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

[Bae'zel]

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

And there it is. That's really what this is all about: lack of trust in a DM's ability to create a good campaign setting / pitch / theme.

I'm so glad that I only play with friends or people whom I like, not strangers.

I can empathize: whenever I've played a campaign in a stranger's custom setting, it never really went very well (personal anecdote). When it was from people whom I already knew and trusted, it usually went very well.

 

[TwoSix]

And the DMs are not the Entertainment-Houseelf of the players.
A game of D&D can only work if everybody has fun, DM included. Nobody should be disrespecting anybody and everybody should entertain everybody else on the table. The DM is a player, too.

For me, the question is "How is it more fun to prioritize your curated aesthetic over facilitating a collaborative effort with the players?"

I mean, once you've organized your players and discovered what they're interested in playing, then you can worldbuild and curate to your heart's content!

 

[mamba]

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

but not every input is an improvement either

 

[M_Natas]

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

No, but DMs are also just people and sometimes they have a vision that they want to follow for a game. And they also can be so in love with how the idea on how they want to run the next game the same way a player can be in love with the idea of running a turtle as a character the next game.

And neither position is an invalid position.

I wanted my next game to be a spelljammer game. I had an Idea for how it was going to start (PCs without memories waking up in an abandoned asteroid base, no Warlocks or Clerics at level 1 - later they can multiclass if they find a god or patron). I proposed that to my usual players and they went with it.

But we also had a session -1, where we discussed things and where I proposed other possible campaign Ideas (like your ship sank, stranded on an island, hard core survival mode) and where I listend to the players and tried to figure out what they like. But I really wanted that beginning for the spelljammer campaign. And that is a valid enough reason to do that (there was also no Pushback from my players, because they trust me to run a fun game and that I do things for a reason).

 

[TwoSix]

And there it is. That's really what this is all about: lack of trust in a DM's ability to create a good campaign setting / pitch / theme.

Sort of. For me, it's about me, as a GM, advising other GMs to not think their desire to worldbuild is actually going to add a ton of value to the games they run.

And it's coming from experience of building tightly curated settings, and realizing that attempting to maintain that curation actively made my games worse. Keeping my worldbuilding loose and responsive to players' interests made my games be much more well received.

 

[M_Natas]

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.

Then just find another group. When during covid the current in-person game broke down because of LAW, I found an online game in like two hours to get my D&D fix.

The Campaign I'm DMing also only runs once a month, because I have two small kids and don't have more time right now. All my players also have other games that they are playing regularly.

 

[TwoSix]

No, but DMs are also just people and sometimes they have a vision that they want to follow for a game. And they also can be so in love with how the idea on how they want to run the next game the same way a player can be in love with the idea of running a turtle as a character the next game.

And neither position is an invalid position.

It isn't invalid. But I would also make the strong argument that it isn't a good position. The ideal is flexibility and collaboration on the part of all participants.

Yes, generally the GM comes up with the seed of the pitch, for a particular game or setting frame; but that's hopefully the first step of a conversation.

If and only if the players don't seem to have a desire to make contributions to the campaign pitch, and the GM still wants to play with them despite their passivity, can the GM step up with stronger authorial vision to fill the gaps.

 

[Bae'zel]

Sort of. For me, it's about me, as a GM, advising other GMs to not think their desire to worldbuild is actually going to add a ton of value to the games they run.

And it's coming from experience of building tightly curated settings, and realizing that attempting to maintain that curation actively made my games worse. Keeping my worldbuilding loose and responsive to players' interests made my games be much more well received.

There is a bit of a balancing act, I've learned from experience.

With Dungeon World, where it is hard coded that players can make declarations about the world at their own volition, we've had some really memorable successes and failures. Power hungry DMs and players with "main character syndrome". More than one Dungeon World campaign became a full-on absurdist comedy (so much that we now list it as our comedy game of choice). That's a success but not in a way we expected.

Again, not as much of an issue when I play with friends where trust is a two way street. With strangers I have to be more careful.

But even with friends... especially a DM who is HEAVY into the lore where the game grinds to a halt because of lore arguments. Dark Heresy was real bad for that.

 

[M_Natas]

Sort of. For me, it's about me, as a GM, advising other GMs to not think their desire to worldbuild is actually going to add a ton of value to the games they run.

And it's coming from experience of building tightly curated settings, and realizing that attempting to maintain that curation actively made my games worse. Keeping my worldbuilding loose and responsive to players' interests made my games be much more well received.

Oh I agree that this is solid advise in general. An overdeveloped setting can be hard to run and stiffle the game, too. It also takes a lot of energy.
But sometimes developing a setting is the biggest fun part for the DM and have the players let a go on it.

It is quite simple: My desire to have the players not have access to warlock or cleric class at level 1 stems from a plot point that can be relevant in the campaign (if the players choose to follow that plot, the game is really sandboxy-open world and the players pick, what they want to do in my spelljammer campaign, I just give them options and hooks).
And my desire for that restriction is equally valid as the desire of a player to play a tortle character.

And sometimes two desires can't be fulfilled. Sometimes a compromise can be reached. Sometimes not. And that's it. That's life.
Nobody can force a DM to give up on a setting idea, plot hook or restriction and nobody can force a player to give up on his tortle character. They just have to find games/players that can go along with those ideas.

 

[M_Natas]

It isn't invalid. But I would also make the strong argument that it isn't a good position. The ideal is flexibility and collaboration on the part of all participants.

Yes, generally the GM comes up with the seed of the pitch, for a particular game or setting frame; but that's hopefully the first step of a conversation.

Thats not the reality of DMs I've encountered. Half come with complete worlds and settings and adventures. Hell, every published WotC adventure is basically this and it is bad sport for players to purposefully break the restraints of a published adventure, because why run Waterdeep Dragon Heist when you plan to just leave the city to become a pirate? And the quality of WotCs published adventures is worse then most homebrewed campaigns I was part of.