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

[AlViking]

And since I was talking about house rules, you would be incorrect.

Most people, when they are discussing collaborative games are talking about collaborative world building. As far as house rules, you can always suggest something but as DM I retain the right to say no because people have proposed crazy stuff. I mentioned the guy who wanted to be a werewolf above, another wanted to be a half-vampire dragon. Not dragonborn, a character that had all the abilities of a vampire (but could walk around during the day of course) and had dragon wings.

That, and I run for multiple groups so I don't have a lot of house rules and in order to keep things straight I use the same house rules for every game. I can always explain why I do something but odds of changing are slim.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Most people, when they are discussing collaborative games are talking about collaborative world building. As far as house rules, you can always suggest something but as DM I retain the right to say no because people have proposed crazy stuff.

And here's the problem; even if individuals sometimes don't think things through as well as they could, this assumes the group as a group, will do a worse job than the GM does. This requires, at best, a really bad atittude toward players as a group to assume. It only works if you assume the majority of players are self-centered, incompetent with rules, or both.

 

[AlViking]

And here's the problem; even if individuals sometimes don't think things through as well as they could, this assumes the group as a group, will do a worse job than the GM does. This requires, at best, a really bad atittude toward players as a group to assume. It only works if you assume the majority of players are self-centered, incompetent with rules, or both.

The majority of players self-centered or incompetent? No. But the few that are? They could wreck the game for the other 6 people at the table. I've seen it many times. If the DM does it? Find a different DM. If a player does it and the DM has no veto power? What are the options?

This megalomaniac DM that didn't listen to feedback has happened once in nearly half a century of play. I'm not worried about it.

 

[Lanefan]

So you're saying that, in a trad game, it's impossible for players and GMs to work together? Players and GMs must always be at odds?

More or less, yes, assuming a game with any degree of risk or danger to its characters (i.e. loss conditions).

The players and GM are working to different agendae beneath the overlying agenda of "keep the game going and keep the game fun".

The GM's main sub-agenda is the same as the overarching one. Take a long-term view and work to that, and the moment-to-moment will largely take care of itself.

The players' main sub-agenda is to not lose, based on whatever loss conditions the game has. Much more moment-to-moment: what's going to benefit me/us right now with little regard for long-term implications or effects.

Needless to say, these sub-agendae are inevitably going to conflict when (not if) what's good for the players right now is not good for the game in the long run.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, so much of this boils down to personal experience. I mean, I haven't played with "forever-players" in years. And, frankly, the worst players I've ever played with are all forever players and I pretty much don't want any at my table.

Of my current group of four, two are forever-players (I'm married to one of them!) and two are or have been DMs.

When a new player shows up at my table who has played for several years but never run a game, that runs up a huge red flag for me and, again IME, it means that said player isn't long for my group. Forever players IME, are passive participants who expect me to roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed them things to do while they contribute little more than what a dice bot could do.

I've seen more of a mix. Most notably, I've seen a couple of people who were poor-to-awful players go on to become good-to-very-good DMs.

And if required, I'm fully capable of and willing to roll up the plot wagon...but then they're stuck with what they get, which may or may not be what they want.

 

[Lanefan]

One of the problems I have is this presumption of the pyramid structure of trad RPG's. There's no actual reason for doing it that way, other than tradition.

Imagine this system. ((Note, this is borrowed from John Wick's The Dirty Dungeon)) The group decides on a general theme - say a forgotton tomb. Say we have 5 players and 1 DM. Standard group. Each player goes away during the week and creates 5 "encounters" (all three pillars - social, combat, exploration) based on this theme. By encounter I mean an event of interest for the group - something they would play through. Each player then submits those 5 encounters to the DM who takes the 25 encounters and meshes them together into a dungeon.

This is an interesting idea, if one has the right group of players. It would probably help if all those players had at least enough DMing experience to know what a vaguely-level-appropriate encounter looks like (doesn't have to be bang-on right but when someone turns in a Lich encounter for a 2nd-level party you've got a lot of work to do).

Thing is, though, IME many casual players (which we have to accept as being the vast majority of the player base) don't think about the game at all between sessions which means they're either writing up their encounters during the sessions or you're pulling teeth trying to get them submitted.

As the DM puts things together, the DM can change elements and each change is rated from 1 to 4. The DM tallies the changes and puts that number of jelly beans (or M&M's) into a bowl. During play, the players can eat M&M's and gain a d4 bonus on any die roll. The more changes the DM makes, the more die rolls.

Not fond of this, though - way too meta for my liking.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The majority of players self-centered or incompetent? No. But the few that are? They could wreck the game for the other 6 people at the table. I've seen it many times. If the DM does it? Find a different DM. If a player does it and the DM has no veto power? What are the options?

The players collectively having a veto power. That's why I said it requires thinking not only individual players aren't capable, but even that the majority is incapable.

For that not to be true, you have to, at best, think the majority of the group won't bother to engage with the houserule discussion. Again, not complimentary and not the experience I've had certainly.

This megalomaniac DM that didn't listen to feedback has happened once in nearly half a century of play. I'm not worried about it.

You're not the only one in the hobby.

 

[AlViking]

The players collectively having a veto power. That's why I said it requires thinking not only individual players aren't capable, but even that the majority is incapable.

For that not to be true, you have to, at best, think the majority of the group won't bother to engage with the houserule discussion. Again, not complimentary and not the experience I've had certainly.



You're not the only one in the hobby.

Neither are you. We're just expressing our opinions and my preference is just as valid as anyone else's.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Neither are you. We're just expressing our opinions and my preference is just as valid as anyone else's.

I'm not the one saying that using player design can't work because they're selfish.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not the one saying that using player design can't work because they're selfish.

I'm not the one accusing you of playing wrong because we have different preferences.