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

[Belen]

When the Walls fell.

Temba, his arms open.

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

If push comes to shove yes. Its never really been an issue. Maybe once or twice last 12 years with 1-2 potential players.

I care about my players, potential players are factor is minimal.

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

If push comes to shove my preference wins.

It pretty much never cones to that as my players are mono focus on a must have xyz they dig in over.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's the only answer I have. The players can't always get what they want, I can't always get what I want. A player may not get their species I may not get to use a cool story arc.

I don't consider it a sacrifice for either one of us. There are still plenty of options to choose from for both of us.

Sorry if I can't give you the gotcha you keep hoping for.

I'd appreciate if you did not ascribe motives for my questions. I've given you the benefit of the doubt on part of what I'm talking about; I'd appreciate being given the same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If push comes to shove my preference wins.

Yes, but the question is, under what circumstances is that true? As you phrased it, it sounded like it was in any conflict at all.

 

[SableWyvern]

Yes, but the question is, under what circumstances is that true? As you phrased it, it sounded like it was in any conflict at all.

I presume it's any time they're unwilling to compromise and someone has to make a final decision. This doesn't mean any time there is conflict, as I would presume that, most of the time, they're quite happy to compromise and don't have people constantly forcing disputes.

This is pretty much how it words for us -- GM is the one invested with the power of the final say, when a final say is necessary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I presume it's any time they're unwilling to compromise and someone has to make a final decision. This doesn't mean any time there is conflict, as I would presume that, most of the time, they're quite happy to compromise and don't have people constantly forcing disputes.

Which is why I've been trying to extract that for pages now. As phrased, its been pretty absolutist.

This is pretty much how it words for us -- GM is the one invested with the power of the final say, when a final say is necessary.

I don't think that's absolutely necessary (as I've explained before) but that's a different beast than "I win all disagreements".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

I literally said that. Repeatedly. In multiple posts.

As I've said, again repeatedly: I'm not the one saying one person always gets what they want and everyone else just accepts it. I'm not the one saying the GM should always get what they want, and then players might get what they want if it wouldn't put out the GM in any way.

One side here is advocating for genuine back-and-forth, give-and-take, etc. The other is not. Guess which one is which!

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.

From the way folks have spoken in this thread, I am given to believe that something like 50% of GMs will not accept ANYTHING that isn't their maximum fun preference.

Sure. But the trading isn't by role. It's by human. That's the fundamental flaw of the debate in this thread. Roles are arbitrary labels that we are using to distribute rights to fun. But the fun is connected to the human, not to the role. So asking DMs or players to make concessions in certain ways based on role is fundamentally flawed, because you don't know the fun dynamic of the people in those positions.

An example would be a person who got their way twice as a DM, and then went to being a player. And another who "lost" twice as a player and is now the DM. The human in the player spot should give in. Here the role is irrelevant, as it always is when it comes to fun. The human won twice as a DM, they "owe" some good will to the human who lost. Notice that swapping the roles in this hypothetical changes nothing. I bet any group that sticks together for more than a few sessions does this.

The absurdity of some of the arguments here, become clear if we replace the roles with "human with dice" and "human with different dice." All of a sudden saying "Human with dice should always acquiesce to my wishes because I'm a human with dice" sounds like what it is. Absurd.

It is only when we disassociate from the human element through opaque mechanical roles that much of what is said in this thread makes any sense. But maybe this thread isn't actually about having fun.

If the roles are not meaningful, why do people insist that the GM role gets so much power and control?

 

[SableWyvern]

Which is why I've been trying to extract that for pages now. As phrased, its been pretty absolutist.

I don't think that's absolutely necessary (as I've explained before) but that's a different beast than "I win all disagreements".

I think a huge part of the disconnect is the people talking about their power of veto rarely actually use that power, and never use it to ruin other people's fun because (assuming they're part of a functional group), it's simply rarely or never needed and they of course have no desire to ruin anyone's fun; whereas some others assume it's used regularly and arbitrarily (with certain posters going as far as to assume that if the power exists, it must inevitably be wielded with wild abandon at every possible opportunity).

Edit:
In this thread, someone who is complaining about a GM vetoing a concept almost always assume that the player didn't already agree to play a game where that concept isn't appropriate. Conversely, someone who is complaining about a zany player concept assumes it was already agreed this concept doesn't fit the game that was pitched.

Neither of those scenarios is likely to fit a situation that is going to arise in the real world, as long as there is clear communication from the start..

 

[Zardnaar]

I literally said that. Repeatedly. In multiple posts.

As I've said, again repeatedly: I'm not the one saying one person always gets what they want and everyone else just accepts it. I'm not the one saying the GM should always get what they want, and then players might get what they want if it wouldn't put out the GM in any way.

One side here is advocating for genuine back-and-forth, give-and-take, etc. The other is not. Guess which one is which!


From the way folks have spoken in this thread, I am given to believe that something like 50% of GMs will not accept ANYTHING that isn't their maximum fun preference.


If the roles are not meaningful, why do people insist that the GM role gets so much power and control?

Your compromise was always a tortle though.

Ive banned twilight domain. Compromise would be moon domain if the concept is the sticking point.