Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8923028" data-attributes="member: 87792">Fair enoughBut that doesn't mean you can't have both in the same gameI've run an open table. I've run for literally dozens of players, and I've never once run into an "entitled player" and only once ever had to kick someone from my table (for attempting to bully the other PCs). There are players that I won't run certain games for (and they mostly share the sentiment about those games) and others for at the same time - but that's the only player I wouldn't have back in the right game (and one other player whose RPG stories made me say "Oh hell no.").Meanwhile, counting only experienced DMs, there are two I don't want to sit at the same table as again and a further one who I might play in a one shot with if I'm bored and really want to hear an amateur thesp's voice putting on an improv show, but a campaign would be wasting my time.I've said it before and I'll say it again. Speaking as someone who DMs about 90% of the time entitled and toxic DMs are, in my experience, a vastly bigger problem than entitled and toxic players. And most of the DMs who complain about "entitled players" should, in my experience, look in a mirror to see where the problem is.You know it's odd. I didn't ever play (including DMing) at a 4e table where there were less than three regular DMs out of a total of five or six. I've never played at a 5e table with more than two people who regularly DM'd. System matters as do tools - and 5e doesn't have good tools. Which is why people learn to fudge, to make up for the game's deficiencies.</blockquote>

Verification