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

[Thomas Shey]

I sacrifice and compromise for players all the time.

What most of the DMs are saying is that sometimes there are hard lines that will make it not worth running for us.

Then we’re told that this is a red flags or that if we do not run cosmopolitan kitchen sink D&D, then we’re the problem.

I think some have indicated that those lines are pretty wide. And keep in mind I think the idea they should be nonexistant is more than a little off, too.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As the one running the game? Yes. Or one of them can run the game. Its that easy, has always been. Its wild this thread continues.

The idea this has always been true for everyone is pretty wild too.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is it a sacrifice to create leads that I think would be fun but the players go another way? Create cool NPCs with a fun backstory but the players are more interested in the waitress I just improvised

So do I sacrifice by not getting to use some cool ideas just like some players don't get to play a specific concept? I guess I don't really think of those as sacrifices. It's just playing the game.

Which is why I've not actually directed the questions I've been launching the last few pages at you.

 

[Scribe]

The idea this has always been true for everyone is pretty wild too.

Really? That the DM sets the game and runs it? Never in my life have I been held hostage to run a game I dont want to. If you have, sorry.

 

[tetrasodium]

At this point, it feels like everyone should just start referencing prior events at one another:

Poster #1: Grievance from post 337. Question from post 1312.

Poster #2: Answer from post 818. Anecdote from post 247.

Poster #1: Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

Fun fact Tamarian phrases will. IME totally confuse the language processing ai behind a lot of annoying tele/scam/poll/etc scripts.


I think it's because the words are English, the English phrases are gibberish and the chatgpt or whatever knows they have A meaning. Telling it that you don't understand and doing it in a way that defies any possible ivr tree....

Tamarian language

The Tamarian language was the spoken language of the Tamarians. The Tamarians spoke entirely by allegory, referencing mytho-historical people and places from their culture. As a result, when the Federation first made contact with the Tamarians, although their universal translators could...

memory-alpha.fandom.com

Kadir beneath Mo Moteh" – failure or inability to communicate orunderstand; derisive in connotation

&

Karno, when his mind was fogged?" – may refer to someone being confused or corrupted by unknown cause

 

[Thomas Shey]

Really? That the DM sets the game and runs it? Never in my life have I been held hostage to run a game I dont want to. If you have, sorry.

Good gods, people don't read my posts. I'm not talking about what happens when there's a conflict between what the players want and what the GM does. If every single case there makes you "not want to run a game", then, yes, I think that's a weird take and that's what I've been responding to; the idea that a GM always wins any conflict, no matter its scale.

 

[mamba]

But to read that one poster literally, not compromise on anything they care about.

the one post I read that way came after mine ('As the one running the game? Yes. Or one of them can run the game. Its that easy, has always been. Its wild this thread continues.'). I agree with your reading of it, but disagree with the post. Not sure it is not just phrased badly though, as the next(?) one is 'That the DM sets the game and runs it? Never in my life have I been held hostage to run a game I don't want to. If you have, sorry.'

 

[Thomas Shey]

the one post I read that way came after mine ('As the one running the game? Yes. Or one of them can run the game. Its that easy, has always been. Its wild this thread continues.'). I agree with your reading of it, but disagree with the post

Okay. That's the sort of thing I was referring to here. It also appeared to be the position @Zardnaar holds, which is why I've been trying to get them to clarify if that's actually the case. Note that even though it seems they're a bit more rigid than I think called for, it does not appear to be the position @AlViking holds.

 

[AlViking]

Which is why I've not actually directed the questions I've been launching the last few pages at you.

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.

 

[SkidAce]

At this point, it feels like everyone should just start referencing prior events at one another:

Poster #1: Grievance from post 337. Question from post 1312.

Poster #2: Answer from post 818. Anecdote from post 247.

Poster #1: Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

When the Walls fell.