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

[AlViking]

So if tomorrow, you propose something and EVERY player decided they didn't want to play it (or even the majority didn't) are the players in the wrong for forcing their preferences on the DM?

I'll give a more concrete example. DM is wrapping up a campaign and says "I want to do so different. Next game I'm running Star Wars EotE". And four players say "I'd rather not." (One doesn't want to learn a new system, one prefers fantasy to sci-fi, one specifically hates Star Wars, etc). And they would prefer another D&D game of any stripe. What should we be doing to remedy this? Because the bulk opinion I'm getting is "kick the four to the curb and find new people who support your vision." And I feel that's such an extreme position that it only works in hypothetical Internet discussions when people are trying to be hardcore. Is Star Wars worth 2/3rd of your current players? Do you change your preferences for the sake of the group or give them the ultimatum of my way or highway?

The players cannot force me to run something I don't want to any more than I can force them to play my game. It's never happened so I don't see the point in gotcha hypotheticals.

If somebody wants to run a Star Wars game and it fits into my schedule I might be interested. Just like I'm playing a Frosthaven game right now even though I would have never purchased for myself.

 

[Basic Expert]

Ehh, the GM gets to say what the world is. Full stop. They might decide to collaborate or negotiate on details, but they remain the final arbiter.

I LOVE it if a GM gives me a curated list of options. It shows that they've put some thought in their campaign and have a vision of their world. Great! Let me play in that world. It will probably be a 100% unique experience and not just some flaccid Realms clone. I'm even happy with a "humans-only" or "all elves are evil" or "non-magic" campaigns (stuff our group has done to great effect).

If you have an idea for a character that doesn't fit into the current campaign, can't you just save it for a campaign that does? I have a huge collection of character ideas that I haven't fit into a campaign yet. Maybe I'll get to them, maybe I won't.

And if players get to demand X content and control over world-building, do they get to demand control over adventure-building? What about encounter-building?

Players: "We go east."
DM: "The Dragonspire Mountains block your travel in that direction. Progress will be arduous and dangerous, do you proceed?"
Players: "We don't want to deal with dragons or mountains right now. We say the Land of Ice Cream Sundaes is due east."

DM: "You finally track down the fearsome Strahd in his castle and prepare for the final battle."
Players: "Yikes, that sounds tough! I think he should be revealed to be an arthritic kobold instead. But still worth the same xp, since I'm close to levelling."

 

[AlViking]

The problem with this is one can accept people are mostly doing things with the best of intentions without accepting that how they're doing things is (overall, since every group is going to have their own gigs) the best policy for doing so. I know there are some people in this thread who assume malign intent for this sort of thing (usually because they've been burned by malign intent at some point), but not everybody does.

The problem is that instead of having a discussion of what works for us, people who give players authority over the GM say that anyone that doesn't is doing it wrong. I've never said my approach is better or that theirs is worse. I'm genuinely interested in having discussions of pros and cons and nobody that supports a curated list of species or doesn't care for collaborative world building in D&D has come close to saying you can't run games another way that I know of.

As I say in other contexts, regarding trust: trusting in someone's intentions is not the same as trusting in their judgment.

I trust other players at the table whether GM or player until proven otherwise.

 

[mamba]

So if tomorrow, you propose something and EVERY player decided they didn't want to play it (or even the majority didn't) are the players in the wrong for forcing their preferences on the DM?

Them rejecting an idea the DM had does not mean they are forcing anything on the DM, and they also are not in the wrong for rejecting it either.

They are in the wrong when they write stuff like 'I can't believe they did not let me play a turtle, what a jerk'

I'll give a more concrete example. DM is wrapping up a campaign and says "I want to do so different. Next game I'm running Star Wars EotE". And four players say "I'd rather not." (One doesn't want to learn a new system, one prefers fantasy to sci-fi, one specifically hates Star Wars, etc). And they would prefer another D&D game of any stripe. What should we be doing to remedy this?

You should find something else to play. The analogy is the players forcing the DM to play LotR when the DM has no interest in running it, not what you presented here

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And those small wookies are still strong, because on their home world, only the very strong survive.

A PC Wookiee can be weak, because PCs are exceptional.

(And when it comes to survival, smarts beats strength in any case).

 

[dave2008]

Which is even more ridiculous. I am WOOKIE! 8 feet tall! 300+ pounds of all muscle! And I have an 8 strength because no racial strength bonuses.

So a strength score off 10 is OK?!

Have racial bonus ever been greater than +2?

 

[Maxperson]

A PC Wookiee can be weak, because PCs are exceptional.

(And when it comes to survival, smarts beats strength in any case).

Weak is not exceptional. Strong is exceptional. And yes, that's why wookies are both strong and smart. Their planet requires both.

 

[Maxperson]

So a strength score off 10 is OK?!

Have racial bonus ever been greater than +2?

That's why I said at the beginning of this tangent that wookies would not be able to be a PC race.

D&D would have to give us Mogs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The problem is that instead of having a discussion of what works for us, people who give players authority over the GM say that anyone that doesn't is doing it wrong.

If someone thinks not doing that is generically a bad policy, is there a way for them to say that you won't be annoyed by? I'm suspecting not.

I've never said my approach is better or that theirs is worse. I'm genuinely interested in having discussions of pros and cons and nobody that supports a curated list of species or doesn't care for collaborative world building in D&D has come close to saying you can't run games another way that I know of.

It depends on how you read some statements. I could name at least two people who seem to have phrased things that can easily be read that way (one in the last few posts). We had one poster who seemed to consider it impossible that it could work that way, and I've seen others in the past that take it as a given that doing so would cause big problems. I'm not sure that's meaningfully different from what you're complaining about on the other side.

I also am not sure "can't run" is the best way to phrase that. I'd at least phrase it as "ideally shouldn't".

I trust other players at the table whether GM or player until proven otherwise.

I don't trust anyone's judgment as a default. Even my own. I've seen enough failure states over time there just seems no reason to do that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Weak is not exceptional.

Exceptional is anything away from the centre of the normal distribution. I’m exceptionally weak myself.

Strong is exceptional. And yes, that's why wookies are both strong and smart. Their planet requires both.

Really, no it doesn’t. Wookiees aren’t survival of the fittest Spartans.