Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BSF" data-source="post: 1478988" data-attributes="member: 13098">Ok, I can understand your perspective on this.  Though, as a homebrewer with a little zany world of my own, the third point is the one I can most easily dismiss.  Why?  Because it is an assumption and is not based on any real perception.  What it might show me is the bad experiences that somebody else has experienced.  I'm not the Greatest DM in the World, but it does sound like I run a better game than some people.  So, let's look at the other two arguments because they seem to have more relevance to what Belen_Umeria originally posted about.I do believe that there is a subset of the population that represents the worst of these two points.  There are players that believe the GM should cater to their desires.  For these players, the GM should be designing the game around them and it doesn't matter what the GM wants to do.  These people, unfortunately, are giving other players a bad rep.  There are GM's out there that do have arbitrary rules.  These are a little more insidious because they make other GMs with campaign design conditions look frighteningly arbitrary as well.  This is a potential problem for all of us if we have ever gone looking for a new game/player.  The original question is asking if the latest versions of D&D foster the "bad player" mentality.  Obviously, many, many of us have seen this mentality.  And it is not relegated to just bad players.  Bad GM's are a problem as well.  The mixture of the two can sometimes make joining a new game/bringing in a new player an uncomfortable proposition.But, this has always been the case.  In Belen_Umeria's case, I think he might have had a bad string of problem players.  It is not easy to grow a strong table of people that you like to game with.  But, I think we know what a lot of the solution really is.  It's communication.  Kamikaze, and others, advocates a very open environment where questions are asked and answered.  To those of us that have encountered pushy players, this sounds like he is advocating a need to justify every design decision of a game.  However, I suspect his approach is partially based around weeding out the arbitrary DMs.  It is also probably based around a desire to work with the game setting and trying to understand the setting helps.  Bendris, and some others, is advocating that players should trust the GM to create an interesting, viable setting.  For those of us that put work into creating settings with a unique vision and personality, it is frustrating to have somebody that wants to join the game start demanding justifications for all the changes.  Some changes might be to address specific balance issues.  Some might be completely arbitrary to provide a different vision of a game.  Some might be part of a Big Secret that is part of the core mystery to a campaign.  When we hear somebody immediately demanding explanations, it makes us wonder if we are also going to have rules arguements and discussions over RP requirements, consequences of actions, etc.  We are all tending to see the worst examples that we have seen/heard.  But, I doubt that any of the homebrewers here would hesitate to work with a player to find a concept that comes alive.  Heck, I have more books than most of my players.  I want them to come to me with a concept first so I can help them realize that most effectively.  I want to point out loopholes that they can exploit and house rules they can leverage.  I want people to make an interesting character to match my (hopefully) interesting world.  Anyway, I am just rambling now.  I am not sure the Culture of 3.0 is creating players with a gimme attitude.  But, 3.0 has established a stronger baseline of what to expect when somebody says "Do you want to play in my DnD game?"  If you want to deviate from the book standard (And I certainly see no reason not to) then you are probably going to need to be a bit more clear on your changes.</blockquote>

Verification