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

[Faolyn]

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.

Playing a vampire-werewolf-whatever isn't a house rule or worldbuilding, unless you consider merely asking for something not in the PHB or your approved list of source materials to be a house rule or worldbuilding. And that's not what I was talking about, if you had actually read my posts on the topic.

So: personal preference isn't a problem. Sure. Micah, completely unprompted (as I was initially replying to someone else), saying he hates my personal preference is...?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well yeah, but the analogy breaks down- we don't even have public phones anymore!

Two thoughts.
1. The movie Phone Booth really didn't age well.
2. They really need to solve for public toilets next.

 

[AlViking]

Playing a vampire-werewolf-whatever isn't a house rule or worldbuilding, unless you consider merely asking for something not in the PHB or your approved list of source materials to be a house rule or worldbuilding. And that's not what I was talking about, if you had actually read my posts on the topic.

So: personal preference isn't a problem. Sure. Micah, completely unprompted (as I was initially replying to someone else), saying he hates my personal preference is...?

The werewolf and half-vampire-half-dragon were requests for a house rule from different people. My players can always ask for a new house rule or a change to an existing one and we'll discuss it, but I make the final call. It's as simple as that and as far as I can tell you are telling me that I play my game wrong. I do not want to put the players into the position of having go vote because that would make some people very uncomfortable and many would just vote "yes" to whatever was suggested so as to not come off as insulting. So I don't do that, no DM I've ever had has done that and in my opinion it's a better solution.

As far as what @Micah Sweet may or may not have said, I don't care. I'm not Micah and I don't follow or remember every conversation in a thread with more than 20,000 comments.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Playing a vampire-werewolf-whatever isn't a house rule or worldbuilding, unless you consider merely asking for something not in the PHB or your approved list of source materials to be a house rule or worldbuilding. And that's not what I was talking about, if you had actually read my posts on the topic.

So: personal preference isn't a problem. Sure. Micah, completely unprompted (as I was initially replying to someone else), saying he hates my personal preference is...?

I am allowed to dislike the preferences of others. It doesn't mean you don't have an absolute right to them, just like I do to mine. It just means we might have a hard time playing the same games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

The difference is I don't have to badmouth most of the player populace to defend mine.

 

[AlViking]

The difference is I don't have to badmouth most of the player populace to defend mine.

I'm not badmouthing anyone. I gave examples of requests for house rules and explained why I don't like voting and think DM decides works better and has, as far as I can tell, worked well for the majority of people that have played D&D for the past half century. You are pretty clearly saying my approach is wrong, which is something I am not telling you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not badmouthing anyone.

Of course you are. You seem to think even collectively, the typical player group is less trustworthy to make house rules decisions than a GM is. If you don't think that's badmouthing them, you've got a very privledged positon.

I gave examples of requests for house rules and explained why I don't like voting and think DM decides works better and has, as far as I can tell, worked well for the majority of people that have played D&D for the past half century. You are pretty clearly saying my approach is wrong, which is something I am not telling you.

I think your approach infantalizes the players, and yeah, I don't find that a good thing to do. The fact it may have worked for you in no way changes that.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Define "lose".

It's a common belief that the only way to "lose" an RPG is to not have fun. You apparently agree, as you have said it's tons of fun for everyone when the PCs backstab each other, even though their character "lose" by dying (or being stolen from, or whatever). You've said that everyone is fine if all they do is faff around and not get to the adventure's goal.

You've also said, IIRC, that you don't care for powergaming type stuff; at the least, you don't want multiclassing or swordmages or anything like that. Which means that "lose" can't mean "making the best character ever." Especially since your ruleset (I skimmed it) doesn't have all the feats or special abilities that would allow for powergaming. I don't think you even use 2e's kits.

You've also said that GMs should be neutral, meaning that you don't have a goal of deliberately killing the PCs.

So what agendas are at conflict here?

 

[Faolyn]

I am allowed to dislike the preferences of others.

And vice versa.

It doesn't mean you don't have an absolute right to them, just like I do to mine. It just means we might have a hard time playing the same games.

But does it mean that when you see someone talking about those preferences (or that you think you see it), that you should immediately jump in and say you don't like them?

 

[AlViking]

Of course you are. You seem to think even collectively, the typical player group is less trustworthy to make house rules decisions than a GM is. If you don't think that's badmouthing them, you've got a very privledged positon.



I think your approach infantalizes the players, and yeah, I don't find that a good thing to do. The fact it may have worked for you in no way changes that.

You obviously did not read what I wrote and now you're just insulting. I'm done