D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Emerikol]

I dunno. I once had a player take up 5 to 10 minutes of game time arguing with me about what a piece of particular technology should look like. Never mind that this was under a different technology base than we currently work. Never mind that the character was not proficient with the technology. The player worked for a company that made these devices, so if there was nothing there that looked like that, the "research lab" they were exploring was a fraud....

I would have said, "Are you going to believe in this hunch your CHARACTER seems to have or are you going to believe your own eyes?"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If it is the DM, they do have the right to that power. I'd argue you are borderline leaving D&D without it. You definitely aren't playing the game the founders envisioned. And honestly I don't care what other people do but for me I don't want it any other way as a player or DM.

It's completely possible to play any version of D&D without that. In no way does that mean you are "leaving D&D". Hell, I'd even argue that Basic and 4e are best played with an alternative approach--and @pemerton has spoken extensively on how and why.

 

[Emerikol]

If the DM is reality, how can they ever be wrong? By definition, anything they say must be correct. Period. End of discussion. There cannot be anything else.

Yes. When it comes to declaring what is in the world, the DM is always right. If players want to discuss the rules of D&D after the session is over and how the DM is applying those rules, that is fine. The DM may have made a mistake according to the rules but no we aren't going to stop and debate it all night. I'm not going to have a rules lawyer try to overrule what is happening.

You are doing that very thing I just mentioned above, that I was so recently told people don't do: the players must be completely deferential to GM judgment until it flips over to being "really bad and then you just leave".

This is precisely the thing I keep seeing. I'm not inventing extremism here, @Paul Farquhar. It's right here, in plain view.

This is not at all extreme. This was 98% of groups in the 70s and 80s. It was the actual rules in those days.

See the difference is we just want to play a game. We want to get through stuff during the session and not argue for two hours. We've all delegated the power to the DM for this campaign. Next campaign it could be someone else. Our DM is working for the good of the game. Stopping for debate is not good.

 

[Emerikol]

It's completely possible to play any version of D&D without that. In no way does that mean you are "leaving D&D". Hell, I'd even argue that Basic and 4e are best played with an alternative approach--and @pemerton has spoken extensively on how and why.

Again I don't care but stop trying to make out this playstyle which was almost the universal style at the games founding as radical or extreme.

 

[Emerikol]

I’m not sure how rare bad GMs are. I’m far more concerned about bad GMing, as in instances of it, which I think are incredibly common. I mean… we’ve all mad bad calls as GMs.

So whenever this kind of topic comes up, that’s the way I look at it. I’m mostly concerned about my own GMing… I want to continue to improve.

This is why a discussion can happen after the game is over. An hour long debate which in all honesty is never going to make much of a difference other than waste everyone's time does hurt the game. It hurts it far worse than a bad DM call here or there.

The DM then can adjust if he feels the player made a good case. I'm not doing that during the game. Most of the time the players honestly don't make a good case. They think they know something when they don't. But I welcome all discussion because on rare occasions they are right but we do that after the session is over.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Again I don't care but stop trying to make out this playstyle which was almost the universal style at the games founding as radical or extreme.

It's not the playstyle.

It's the claim that you made there and elsewhere: Either you perfectly trust the GM, never having even the tiniest room to ever doubt anything they ever do, OR the GM is a horrible monster that you absolutely MUST get away from as fast as possible.

GMs are either perfect angels, or total devils. Nothing else is ever possible.

That is the extreme. And you yourself have asserted it repeatedly now.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If the DM is reality, how can they ever be wrong?

Whenever the players are not having fun the DM is wrong.

 

[Emerikol]

It's not the playstyle.

It's the claim that you made there and elsewhere: Either you perfectly trust the GM, never having even the tiniest room to ever doubt anything they ever do, OR the GM is a horrible monster that you absolutely MUST get away from as fast as possible.

GMs are either perfect angels, or total devils. Nothing else is ever possible.

That is the extreme. And you yourself have asserted it repeatedly now.

No. That is your implication. You think if I have an issue with a ruling I MUST say something. We all know as players that DMs make mistakes on occasion. We roll with it or if it is especially egregious we can bring it up after the game. We just agree amongst ourselves that arguing with the DM is rarely beneficial in or out of the game and is best carried on after the session.

And for my own personal style, I think most DMs are not up to my standard which is why I end up DMing a lot. That doesn't mean no one is up to my standard.

So no. It is not extreme to defer to the DM and not argue over calls we might have made differently. That is the way the game has been played for a very long time by a lot of people. Even people with other playstyles otherwise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. That is your implication. You think if I have an issue with a ruling I MUST say something. We all know as players that DMs make mistakes on occasion. We roll with it or if it is especially egregious we can bring it up after the game. We just agree amongst ourselves that arguing with the DM is rarely beneficial in or out of the game and is best carried on after the session.

And for my own personal style, I think most DMs are not up to my standard which is why I end up DMing a lot. That doesn't mean no one is up to my standard.

So no. It is not extreme to defer to the DM and not argue over calls we might have made differently. That is the way the game has been played for a very long time by a lot of people. Even people with other playstyles otherwise.

That's not what you said. You said:

No we don't. We need an acceptable DM. It may help to have some rules of course but rules "cannot" simulate a world. At some point the DM has to make a judgment. The group lives with that judgment until they cannot. For me, my players have lived with it rather well but I realize some DMs are really bad and then you just leave.

"The group jives with that judgment until they cannot. [...] I realize some DMs are really bad and then you just leave."

You have, right there, made exactly that assertion. There are only two states: "liv[ing] with that judgment", or "[DM is] really bad and then you just leave."

And the way you explained what it would mean for a group that "lives with that judgment" was, again I quote, "The DM can change anything at any time. Of course, the difference between the good DMs and the bad ones are how effectively they do this."

That is the extreme argument, right there, plain for all to see! You have very specifically said that this IS the switch which instantaneously flips from the GM being a perfect angel who can do no wrong, to the GM being the worst ever and you should high-tail it out of there immediately. That that thing IS the difference between "the good DMs and the bad ones".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Whenever the players are not having fun the DM is wrong.

And how exactly do the players communicate this when the GM is beholden to no one and especially not to the players?