D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
now again we have someone that takes the words I used
comprmise
open discussion
talk
work through
and changes them to
wheedling
browbeating
sabotage

even though I was very firmly against all of those things, you try to morph my argument into it...

Where is your compromise? If I post that the warlock is a new system for the GM to learn, your response was but this, but that, but the other. And then there's hectoring Elf Witch over the core only game and the gunslinger. I'm seeing a lot of take and emphasis on the player getting his way and not a lot of give.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Where is your compromise? If I post that the warlock is a new system for the GM to learn, your response was but this, but that, but the other. And then there's hectoring Elf Witch over the core only game and the gunslinger. I'm seeing a lot of take and emphasis on the player getting his way and not a lot of give.

yes almost like a discussion is but x, but y, maybe a, how about b... how can we discusse anything if I can't bring up counter points?
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
and here we go... shutting down discussion and deciding that one player is above the others... "My game my way or get out"

you wont even discuss the possibility

That's true. And my way of doing it is just as reasonable and valid as your way of doing it.

In fact, this is an aspect of society that is messing us up. One side says "you are not willing to compromise, hence, you are wrong". Nope. Compromise is not always a good thing. I don't compromise when it comes to running red lights. I just don't do it. Even in an emergency, just running a red light can be an even worse thing.

the only must is be resnoble... you don't have to compromise but you must realize that will alienate some people...

It might. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.

Admin here. Really? You really think this is how we expect people to converse on this site? Not so much. Please see below. — Piratecat

but would you discuss at the end of a campaign if a player said "Hey instead of the next campaign being D&D can it be gurps?"
or more on topic, "Hey in your next game can you make a small group of dragon men that are PCable for me?"

I would talk about it. But, I might look at the guy with a third eye as to why he wants to play a disallowed race. What part of his personality is it that drives him to want to do something in the game which is disallowed?

There is a type of player who needs to be contrary. There are players that need to be unusual or different. Sometimes, those players' ideas are fine. Sometimes, they are just weird. And sometimes, they are disruptive.

OK, so again as above "Can you make a world I CAN play my idea in?"

Not if your idea is to shove Dragonborn PCs down my throat.

the group gets to decide... just because all of your players give up there chance to speak doesn't mean everyone should

The group does not always get to decide every little detail. The players have some input ("let's play Star Wars"), but that does not mean that they always decide how that's going to work out ("let's start on Tatooine"). The DM decides a lot of things like which planet they start out on, what the local politics are, etc.

A player might not like the starting conditions of the campaign, but the DM is not obligated to "let the group decide".

that means the DM actually listens and evaluates not makes up his mind before the talk starts...

Why? How come groups of players have to do it your way to have fun?

lets take your example... 5 people sit down to play star wars 1 says "No droids" another says "But I really want to play the droid idea" if the other 3 people say "hey nothing wrong with droids let him" is it ok to not listen?

Nothing wrong with listening. Something wrong when 3 players say "Hey DM, you HAVE to let this player do this.".

why?? I have asked a doxzen times... all you say is no...

I don't have to explain my DM decision making to you as a player. Who came up with this stupid idea? You are NOT entitled to know my reasons for allowing or disallowing something.

Don't like that, the door is over there.

That's the problem with entitled people. They feel like they are entitled. In this case, entitled to an answer. Nope. I might give an answer, but nothing requires me to do so. My answer might be "they don't match my campaign idea". The player is not entitled to get more details than that.

And no, some people's opinion that this is the sign of a "bad DM" does not make it so.
yea just like your opinion that it is "good" does not make it so...

Actually, it does make it so. We've had a great time playing D&D for decades where the DM decides the campaign limits. It works. So no, your "better" idea is only better for you and people like you. Not using the progressive idea that a DM should always compromise works totally fine in a game.

ok, then why argue? I'm trying to get an idea across, one that at times you seem fine with then snap like someone just told you off...

So I am arguing if I disagree with your POV? No, I'm explaining my POV.

fun does not exist with me having to put up with people telling me I can't play what I want...

Precisely. Now you are starting to understand. You do not have to put up with that. Just like the DM does not have to put up with you TELLING him how to run his campaign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Where is your compromise? If I post that the warlock is a new system for the GM to learn, your response was but this, but that, but the other. And then there's hectoring Elf Witch over the core only game and the gunslinger. I'm seeing a lot of take and emphasis on the player getting his way and not a lot of give.

It's a fairly common theme these days. Using words and phrases like "compromise", "talk through", "discuss", and then not being open to ideas that are not one's original ideas. Since the words and phrases "sounded good", the opposing POV must be wrong.

One sees this in the media a lot. One side of a discussion tries to take the moral high ground with words like these, but in reality, they are not really willing to discuss or compromise, they are just pushing their agenda.

Seeing that both sides have value and both sides are reasonable models of accomplishing something is rarely done.

I think that it is perfectly fine for a DM to say "No dragonborn PCs" and it is also perfectly fine for a player to convince a DM that in this one case, the DM will allow a dragonborn PC. Discussion is fine, but I draw the line where discussion must force a compromise.
 

bleezy

First Post
If the DM doesn't explain why only certain classes and races are allowed, he's doing himself a disservice. If he doesn't say "I don't want any Dragonborn/Tiefling/Halforc/Monk/whatever because my campaign is based on Arabian/Norse/Sumerian/Celtic myth or Tolkien or Vance or Howard or GRR Martin" or whatever your pleasure might be, then the PCs aren't going to understand the setting, and neither they nor the DM are really going to enjoy themselves. The DM should try his best to make sure the players actually understand his campaign idea.

Being as open as possible about the intended scope and theme of the game and the setting from the very beginning will really help your players get into character.

Being a good DM takes a lot of work, even outside of the normal play hours. A player can just show up and wing it so I do think it is fair to let DMs dictate the direction of the game, but of course they should always be open to suggestions.
 

In fact, this is an aspect of society that is messing us up. One side says "you are not willing to compromise, hence, you are wrong". Nope. Compromise is not always a good thing. I don't compromise when it comes to running red lights. I just don't do it. Even in an emergency, just running a red light can be an even worse thing.



It might. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.
congrats... I quite this thread... you win... good bye
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
I don't think that every member of a gaming group has to play in every game either.

It depends on how the gaming group is put together. If I'm not going to play in the next game of my current D&D group, I'm probably not going to play in the game after that. In a year, I probably will have something else scheduled on that night or at least be going out as many nights as I find feasible.

In the gaming group I know that has been running 20 years, players have never left because they didn't like what was coming up, and if someone felt compelled to do so, it would be a lot of stress on the group. Why shouldn't the DM take some of the stress of supporting that social dynamic? There have been a lot of side games where DMs can explore their weird ideas; why is it outrageous that there be a game where all the group that was in the last game (occasionally excluding problem players) is interested in?

To me, these two points are the same. The player is not entitled to play a Dragonborn in a campaign that disallows them, just like the player is not entitled to play GURPS when the game system is 5E.

Those two points are the same? A massive transformation in the whole game for everyone is the same as one PC being an usual race and possibly some minor world changes? Getting high-and-mighty about how you shouldn't compromise on anything is more of a problem then a player wanting to play a race.

the group can play a different game, or the group can find another activity. insisting the DM needs to allow something they don't like or don't want to include? Hell, no.

You don't think the DM will perceive "allow this or we play another game" as insisting? If players start getting picky about what they will play, then the question becomes: is the DM willing to stand his ground and not run the game, or compromise? In an environment where there are multiple DMs willing to run, the question is no longer players "insisting" but DMs "selling".
 



billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It depends on how the gaming group is put together. If I'm not going to play in the next game of my current D&D group, I'm probably not going to play in the game after that. In a year, I probably will have something else scheduled on that night or at least be going out as many nights as I find feasible.

In the gaming group I know that has been running 20 years, players have never left because they didn't like what was coming up, and if someone felt compelled to do so, it would be a lot of stress on the group. Why shouldn't the DM take some of the stress of supporting that social dynamic? There have been a lot of side games where DMs can explore their weird ideas; why is it outrageous that there be a game where all the group that was in the last game (occasionally excluding problem players) is interested in?

But what if most of the group wants to try another game like Paranoia instead of their usual D&D? Does the social dynamic mandate that the player who doesn't want to try out another game gets veto over branching out into new games? Should it? I know I'd rather drill a hole in my head than play Vampire but I wouldn't want to stop the rest of the players in the group if they wanted to play it.
 

Remove ads

Top