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

[Zardnaar]

Cool photos, thank you got sharing. However, I have to ask:

What is that strange bump-out in the wall behind the Cosmere box?!

No idea. Uts an old building so plaster decoration or something outside on the facade?

D&D section anyway. Good chunk of that is gone now.

I got the starter set, someone else bought the staff things set and my players did number on the forge of the Artificer and Faerun stuff.

In another gamer room looking over the ground floor.



Replica MG34 with your phb?

 

[AlViking]

I'd appreciate if you did not ascribe motives for my questions. I've given you the benefit of the doubt on part of what I'm talking about; I'd appreciate being given the same.

I have no idea how to answer the question any differently and have told you that I don't understand what you want.

Yet you keep badgering me with "Why won't you answer the question." As far as I know I have. Maybe, I don't know, try explaining?

 

[Bae'zel]

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.

Again I'm going back to the "no playstyle or ruling can flawlessly handle jerks".

If tensions between players and DM get to the point of someone quitting the game, then it's a social problem, not a system or DM preference issue.

The bad faith hypotheticals keep on coming though. Different wordings of "if you're saying NO to a player's idea, that's bad DMing" mixed with different amounts of negative implications about personal character.

Not cool. I won't respond to that sort of thing, even if you go "gotcha!".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Cool photos, thank you got sharing. However, I have to ask:

What is that strange bump-out in the wall behind the Cosmere box?!

It looks like a covered over part of the building infrastructure: gas/water/air or some such. The decorative cornice suggests it’s an older feature, probably 1960s or earlier.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

lol, everyone’s posts would start looking like a Tetrasodium post at that point.

 

[dave2008]

It looks like a covered over part of the building infrastructure: gas/water/air or some such. The decorative cornice suggests it’s an older feature, probably 1960s or earlier.

That is a good guess. I have also seen things like that when stairs and walls don't get lined up either originally or from renovation. But zooming and looking at closer it looks a lot like painted ductwork with a cornice applied somehow. I wonder if the is a registre grille on the face hidden by the Cosmere box.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think a huge part of the disconnect is the people talking about their power of veto rarely actually use that power, and never use it to ruin other people's fun because (assuming they're part of a functional group), it's simply rarely or never needed and they of course have no desire to ruin anyone's fun; whereas some others assume it's used regularly and arbitrarily (with certain posters going as far as to assume that if the power exists, it must inevitably be wielded with wild abandon at every possible opportunity).

I don't assume its automatically used universally. I think there are people who have made it clear that they're measured to various degrees; Belen for example, sounds like at least in application he's not radically different from me as a GM.

But there are also a couple people who seem to be suggesting that no conflict is ever resolved in player favor. That's the cases where I've been trying to see if that's simply clumsy phrasing or actually literally true.

There's a difference between "I try to make the game fun for my players but maintain the power of veto" and "I try to make things fun for my players, but what I say goes". The former leaves room for the GM to want things one way but be willing to give in when some conflicts are more important to the player than they are to them (and implies that such a thing is possible). The latter is a different beast and I can't say it applies to the person I've been talking to, but it absolutely exists in the wild.

Edit:
In this thread, someone who is complaining about a GM vetoing a concept almost always assume that the player didn't already agree to play a game where that concept isn't appropriate. Conversely, someone who is complaining about a zany player concept assumes it was already agreed this concept doesn't fit the game that was pitched.

Neither of those scenarios is likely to fit a situation that is going to arise in the real world, as long as there is clear communication from the start..

The problem is there's a third case out there; concepts that aren't particularly appropriate for the campaign but can be fit in. Where the line between that and ones that create tonal problems or other issues is going to be in the eye of the beholder. In a really trad game, that defaults back to the GM, but even when that's the case there's big differences in how rigid that decision is and how likely it is to be deployed in that situation.

 

[SkidAce]

There is no alternative. The GM always gets what they want. The players might, if they're fortunate.

What about, The GM always gets what they want, and the Players usually do also?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have no idea how to answer the question any differently and have told you that I don't understand what you want.

Yet you keep badgering me with "Why won't you answer the question." As far as I know I have. Maybe, I don't know, try explaining?

Notice the prior post of mine said that the last few posts on this topic were not directed at you? Perhaps you should read that literally. My last post was acknowleding that you were not in the same apparent category as the other two posters I'm currently trying to determine their position. You apparently decided it was anyway.

 

[AlViking]

I don't assume its automatically used universally. I think there are people who have made it clear that they're measured to various degrees; Belen for example, sounds like at least in application he's not radically different from me as a GM.

But there are also a couple people who seem to be suggesting that no conflict is ever resolved in player favor. That's the cases where I've been trying to see if that's simply clumsy phrasing or actually literally true.

There's a difference between "I try to make the game fun for my players but maintain the power of veto" and "I try to make things fun for my players, but what I say goes". The former leaves room for the GM to want things one way but be willing to give in when some conflicts are more important to the player than they are to them (and implies that such a thing is possible). The latter is a different beast and I can't say it applies to the person I've been talking to, but it absolutely exists in the wild.

The issue I have is the verbiage you're using. I can't remember the last time I had a "conflict" with a player, at least not when it came to the actual game. There have been a few times I've had to discuss social behavior but that's different. Occasionally we have to clarify how a rule works or how I run things that aren't directly covered by the rules. Yes I make the final call because I want to be consistent for every session I run and I run for multiple groups. That's all standard D&D practice.

But there are hard feelings, no heated discussions. Maybe once a decade or so someone decides the game I run isn't for them and we part ways.

The problem is there's a third case out there; concepts that aren't particularly appropriate for the campaign but can be fit in. Where the line between that and ones that create tonal problems or other issues is going to be in the eye of the beholder. In a really trad game, that defaults back to the GM, but even when that's the case there's big differences in how rigid that decision is and how likely it is to be deployed in that situation.

The issue is that it's all make believe. Of course I could always add something but since I am the author of the world I make the final call on what fits. Still standard practice for D&D and always has been.