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

[AlViking]

Key point! "...just because I'd prefer Sue over Chuck it doesn't mean that Chuck is a bad DM."

There's so much mischaracterization and willful denial of other points of view in this thread. I'm getting the feeling this is far more about personal trauma than bad DMs.

If every new DM is bad, if every DM that doesn't have instant recollection of every rule is bad, if every DM that isn't a professional voice actor who happens to DM is bad, if someone at the table doesn't think the DM is as good as they believe the DM thinks they are, I don't know how any DMs could ever meet all those criteria and not be considered "bad" According to the poll 9% of the people answering believe that. If those 9% were correct I see no way the hobby would survive. I also don't think there's any solution to those people who believe that almost all DMs are bad.

For me? If we are having fun at the table and enjoying ourselves most of the time, the DM is not bad. Even in those cases the reason we're not having fun the responsibility rarely resides fully on the shoulders of the DM. Sometimes it's another player and sometimes whether we like to admit it or not it's in large part due to us. Not sure what else to say.

 

[Faolyn]

@Faolyn's example of the camera in the shower - it's not something I would ever allow (especially not without checking with the player who's character is being peeped on and there should be a discussion of red lines) - but perhaps the DM simply didn't think it was their job to police the actions of the characters. I'm not sure we know enough context for that one.

I have no idea what the GM was thinking. Other than this was the 90s and people were somewhat more likely to think of it as "naughty" rather than "criminal."

 

[AlViking]

I have no idea what the GM was thinking. Other than this was the 90s and people were somewhat more likely to think of it as "naughty" rather than "criminal."

I know I've come up with ideas in the past that I thought would be fun for everyone at the table and when I ran it by the player affected (offline) it was a big "absolutely not". But as you said, at one point in the past I may not have verified if it was okay or not. So I'm glad the 2024 DMG gives specific advice on talking about what people are comfortable with.

 

[Faolyn]

If it had been that simple. There were factions that were very explicit about how encouraging play deviating from RAW was "lazy design". And there was also those that were very explicit about how their game was so tightly and well designed that if you missed or deviated on even the tiniest detail on how you played the game, then you had no reason to complain that it didn't provide the great experience advertised.

I think there might have been a solid overlap between these two.

This thread is the first time I have heard the "we just talk about RAW to have something to talk about" argument you present here.

Probably because it was me vaguely remembering things from the Usenet days. And it wasn't so much an argument as an observation.

I'm willing to accept your statement, though. I can imagine people getting annoyed over OP homebrew or doing the "in my day, we had to walk uphill to the dungeons both ways" thing and getting annoyed at someone deciding that fighters should start getting extra attacks a level earlier. Even if Arneson had a balrog PC in one of his adventures, which certainly wasn't in the rules.

Interestingly, I just googled that to make sure--I thought it was Gygax who had the balrog--and found this page, which has quotes from Gygax and Holmes from Men & Magic and Basic D&D that basically went "you can play anything, as long as it starts out weak and gets stronger with XP." Like werebears and samurai. Although it also says that Gygax changed his mind by the time AD&D came along.

 

[kermit4karate]

I know I've come up with ideas in the past that I thought would be fun for everyone at the table and when I ran it by the player affected (offline) it was a big "absolutely not". But as you said, at one point in the past I may not have verified if it was okay or not. So I'm glad the 2024 DMG gives specific advice on talking about what people are comfortable with.

I dunno.... Am I glad they added specific advice on talking about what people are comfortable with in the new DMG?

Gotta be honest, not really. It's just more words to sift through. Frankly, some things about being a good player or a good DM rely on life lessons that only experience will teach. Learning how to communicate? What that actually entails? Learning how to empathize with others? Learning how to listen? How to compromise?

I mean really, people in the '80s were taught right from wrong too, how to be a good friend, how to not just walk and stab your neighbor, etc. There are still some lessons most people tend to learn the hard way regardless of our attempts to prepare them. That's why we try not to entrust 16-year-olds with huge responsibility, even if when we've handed them a huge rulebook. (Because they'll probably still eff it up.)

 

[kermit4karate]

...quotes from Gygax and Holmes from Men & Magic and Basic D&D that basically went "you can play anything, as long as it starts out weak and gets stronger with XP." Like werebears and samurai. Although it also says that Gygax changed his mind by the time AD&D came along.

Exactly! That goes to that earlier comment about me letting players play non-standard species/races (in my example, a juvenile red dragon).

I've never let a player in the party play a powerful creature without also disadvantaging them. To maintain balance, I offset the pros with some cons. They may be able to play a red dragon, but as a youngin they're low on the draconic totem pole. Adventurers, mercenaries, other powerful creatures and spellcasters are constantly hunting them. They actually live in fear when they venture into the open. Prone to acts of uncontrollable rage and violence. Some in the party rightfully distrust and fear them.

You don't just get all the cool stuff and the awesome breath weapon. There also has to be a price to pay for the good stuff.

That's just how I do it.

 

[Faolyn]

We are here explicitly talking about rules of a form that limits what a GM can do.. Not about narrative games in general?

Micah thinks that narrative games have rules that limit what a GM can do, when in reality, they generally have guidelines that provide information as to the GM's role.

I mean, if you want to talk about games that limit a GM's power, then that's any game that doesn't say that the GM can do whatever they want to do. A GM has to make initiative and attack rolls for their NPC combatants, rather than just letting them go whenever they want and auto-hit? That limits what the GM can do. A GM is running a monster that has 3/day Legendary Resistance instead of saying that they auto-save whenever the GM wants? That limits what the GM can do.

 

[Faolyn]

I change (and have changed) my play when I think it's worth it. What changes the official games goes through are not particularly relevant to me. What possible reason would I have to keep following the leading edge if I don't like where it's going?

You've explicitly said that the changes made are relevant because they're not specifically your tastes, and you've explicitly said that you don't follow the leading edge but instead play your own 5e/LU mashup.

 

[Faolyn]

The PbtA game with which I'm most familiar is Apocalypse World, the grandaddy of them all, which as you say does frame it's ideas as rules, and comes out of a tradition of very strongly held opinions not generally presented as such, so I'm gunshy about that sort of thing.

So you've judged the entire genre by reading a single game. Bravo. That makes about as much sense as me refusing to look at any D&D book because AD&D1e had a lot of baked-in sexism.

You've honestly never thought that later games by different people could be different?

 

[kermit4karate]

Micah thinks that narrative games have rules that limit what a GM can do, when in reality, they generally have guidelines that provide information as to the GM's role.

I mean, if you want to talk about games that limit a GM's power, then that's any game that doesn't say that the GM can do whatever they want to do. A GM has to make initiative and attack rolls for their NPC combatants, rather than just letting them go whenever they want and auto-hit? That limits what the GM can do. A GM is running a monster that has 3/day Legendary Resistance instead of saying that they auto-save whenever the GM wants? That limits what the GM can do.

This is the same debate between different philosophies. When I DM, I honestly couldn't care less what the monster stat block says, because I don't think the author ever truly intended every member of an entire species to only be able to use Legendary Resistance 3/day...because that would be absurd, even in a world of fantasy monsters. I trust my ability to referee an encounter and interpret the spirit of the game better than some little stat block.