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

[TwoSix]

Why would anyone have any interest in labeling T&T as sim?

You should always label T&T.

Cause I'm T&T; I'm dynamite.

 

[TwoSix]

To me this whole argument seems to be you telling folks that no matter what, the GM needs to accommodate the player's creative desire. That fundamentally, what they want is more important than what you want.

I would say that my interpretation is that, for D&D and D&D-like games with relatively high amounts of player-facing options, including race/ancestry choices, the default should be that the DM builds a fairly loose, freeform setting to accommodate player options. (I would say also this appears to be the default for most official and unofficial settings for 5e and 5e-likes.)

Tightly-defined, bespoke settings with limited race/ancestry options should generally be limited to well-defined longtime groups that share a specific aesthetic. DMs who want to create such a setting with a high amount of control should continue to be aware that they're going against the grain, and may have trouble recruiting players and/or get some player pushback; they should not expect players to simply accept the expectation of tight DM setting definition.

 

[Emerikol]

I fully agree.

I have yet to see a single person recognize such a social cost to their GMing, other than the banal "you won't have players."

Which, as I've said, no GM lacks for players in this digital world. The GM shortage is eternal and intense. One might say it's a seller's market.

That has been true my whole gaming life which started in the late seventies. I think if you offer a good experience that at least some segment of the playerbase likes then you will have players. This is why I advise DMs to seeks games that make them excited because an involved DM who is happy will always have players. I don't think DMs need to change philosophies just do what you do well.

 

[Emerikol]

You stipulated, "You like long tedious rules debates. My group does not. "

You only know my behavior on internet message boards, and chose to extrapolate that to game and table management. I'm making clear that this is inappropriate.

Mature adults, whenever possible, pick appropriate times to have discussions. It is unclear why you assume that discussion must be in the middle of a session of play. Did it not occur to you that "talking things out" might well happen outside a game session?

It is dramatic, a frustrated form of golden flounce, really.

Flipping the table is about the game that's on the table, and doesn't signify a decision about anything else, either.

It's as if you jumped into the middle of a conversation without knowing the context. This line of discussion is boring me so let's just drop it.

 

[AlViking]

Have you not seen the examples in this thread?

Any and every action the GM doesn't like, regardless of reason, can and will get a "no". Doesn't matter what the action is. That was core to the discussion we had about my (constructed) example of the faux-Egypt paladin character being completely incapable of even TRYING to convince the Priesthood of Set to help with preventing an invasion of faux-Egypt. The GM can, in fact, reject a player's action for any reason or no reason at all. The player just has to trust that it will make sense. Potentially for months before any answers whatsoever will be forthcoming.

So if the bard tries to seduce a dragon, the GM should always allow it?

 

[Emerikol]

I would say that my interpretation is that, for D&D and D&D-like games with relatively high amounts of player-facing options, including race/ancestry choices, the default should be that the DM builds a fairly loose, freeform setting to accommodate player options. (I would say also this appears to be the default for most official and unofficial settings for 5e and 5e-likes.)

Tightly-defined, bespoke settings with limited race/ancestry options should generally be limited to well-defined longtime groups that share a specific aesthetic. DMs who want to create such a setting with a high amount of control should continue to be aware that they're going against the grain, and may have trouble recruiting players and/or get some player pushback; they should not expect players to simply accept the expectation of tight DM setting definition.

This may have some elements of truth but honestly just give out a prospectus on your coming campaign. Detail out what you have modified per the default setting. If I want something one way or another, then I make sure everyone knows up front. If in theory I ever lack players then perhaps I'd drop that idea and pose another. So far it hasn't been all that hard.

 

[TwoSix]

This may have some elements of truth but honestly just give out a prospectus on your coming campaign. Detail out what you have modified per the default setting. If I want something one way or another, then I make sure everyone knows up front. If in theory I ever lack players then perhaps I'd drop that idea and pose another. So far it hasn't been all that hard.

If I'm running an OSR game with a defined setting, that's what I do. If I'm running a standard neotrad 5e or something more narrative, then I don't bother with anything more than a light campaign frame.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And yet folks seem to understand me anyway. Can't be that nonsensical.

People understand a lot of hyperbole. Doesn't make it a bit less ridiculous. Especially from someone who's complained about other people in the thread doing the same.

Edit: And to make it clear I do (and have here) taken them to task for it when I see it. Its tossing a wrench into communication and turning the heat up to no good purpose.

 

[Umbran]

It's as if you jumped into the middle of a conversation without knowing the context. This line of discussion is boring me so let's just drop it.

It is as if you made statements about my approach to play without knowing my approach to play. Your entertainment isn't my priority. If you stop defending it, I will have no need to speak to it.

 

[SkidAce]

Do you demand (expect, require, whatever you like) absolute power over the fiction they're allowed to experience?

(the bolded words seem very challenging to me, but I will answer my best)

I guess the best way to put it, and answer your question honestly, is thus; (could be long, there's a lot of nuance to the question)*

We play a lot of different games. And newer narrative games (we play a lot of Fate) we play as they are intended.

But the discussion seems to be about DMs and their campaigns, so...

Yes, whoever DMs calls it "their world". And the players tell me "Chris, I really enjoy your world, its so immersive".
And I tell them I've had this world since 1985.

Players could say "I want an X style game" and I have a good idea where to start their adventures. I can answer questions about lore without research. Events are occurring behind the scenes they may or may not be aware of, until encountered in play.

But! There are no halflings or orcs on this world. So the players cant play one.

It feels like a trap, but to answer the "demand" question, Yes, I demand they do not play halflings, and I use absolute power over world creation.

BUT!! They don't care. The guy who wanted a halfling chose a gnome styled a a country farmer.

When creating characters I "allow" them to be creative unless it runs directly counter to the setting. If they want to create a new class, I normally "approve". And when they play, the players have complete control over their characters, I dont tell them what to do, I dont even tell them what to feel or think (may suggest as a way of describing the scene)


So BL, answering your question, the answer is technically Yes. Demand, Absolute, Allowed. Like the captain of a ship, the head coach of a team, the leader with veto power.

But? I am not a tyrant and these are my friends. I may have absolute power, but I talk to them, I work with them, and since they know and respect that, they would never insist on playing a hafling in a world where they don't exist.



* I wish we could sit at a table and discuss in person, I find people are usually closer together than they think, and stark text on the internet can be very polarizing.