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

[AlViking]

The quote I am responding to is this, with highlights that stick out to me.


This tells me that the players are passive in their role in this game. The DM presents something and the player can provide a thumbs up or down, but no significant input. Even if the players all did fundamentally vote against the DMs idea, the DM is under no obligation to abide by it since the game is not for the players but him. It's HIS art, they are there to consume it.

That goes beyond if I can play a Tortle or not. That is a fundamental issue with the power dynamic so brazen it borders on offensive. I don't know if it was intended, but it reads like the players are there to glaze the DMs creation rather than the DM presenting something for the benefit of all the players.

They don't do collaborative world building. That doesn't mean the players don't have autonomy through their characters. That's the description of the default in D&D, DM as author of the world and the players control their characters. Players can still have plenty of autonomy, their role is simply different and their autonomy is expressed through their characters.

There's nothing "offensive" about it. D&D simply doesn't assume shared world building even if that's your preference.

 

[Maxperson]

Aside from some shifters, D&D seems a bit shy of anthropomorphic dogs. Wolves are rather more common. Traveller’s vargr often seem to be more doglike than wolflike though.

Chewbacca, of course, is an anthropomorphic dog, with fierce loyalty being top personality trait.

Chewbacca was cool. D&D would give us these anthropomorphic dogs, because Chewbacca's racial stats would be too high for a PC.

 

[TwoSix]

This tells me that the players are passive in their role in this game. The DM presents something and the player can provide a thumbs up or down, but no significant input. Even if the players all did fundamentally vote against the DMs idea, the DM is under no obligation to abide by it since the game is not for the players but him. It's HIS art, they are there to consume it.

That goes beyond if I can play a Tortle or not. That is a fundamental issue with the power dynamic so brazen it borders on offensive. I don't know if it was intended, but it reads like the players are there to glaze the DMs creation rather than the DM presenting something for the benefit of all the players.

To be fair, @Pedantic is an excellent poster but also has very specific preferences. I wouldn't view their post as representative of the broader coalition of setting-first GMs.

 

[Bae'zel]

Playstyles being deemed "offensive" for not doing fully collaborative world-building?

I think I need a mental reset. Going to read some threads over at r/rpghorrorstories for a bit.

 

[tetrasodium]

The general impression I get from DMs who are uninterested in their players is that they have crafted some aspect of their game (story, NPCs, setting) and there primary interest is showing that off to the players rather than having the players as actually be important. If the story is paramount, it's a railroad (the PCs cannot affect the story). If it's the setting, the PCs are museum tourists (the PCs can look but not touch all the marvels the DM is showing). If it's NPCs, the PCs are groupies (there to admire and support the much cooler DM characters).

When I design things for my game, I do so with the idea "how will my players affect this?" A villain they will hate, a place they will change by their actions. A story that includes elements of their personality or history. I want my players engaged and feeling like they are doing something important for the game, not just there to be the sounding board to my own voice.

...

.


This tells me that the players are passive in their role in this game. The DM presents something and the player can provide a thumbs up or down, but no significant input. Even if the players all did fundamentally vote against the DMs idea, the DM is under no obligation to abide by it since the game is not for the players but him. It's HIS art, they are there to consume it.

That goes beyond if I can play a Tortle or not. That is a fundamental issue with the power dynamic so brazen it borders on offensive. I don't know if it was intended, but it reads like the players are there to glaze the DMs creation rather than the DM presenting something for the benefit of all the players.

You appear to have confused players playing mortal player characters with players personally acting as high deific ranked (over)gods and presented it as the bar dividing a gm caring about player [desires] vrs players as passive spectators toiling under some form of "uncaring" overlord.

Meanwhile I can link to posts from years ago describing the world shaking changes my players actively worked into existence through the agency granted to them because I curate both settings involved when I run them.

So by all means show us proof of your overgods making use of the agency granted by you being something other than "uncaring". Maybe an old posting about a. actual campaign rather than a webnovel preferably.

 

[Maxperson]

so, the Sun Dragon left with his Vampirate Buddy, who had a Minature Space Hamster Farm with the words "Lets pack the Space Hamsters, we need to save the world!"

Save the hamsters, save the world! He was even Nosferatu in the series, so we have a vampire connection as well.

 

[mamba]

This tells me that the players are passive in their role in this game.

they are not involved in the creation of the setting, I don’t think you can extrapolate that they have no active role in shaping it afterwards.

A part you quoted but did not highlight reads ‘it's art I'm putting together that they view through interaction (and has the fun property of changing emergently in response to their choices)’

The DM presents something and the player can provide a thumbs up or down, but no significant input. Even if the players all did fundamentally vote against the DMs idea, the DM is under no obligation to abide by it

this part (but not how it continues past what I quoted) I agree with. The DM presents a setting and theme, the players can accept or reject it, but they cannot make the DM run something the DM does not want to run

 

[Maxperson]

Well, elf lifespan was always a moving goalpost. Elves reached maturity at 100, and lived at least 300 years, but could live to a MAX of 700 before departing to the Gray Havens, er hearing Sehanine's call. Since to reach 700 you had to max out four d100 rolls, those were the true "woman who lives to 110" stories rather than the norm. Just as most people live between 60 to 90 years, most elves live between 350 and 500, with true exceptions going over that.
(Assuming magic give lifespans equal to modern medicine).
Over time though, that nuance degraded to: "They live for around 750 years," (PHB 2024) and mature at the same rate as humans, but stop aging at adulthood. Making them more vampires with a upper cutoff than a species that ages differently. (Though it does solve the idea that elf pregnancy lasted two years and they were toddlers for a decade).

1e elves lived significantly longer. Gray Elves hit venerable at 1500. Venerable was 1500-2000 years old and all it took was a 26 or higher on a single percentile dice roll to hit a max lifespan of the lowest venerable(1500) +1d6 years. A 61 higher got you the the max venerable(2000) -1d10 years. And a 91 or higher got you max venerable(2000) + 1d20 years, so really Gray Elves could live to be 2,020 years old and a full 10% of the race got there. 40% of the race reached right around the 2000 year mark. Many, many more times the percentage of humans who reached 110.

 

[Maxperson]

The quote I am responding to is this, with highlights that stick out to me.


This tells me that the players are passive in their role in this game. The DM presents something and the player can provide a thumbs up or down, but no significant input. Even if the players all did fundamentally vote against the DMs idea, the DM is under no obligation to abide by it since the game is not for the players but him. It's HIS art, they are there to consume it.

No. You still get it wrong. He even says straight out that he is interested in his players, which is why he produces content that they are interested in as players(consumers). He's blunt about it, and could have worded things better, but all he's really saying there is that the world exists independently of the players.

When he says they can have input directionally, that direction could be mobilizing an army to wipe out a neighboring country, altering the power dynamic of the setting. He's just not interested in collaboratively sitting down with the players to design setting stuff. The world is there for the players to adventure in and alter with their actions, not to serve the needs of the PCs or players by altering itself to meet their wishes.

 

[Remathilis]

this part (but not how it continues past what I quoted) I agree with. The DM presents a setting and theme, the players can accept or reject it, but they cannot make the DM run something the DM does not want to run

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?