are plenty of opportunities for roleplaying, getting different results of encounters, and these matter. What feels like railroading to some people is just the fact that each location only points out to one next location, so the string of locations is pre-determined. We are very, very far from your claim.
And still, HotDQ is not that bad, players can have tons of fun even in the first situation, where there are at least 6 or 7 missions that can be done in the town in any order, with consequences from one to the other, etc.
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".
Yeah, right, more hearsay, such a great proof.
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 have you ever considered that even expressing disagreement during the game is extremely disruptive ? That the usual advice is to play the game and if really important, bring it up at the end ?
And, I'm also never going to apologize for speaking up about a DM who is engaging in poor practices.
And here you go. "poor practices" according to who ? To your holy book of "good 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.
And again, you are wrong about this. See the standard social contract above. Nothing in the books say anything about that holy "player agency" of yours. Sometimes, bad guys charm or possess your character. This happens in books and movies and shows. Why is that a huge problem ? Why is that a "bad practice" ?
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.
And again, who do you think you are to think that you are right about his need to change to meet YOUR standards of a perfect person. Are you that perfect yourself ? Don't you need to change at all ?
Because, honestly, with this righteous attitude of yours and principles like "I'm entitled to my player agency", I really think that you could use a bit of a reality check on the game and how it can be played differently. Your attitude might be OK for some games, but it does not mean that it's good for others, and considering these other games inferior and in need of "calling them out" because you disagree spells "badwrongfun" all over the place again.
I'm not proud of it, but certainly I needed to have my mind expanded a bit and it was friends (real ones) who gave me a few talks down that I totally deserved before I changed my attitude about the game. And I feel much better about it, although it certainly was painful at the time.
Just think about it, OK ?