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

[tetrasodium]

No one is forcing players to join games, but if they do it’s the DM’s job to entertain them and make sure they have fun. They are not the DM’s toys to disrespect how they like. And frankly, one of the reasons there are so many bad players and DMs around is that politeness makes it hard for people to tell them to take a hike.

Describe to us this forced community service judicial sentencing you suggest. As far as I am aware, this thread has had exactly one described example of players being forced to play under conditions that chaffe and the problem individual in that case wasthe gm apologizing for the temporary addition of another player

 

[mamba]

they are not entitled to have other human beings perform in it for their entertainment.

they are not entitled to it, no, which is why the player has the choice to accept or decline

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Describe to us this forced community service judicial sentencing you suggest. As far as I am aware, this thread has had exactly one described example of players being forced to play under conditions that chaffe and the problem individual in that case wasthe gm apologizing for the temporary addition of another player

Saying “no” is the most difficult social skill to learn. People are conditioned from birth to go along with things. At one time my partner found herself running four different clubs at the same time, none of which she wanted to do, because she was asked and didn’t know how to say “no”. She has got a lot better at it now.

 

[AlViking]

I can understand the desire to have everything in the world follow the same rules, but as you say, it doesn’t work. And doesn’t work in fantasy/adventure fiction either. James Bond and SPECTRE goon 2 do not run according to the same rules.

Why not? If a 10th level fighter faced a 1st level fighter I don't expect the latter to last long. They don't have to be built the same way and they haven't gone to the extreme 3e did but I don't see an issue with it either.

 

[M_Natas]

Players give feedback on the proposal. DM adjusts their ideas based on feedback.

Doesn’t build world until the players are agreed.

Or you have several players propose a campaign, the players vote on which idea they like best, and that player becomes the DM.

Players give feedback on guidelines, and they are modified if necessary.

Or they suggest what changes they would like.

The DM gives feedback on the proposed character, and suggests altererations that might make that character work better, or background details that can better connect them to the campaign world.

The difference between democracy and dictatorship is respect for others.

Oh come on. It is just two different styles of games.
Sometimes a GM has this Idea for a campaign, for the setting and wants to run with it, sometimes it is build together from the ground up with the players even before session 0 - in like a session -1.

Both are acceptable approaches and neither are a democracy or dictatorship, because this is a game and not a country.

 

[Bae'zel]

Ah I see, this debate is basically revealing two RPG philosophies about who should have authorial control over a campaign setting.

On a spectrum, we have "DM" on one side and "players" on the other.

Some games are, by design, deliberately and structurally placed along this gradient in a predetermined way. Others are more open-ended. Hell, some games are designed WITHOUT a singular DM role, if any at all.

Like a political debate, I doubt that people leaning more into one side vs. the other will ever find common ground. Especially when there are past bad experiences mixed in (jerk players and.or jerk DMs).

I get it now.

I think I get uppity when appeal to authority gets mixed in (the campaign settings made by official game publishers are allowed to impose conceptual restrictions but regular joes can't be trusted).

This bad faith sentiment has increased my ignore list, that's for sure.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sometimes a GM has this Idea for a campaign

No GM is so brilliant that their idea can’t be improved by input from others.

 

[Remathilis]

A GM proposes a campaign with a premise and constraints. People who like that premise opt in. People who don’t, opt out. No moral failing is implied. No blacklist gets activated. It’s just preference.

Example:

GM: “I’m planning a Spelljammer campaign. PCs wake up with no memories, level 1, no clerics or warlocks. Anyone interested?”
Player A: “Absolutely.”
Player B: “Sounds fun.”
Player C: “Not my thing—ping me for the next one.”

That interaction is not unusual. It’s the norm in groups that treat gaming as voluntary collaboration rather than social leverage.

Since everyone else uses their personal experience as gospel truth.

I only get to game once a month and my campaign can take years to complete. So to say no to my game is to sit out years of play. In the meantime, if a player comes along who is receptive to my current game, you are not guaranteed a spot in the next one unless another current player drops out. This is not malicious or anything, it's the raw issue with limited schedules and spaces. You might not want Spelljammer, but is it worth potential not playing for years, or maybe ever again, in my campaign?

I guess that depends how good a friend you are and how much you like my games.

 

[M_Natas]

Saying “no” is the most difficult social skill to learn. People are conditioned from birth to go along with things. At one time my partner found herself running four different clubs at the same time, none of which she wanted to do, because she was asked and didn’t know how to say “no”. She has got a lot better at it now.

Then the problem is social inaptitude and not how DMs run their games or not. Come on. No "Rule" on how DMs or Players are supposed to behave will change anything if you are a social pushover or let yourself get exploited.
If you have a DM that is an naughty word, you need to leave that game immediately. If you have people in your life that exploit you, you need to cut them off. naughty word DMs or Players will exploit and break the rules how they like it. Nothing will change that.
This is not a D&D or DM problem, this is a psychological problem.

 

[tetrasodium]

Saying “no” is the most difficult social skill to learn. People are conditioned from birth to go along with things. At one time my partner found herself running four different clubs at the same time, none of which she wanted to do, because she was asked and didn’t know how to say “no”. She has got a lot better at it now.

"I don't want to say no" is wildly different from a scenario where players are forced to play. Perhaps the individual you describe should seek a professional licensed therapist rather than expecting a d&d GM to provide that particular service if they feel that way?