The annoying part to me is the framing that it's binary. That you are either pro-DM or pro-player, that no nuance exists. That just because I believe a DM can restrict race and/or class options and not be a worse DM for it, that I must believe that DMs can do no wrong, and players no right. That if I believe, players can walk away, they have agency, that that means I think all DMs tyrants.
I mean I have seen multiple people on this very forum take the former stance. And I have been personally painted with that very specific brush you describe in your final sentence here. So...if you want to complain about catastrophizing, it would help if there were fewer people
actually taking the stance that "rules have to be written assuming every player is a bad person and every GM is faultless." Because I have been told that. More than once. By people, not just on this forum or subforum, but people who are posting in this
thread.
Extreme views do exist, and some may hold the very views people cite. But I have a sinking suspicion that most of us aren't so easily classified. That most of us value both roles, and desire a group that shares a vision. One that can succeed in having an enjoyable game for all, including ourselves, without subservience.
I would love nothing more than this. I have consistently--in every single thread that has touched on this subject--spoken of consensus-building, of seeking common ground, of how it is
so unbelievably rare to find an issue that truly cannot ever be resolved by talking it out,
unless one or more people involved are participating in bad faith. I have said this many, many times.
If what you want is me to agree with "consensus-building is almost always possible and most reasonable, good-faith participants can work something out", then you have it. Hands down, no question. That's been my position for literal years. It's a position which gets
nothing but pushback from the people you claim are so willing to get along. I don't know what to say about that, other than that those people have point-blank told me they reject your position, while I embrace it, wholeheartedly.
So I reject the premise of us vs them, that there is some grand conspiracy, some evil cult, that threatens the hobby by promoting and actively encouraging broadly anti social behavior by one role or the other. Instead I believe there is trench digging for the sake of argument.
Perhaps so. Until I stop seeing GMs of 5e--an edition which vastly superpowers the GM and gives the players damn near nothing, the new 5.5e "we're all here to have fun" disclaimer aside--
constantly complaining about "player entitlement", I'm not going to hold my breath.
Entitled players exist. It'd be nice if GMs around here also recognized that a hell of a lot of entitled
GMs exist, too. I've never seen it. Not once. It's
always the players who are at fault for poisoning the faultless GM's perfect vision.
That we are likely just people arguing over small differences of opinion. That our differences largely wouldn't manifest outside deeply entrenched threads of argument and poorly worded posts of persuasion. That our tribalism is a product of the lens through which we read the words of others.
If my theory is right, and the hobby is under no threat, and these forums aren't loaded with self-righteous narcissists who only value their own fun at the expense of others. Then maybe, just maybe, disagreements over table norms do not equate to moral failures, that maybe moralizing the fun of others is indeed unproductive.
But I'm an optimist, with nothing but positive experiences with the TTRPG community and here on Enworld.
Then, were it not a sin, I would envy you. My experiences with 5e have been, to say the least,
very bad outside of my current two groups. My experiences of nearly every GM who toots the "GM empowerment" horn, and actually every GM who whines about "player entitlement", have been equally bad.
