D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

I've said authority over the game, not power over the players. I've also consistently told you that the players can and should leave an abusive DM. The DM cannot run roughshod over the PLAYERS. They can leave the game, so he has no ability to do that. He can tell them they have to bring snacks. They don't.

The DM has no power over the players themselves unless those players grant him that power. The DM does have complete authority over the game granted to him by the rules. The DM should not abuse that authority, and relatively few do. Players do not have complete authority over any part of the game, though they do have near complete authority over what their characters say and do. They players have the same power over the DM as the DM has over them. None unless the DM grants it to them.

There's a distinction between power over the player and power over the game which you don't seem to understand.
I understand it quite well. I just also understand that it's not possible to have absolute power over the game without also having power over the players, since, as I know you have personally said at least once on this forum, there is no game without the players. Meaning, for the GM to have absolute power over the game, they must have absolute power over its constitutents....which includes the players.

If the GM cannot have absolute power over the players, they can't have absolute power over the game. The game doesn't belong only to them. It belongs to the players too. That, inherently, prevents absolute power.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


There's a few things going on here.

First, you're talking about a complete setting modification, not simply a ban list. If you set up a restricted concept for a game (like "let's all play a family of gnome wizards") and the players and GM are in alignment, that's totally fine. I don't consider "my personal heartbreaker setting" to be the same thing as a specific campaign framing. "Specific, easily transmittable idea" is good, GM's pages of notes not good.

Well, you always have to account for "This is the campaign concept I'm interested in running, and I have to use some system for it." Defaulting to D&D is not how I'd approach that, but its very clear that is what some people do as a default.

If you and your players are in agreement on playing in a Witcher setting, then you don't need a restricted list, do you? The players aren't going to ask to play a tortle in a Witcher setting if they're familiar with it. And if you have players who don't understand that a tortle isn't appropriate for a Witcher game, than maybe a Witcher game wasn't the best idea.

Some times you have the players you have. It may be that there's only so far you can get with them (I finally gave up one group for that reason), but most people are going to at least try.

Publishers get a free pass (from me) because they give you a pretty book with all the important ideas spelled out, that I can hand to the players and say "We're running from this." That's a much easier buy-in than the GM saying "I have a bunch of ideas, here's a printout of the important parts."

I'm sure some GMs can and do "get it right", but there's a whole lot of Dunning-Kruger among GMs about their worldbuilding chops.

Well, that's true about GMing in general. I'd say there are much worse failure-states out there in GMing than at the worldbuilding end.
 

Not in all cases. I push descriptive grammar because I think getting focused on prescriptive grammar is trying to sweep back the tide with a broom; it ignores reality in an attempt to do something that can't be done, in practice.
But psychologically, it sounds like you're saying you would prefer a "one word, one meaning" mindset.
 

Actually, as others have said, it's been "unacceptable" and "unacceptable" from the GMs, and "acceptable but not first preference" and "literally the first proposal, which was outright rejected" from the players.
the visuals were unacceptable for some DMs and essential for some players, other players were not willing to compromise at all

And, as always, it depends on the players.
yes it does, which is why even a compromise might not work / be the compromise they are looking for. Same for the DM side
 

Well, as an example, I believe it was AlViking who bad-mouthed any player who comes to Session Zero with a character concept they're already intending to play. So...yeah, Session Zero is already too late. A player having personal tastes and interests of their own is irrelevant and Session Zero cannot help because Session Zero has the GM already bringing all the concepts of a world, but the player is forbidden to bring even the tiniest concept of a character.

And that, I think, most cleanly and neatly summarizes the problem I have with the "GM wins" argument. It pretends that it's perfectly fine for the GM to bring the world's most stringent requirements solely and exclusively because they wanted them, but the player cannot even begin to think about their own interests until they've already accepted 100% of the GM's interests first--no matter what. No discussion. No reconciliation. No attempt at consensus-building. Accept or get OUT.
First, if you're coming to Session 0 with a character concept and you don't know if there are restrictions, then you should be willing to change that concept partially or completely. You're jumping the gun, which a lot of players do because they are excited to play, but you should be aware(because the PHB tells you) that sometimes there are restrictions and something you picked might not be available or will be different from the default game.

Second, nobody is saying you cannot even think about their own interests until they already accept the DM's 100%. I often am thinking of several different ideas before a Session 0. Some of those ideas fit, and others don't. I go with ones that do, because why would I intentionally disrupt the game?

Third, as a player if you haven't heard what the campaign is going to be about before Session 0, you pretty much have to realize that it will be announced at Session 0, so you are well aware that trying to finalize a character before you know what the campaign is going to be about can cause conflict with the campaign premise and will likely need to change.

Fourth, even if you do have a full concept in advance of knowing that it will work, often there can be a compromise which will be close to what you were trying to do AND which will fit within the framework of the campaign setting, so it's still not "but the player cannot even begin to think about their own interests until they've already accepted 100% of the GM's interests first--no matter what. No discussion. No reconciliation. No attempt at consensus-building. Accept or get OUT."
Except that the moment Session Zero begins, the player is expected to already be on board with 100% of everything simply because they accepted the pitch. That's a massive disconnect--and it really, really is the GM not getting the player buy-in. But the players are embarked; they already agreed, so now the GM has "absolute power" over them within the game, right?
Depends on what the pitch was. If the pitch was, "Hey, I'm going to be running a Middle Earth like game, so no races that aren't part of Tolkien, are you interested in playing?" and you agree to play, if you show up with a Tortle character you are basically acting like a jerk. You've agreed to play Middle Earth races and trying to get a compromise into being allowed to play a turtle man is intentionally trying to disrupt a game where you already agreed you wouldn't do that. It doesn't just make you(general you) a jerk, but also a liar and someone who is very likely to be a major disruption to the game. At that point the DM should probably just not allow you at the table and save everyone who is going to play a lot of grief.

However, if the pitch was, "Hey, I'm going to be running a political game set in Greyhawk, do you want to play?" and you agree, nothing was said about the races involved so you wouldn't at all be a jerk for showing up with a tortle to play. When you get to Session 0 with that idea, let's say the DM tells you that government involved is a bit xenophobic of races that don't look human and if you play a tortle who looks like a bipedal turtle, it will be very rough going for you and you won't get nearly the enjoyment out of the game that the other players do. Perhaps a compromise where you look human, but have tortle abilities is the best way to go. You don't look like a walking turtle, but you do get the rest, and you won't set off the xenophobic bells of the NPCs and limit your enjoyment of the campaign.
 


Well, you always have to account for "This is the campaign concept I'm interested in running, and I have to use some system for it." Defaulting to D&D is not how I'd approach that, but its very clear that is what some people do as a default.
Agreed, although I'm moved away over time from prioritizing "novel concept" to "novel system". There are a bunch of new systems I want to play, but I run them as they're presented out of the book, with very little modification.

Some times you have the players you have. It may be that there's only so far you can get with them (I finally gave up one group for that reason), but most people are going to at least try.
That's true. My groups are fairly fixed, so I try to match up games to the specific players involved as best I can. But, my priority is always "what game works for my group" over "what game/concept do I want to run"?


Well, that's true about GMing in general. I'd say there are much worse failure-states out there in GMing than at the worldbuilding end.
Oh, absolutely. I just wanted to point out that a lot of GMs think their worldbuilding is a lot better than it actually is, which ties into why I prefer to run games pretty close to the way they come out of the box.
 



Enchanted Trinkets Complete

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top