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

[Zardnaar]

They did, actually. Using recognizable D&D names like Mephistopheles made them feel more of a connection to the game.


It's pretty central to my GMing philosophy that I'm playing with a group of players I trust. You can't collaborate with people who don't play in a trustworthy fashion.

I have no GMing philosophy around dealing with bad players because if I had to deal with bad players, I would just quit the hobby.

I ust remove the vad players. Ive only encountered 4 since 2024. 3 went out 215ish iirc. Tgey got booted out of 2 more groups after me.

4th was banned from various stores lower half of the South Island.

Found that out when I had an old MtG player from 20+ years ago contact me warning me about said player. He basically got banned from a cities gaming circles.

Most of the rest are just incompatible like the guy who really wanted to go to level 20. 0 high level games on offer locally at least organized ones (unknown private home games no idea). Another player gave me 1 DM 1 player vibes. Spoke to him he wasn't interested in my game but he sold his books 6 months later couldnt find a game.

Others just irritated each other, or i inherited players from groups that self destructed usually due to bed sports.


.

 

[AlViking]

I would agree with that, which is why it's certainly fortunate I do all of those recommendations.

There is an enormous amount of rhetorical space between comparing two things and finding one better, and actively denigrating something.

Saying "I don't like X" is a statement of a mindset, not denigration or insult.

I was talking general posts, not necessarily you. There have been plenty of posts where people have openly stated that I'm doing it wrong. On the other hand I went back and looked at a handful of statements you've made lately. It may not be intended but when you say that "strict curation is a GMing weakness" as an example, yes it is denigrating alternatives other than your preference.

I agree that as a player, if you agree to a curated setting, you're being problematic if you later on try to renegotiate that curation.

But I still think the GM needs to examine why they are so attracted to that strict curation in the first place. From my perspective, that attraction to strict curation is a GMing weakness, not merely one playstyle choice among many.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For me, the question is "How is it more fun to prioritize your curated aesthetic over facilitating a collaborative effort with the players?"

I mean, once you've organized your players and discovered what they're interested in playing, then you can worldbuild and curate to your heart's content!

To be fair, if you're doing a more-or-less original setting with any detail, that may be prohibitive in lead time. Ideally you're right, but sometimes you need to start work quite a bit in advance (I realize from what you've said you don't get into the guts enough for this to be true for you, but that's not how everybody rolls.)

 

[TwoSix]

I was talking general posts, not necessarily you. There have been plenty of posts where people have openly stated that I'm doing it wrong. On the other hand I went back and looked at a handful of statements you've made lately. It may not be intended but when you say that "strict curation is a GMing weakness" as an example, yes it is denigrating alternatives other than your preference.

"Attraction to strict curation is a GMing weakness" is what I said, which is subtly different. And yes, if your impulse is to take a setting and chop out a bunch of races to make things simpler or cleaner, I think following that impulse hampers your game and your players.

 

[mamba]

If the core of what they want is something you don't want, then indeed, compromise isn't possible. But that still doesn't make a suggestion that ignores that core a compromise; its telling them to play something else in a passive-aggressive fashion.

Just stop acting like you offered a compromise in that situation. You didn't. Neither of you did because there was no functional one possible.

you might only find that there is no compromise possible once you had a bit of back and forth. The DM does not want tortles and suggests something that they think might preserve enough of the concept while fitting the setting, the player thinks that suggestion misses something important and points that out. That is how you get to an understanding of what is important and whether a compromise that is acceptable to both sides exist. Not by stomping the floor and saying 'your proposal is an insult, and it has to be 100% tortle all the way'.

 

[AlViking]

If the core of what they want is something you don't want, then indeed, compromise isn't possible. But that still doesn't make a suggestion that ignores that core a compromise; its telling them to play something else in a passive-aggressive fashion.

Just stop acting like you offered a compromise in that situation. You didn't. Neither of you did because there was no functional one possible.

I don't see anything passive or aggressive about telling people what the restrictions are before they accept the invitation. I really don't know how you make that leap. Would it be passive aggressive to invite someone over to play D&D only to have them ask to play BitD?

As far as the tortle example I explained what I might propose as a compromise. If the player doesn't accept my proposal then they can make a counter proposal. The only counter proposal I received was that it had to be a tortle. Sometimes compromise is not possible. That does not mean I was being aggressive, passively or otherwise. The player getting whatever they want is not compromise.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Sorry guys, I would rather play online with a bunch of strangers than play Spelljammer with you." is probably a good way to make sure you don't get pinged when the next game rolls around!

But then again, I would rather not run Spelljammer than run something so odious that a player (a friend of mine) would prefer to bail than play. Because again, I see game as an activity between friends first and an artistic endeavor second. Which is why I won't propose something people aren't interested in and if there is enough opposition, I move on to a different idea rather than forcing ultimatums.

Eh. Sometimes people just don't like the whole thrust of a game. I've sometimes steered around games in some genres because I knew one or more of my current players weren't going to be onboard it, but I've really got my heart set on running a post-apocalpyse game and know some of my players don't want to play in it, I just assume they won't play. Something doesn't have to be "odious" for someone not to play in it; it can just not suit their tastes and they don't want to commit regular time for something they don't like.

There can be some practical problems with this sort of thing--if you run a campaign two some of your players don't like, there's no assurance they haven't committed themselves to something else the next time you get around to something they do like--but I think it assumes a degree of pressure or expectation that everyone must play in every campaign that isn't all that typical IME.

 

[AlViking]

"Attraction to strict curation is a GMing weakness" is what I said, which is subtly different. And yes, if your impulse is to take a setting and chop out a bunch of races to make things simpler or cleaner, I think following that impulse hampers your game and your players.

So you are telling me I'm doing it wrong. Which is, to me, denigrating. It's your choice on how you communicate but the attitude of posters (not just you) that "My way is superior" gets a bit annoying.

 

[TwoSix]

To be fair, if you're doing a more-or-less original setting with any detail, that may be prohibitive in lead time. Ideally you're right, but sometimes you need to start work quite a bit in advance (I realize from what you've said you don't get into the guts enough for this to be true for you, but that's not how everybody rolls.)

My biases are absolutely towards light prep and more improv, for sure. Some of my arguments here are certainly derived from my general preference away from highly-developed prep for D&D and D&D-type games.

 

[TwoSix]

So you are telling me I'm doing it wrong. Which is, to me, denigrating. It's your choice on how you communicate but the attitude of posters (not just you) that "My way is superior" gets a bit annoying.

Fair. I can't disagree with any of the points here.