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

[kermit4karate]

"...mistakes were made, even while they were having fun with friends."

Please expand on that. Mistakes were made yet they were having fun with friends? Isn't that the objective?

 

[kermit4karate]

What, you’ve never enjoyed a bad movie?

I enjoyed the group and the games, but I was a teenager. I no longer have interest in games with that level of DM force.

The DM's responsibility, their "job", is to ensure the players are having fun. That doesn't "only" mean to be rigid and to exercise might. It means to make sure that the players are enjoying themselves and getting what they want from the session. If one player likes to feel like they have control over certain things, like how a particular spell works, then it's up to the DM to help that player "feel" as if they have the level of control they desire...without necessarily giving the player that control.

Bottom line, are the players having fun? The DM adapts to their players, just like the players adapt to their DM. When it's done well, everyone has a good time. The core rules are frankly borderline irrelevant. It's the people around the table that determine whether a game is good, not the rules in any rulebook.

 

[Maxperson]

Morality isn't generally something we think of as a matter of personal preference.

If you believe something is immoral, then you believe people doing that thing are behaving immorally and should change their behaviour -- you are casting judgement.

If you present something as just a matter of personal preference, then it is assumed you are not ascribing moral or ethical value to the behaviour.

Edit: Of course it is OK to have concerns on moral grounds, but don't expect people to simply accept suggestions that their gaming preferences might be immoral without a very convincing argument.

The alternative is objective morality, which many people believe exists. However, there are also many people who believe morality is subjective which makes it a matter of preference. A strongly believed preference, but still a preference.

 

[AnotherGuy]

"...mistakes were made, even while they were having fun with friends."

Please expand on that. Mistakes were made yet they were having fun with friends? Isn't that the objective?

Yes, we had fun overall, it is the reason why we are still playing, but I can recognise that mistakes were indeed made by me, where I denied player agency in service of my own interest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Upthread you say that you prefer not to use the minions mechanic. From what you wrote that is motivated by concern that "the dichotomy of the "low level" ogre having over a hundred HP vs an ogre with far better AC and hits for far more damage having 1 HP is incongruous". I find that concern easy to understand, but others have argued that it is unjustified.

Do you feel preferences ought to be limited to such concerns, or would it be okay for posters to disfavour mechanics out of moral concerns, whether or not other posters argue they are unjustified?

It is perfectly fair to have a problem with any aspect of the game, for any reason. It's all subjective preference. But obviously, people have different preferences, and the debate rages on.

 

[TwoSix]

The DM's responsibility, their "job", is to ensure the players are having fun. That doesn't "only" mean to be rigid and to exercise might. It means to make sure that the players are enjoying themselves and getting what they want from the session. If one player likes to feel like they have control over certain things, like how a particular spell works, then it's up to the DM to help that player "feel" as if they have the level of control they desire...without necessarily giving the player that control.

Bottom line, are the players having fun? The DM adapts to their players, just like the players adapt to their DM. When it's done well, everyone has a good time. The core rules are frankly borderline irrelevant. It's the people around the table that determine whether a game is good, not the rules in any rulebook.

Yea, I just disagree with all that.

Now, when I DM, I want to run the game the rules said and trust that they’ll give us an interesting experience.

I’ve found plenty of systems, both in the narrative space and in the NSR space, that do that.

 

[kermit4karate]

Yea, I just disagree with all that.

Now, when I DM, I want to run the game the rules said and trust that they’ll give us an interesting experience.

I’ve found plenty of systems, both in the narrative space and in the NSR space, that do that.

And that's our glorious right as human beings! We do not have to see everything the same way.

 

[TwoSix]

And that's our glorious right as human beings! We do not have to see everything the same way.

Absolutely agree. We have the freedom to be 100% correct, like myself, or do whatever it is you're doing.

 

[kermit4karate]

Absolutely agree. We have the freedom to be 100% correct, like myself, or do whatever it is you're doing.

Ha! Touché.

 

[Umbran]

But, I guess my actual play experience just pales before your 30 second reading from Anyflip.

They may be wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce, but the snarkiness doesn't help.

The snark may feel good. You may feel they "deserve" it. But it usually acts against your own interests. It will, in all likelihood, be an impediment to their accepting their error. This bit is key: if you treat them poorly as people, they will usually react based on their negative emotional reaction to you, rather than to the content of your presentation.

Again, it's really, really frustrating to have to constantly deal with this.

You know the old joke? "Doc, I get frustrated when I do this!"

Then don't.

Like, really, don't. There is nothing compelling your response or engagement, other than yourself. The world will not end if you leave a post that is incorrect unaddressed.