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

[mamba]

Surely, but the issue keeps coming down to your happiness seems to trump anyone else's.

no, it just is not overruled by anyone else’s

 

[Belen]

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?

It depends. If I am the DM and I am burned out running fantasy, then someone else takes over or we go on break.

The only time anyone took over was my wife 15 years ago and, more recently, a friend because I just could not handle running a game after my parents died. He still waited a year and when I said I was still not ready, he decided to run Tomb in Greyhawk.

TBH, since they both died, I have found it hard to take joy in most things.

 

[Belen]

So a strength score off 10 is OK?!

Have racial bonus ever been greater than +2?

In older editions, sure,

 

[Belen]

No. I advocate for my own self--that is absolutely true. But I also compromise--SOME of the time.

Not all of the time. If I'm compromising ALL of the time, you are an arsehole exploiting my good will. If I make you compromise ALL of the time, I'm an arsehole exploiting your goodwill.

The one and only correct answer is that SOME of the time, I'll compromise for you, because that's being gracious and respectful....and SOME of the time, you'll compromise for me, because that's being gracious and respectful. And, SOME of the time, we'll each compromise for each other, because that's being gracious and respectful.

The instant you make it so one person always gets whatever they want, no matter what, you've broken something.

I sacrifice and compromise for players all the time.

What most of the DMs are saying is that sometimes there are hard lines that will make it not worth running for us.

Then we’re told that this is a red flags or that if we do not run cosmopolitan kitchen sink D&D, then we’re the problem.

 

[dave2008]

No. I advocate for my own self--that is absolutely true. But I also compromise--SOME of the time.

Not all of the time. If I'm compromising ALL of the time, you are an arsehole exploiting my good will. If I make you compromise ALL of the time, I'm an arsehole exploiting your goodwill.

The one and only correct answer is that SOME of the time, I'll compromise for you, because that's being gracious and respectful....and SOME of the time, you'll compromise for me, because that's being gracious and respectful. And, SOME of the time, we'll each compromise for each other, because that's being gracious and respectful.

The instant you make it so one person always gets whatever they want, no matter what, you've broken something.

Absolutely, but that goes both ways. There is no reason to expect the DM to compromise all of the time either.

I imagine the vast majority, if not all DMs, make compromises regularly. It is just a lot of the time the players don't even realize it.

 

[Scribe]

And yet your phrasing suggests that any time you have a preference in conflict with your players, you automatically get to be the one who wins. So which is it? Does your preference automatically trump theirs in all cases?

As the one running the game? Yes. Or one of them can run the game. Its that easy, has always been. Its wild this thread continues.

 

[AlViking]

I sacrifice and compromise for players all the time.

What most of the DMs are saying is that sometimes there are hard lines that will make it not worth running for us.

Then we’re told that this is a red flags or that if we do not run cosmopolitan kitchen sink D&D, then we’re the problem.

Is it a sacrifice to create leads that I think would be fun but the players go another way? Create cool NPCs with a fun backstory but the players are more interested in the waitress I just improvised

So do I sacrifice by not getting to use some cool ideas just like some players don't get to play a specific concept? I guess I don't really think of those as sacrifices. It's just playing the game.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Its wild this thread continues.

At this point, it feels like everyone should just start referencing prior events at one another:

Poster #1: Grievance from post 337. Question from post 1312.

Poster #2: Answer from post 818. Anecdote from post 247.

Poster #1: Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not directed at me, but I feel most DMs will share my line here. My preference trumps that of the players when my fun and motivation are at stake.

Whereas I think its a matter of degree. Is it a dealbreaker for me? How many of those do I have? I can have a preference, even a moderately strong one, but if I get the sense it matters more to the player, I'll probably work around my dislike. And I find it dubious to have a GM who doesn't do that at all if they have a preference of their own.

If my fun and motivation would suffer in a significant way, then I will tell a player no. I don't really care at that point about the player's motivation for the ask. Because without the incentive of fun, I'm not playing. To me, this is the obvious bar. It's the bar everyone in this hobby operated under, "Am I having fun."

The key phrase here is "significant way" and what that means, and how many places that applies.

And if someone wants to argue that I should forgo my fun for theirs, I wonder if they practice what they preach, because that is an absurd ask in a game. So really, the answer for everyone in the hypothetical is "I'll compromise or accept less if my fun isn't diminished too much." And if their fun is diminished more then they want, they say no. Either by walking away or sending someone else on their way.

I certainly do to some degree.

So yes, everyone here chooses their fun over that of others constantly. DMs are not uniquely bad for doing so.

I think the assumption they do so universally is not true. Basically, I don't think I should get all the cookies, and I find it dubious the idea that I should.

Spoiler: But I give up my fun as a player!

No you don't or you wouldnt be arguing here, because you'd just accept what the DM wanted.

Sometimes I do to some degree. I'm playing in a game I'm kind of lukewarm about right now for that reason.

 

[Thomas Shey]

no, it just assumes that, just like the player, the DM has some things they won’t compromise about, not that there is nothing they will ever compromise on

But to read that one poster literally, not compromise on anything they care about.