Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6408369" data-attributes="member: 1210">Except that, you know, it is. Without the DM there is no game- or at least, not that game. There is another DM's game, and that's fine. But you know, the DM is the one who spends probably 90% or more of the time, effort and money that a group spends on the game. If he or she isn't having fun, there simply won't be a game. And frankly, when I spend that much time and effort and money on something, damn right I'm going to be having fun. And if that means that my game isn't for some types of players, who prefer other playstyles, that's perfectly okay. Sure, every group adjusts its overall style to some extent based on the players and DM in it, but there are definitely limits on how far a DM should go.I, for instance, don't much care for a game with advancement from 1st to 20th in an in-game month. I don't like games where the pcs have plot immunity or are effectively the center of the world, as opposed to being a group of people in the world. I don't like games with predetermined outcomes, where there's a story in advance of the game instead of the story being what you tell people happened afterward. I'm not going to run any of that stuff. Now, there are a fair number of players who feel like they invest so much time and effort into their pc that they should have a veto on dying. It's a valid playstyle. But that guy isn't going to like my game, so he should sit out.There is no reason a group- or even a DM- has to accept anyone who wants into their, or his or her, game. Dude, really? You're broad brushing entire generations of gamers as crappy, antagonistic DMs? Speaking as one of those "pre-3e" DMs you're hating on, that's more than a little bit insulting.Let's break this down a bit. First, I think the notion that older DMs are more likely to be 'entitled and antagonistic toward their players, with a much higher chance to have the attitude of "it's my game, if you don't like it, leave"' conflates... well, it conflates a whole bunch of things.DM-Player antagonism is, first of all, a very good thing for some playstyles. For others, it isn't. But that's okay. There are other games out there, right? Other DMs? If you don't like DM A because of this, go find another one. Easy peasy. Your statement is clearly casting judgment on this- it's very one-true-way. Keep in mind that there is no one true way to play D&D right- different groups enjoy different things.Moreover, I suspect that you're conflating "I run a sandbox with logical consequences as an impartial judge" dming with antagonistic dming. That said, I do agree that older DMs are probably more willing to say, "Take it or leave it." That's probably because of decades of experience learning what they like in a game, what works for them and what doesn't. You make it sound like this is a terrible thing. Again, just find a different DM instead of asking Old-Skool-DM-Guy to run a game he's not going to enjoy. Why is this such a harsh stance? What's wrong with both you and that guy playing a game you're going to enjoy, even if they're different games?If the issue is "He's the only DM in town", then I suggest sitting behind the screen yourself. Practice what you preach. Run a game that he and his group will enjoyAs for the "frustrated novelist" crack, sounds like you're talking about the classic railroad issue. You know, in my experience, older-generation DMs are far more likely to run a sandbox than a railroad, while started-in-3e and later DMs are just the opposite ("story story story"). Obviously, YMMV, but I think you're stabbing at a ghost here. Or maybe just being insulting, I don't know. While I love fumbles, I completely understand the groans here! This is a good example of a house rule that should be in place and discussed before character generation even starts. But then again, I feel like most house rules fall into this category. And again, if fumbles are a dealbreaker for you and they're in a game, sit that game out. There's definitely a broad spectrum of DMing skills and playstyles. Some DMs do just kind of suck. Some are excellent. But again, the real solution is to find a group that you're compatible with, not insist on having the DM bow to your style. I'm going to point this out again- the DM is the one who spends probably 90% or more of the time, effort and money that a group spends on the game. Essentially, the DM does all the work. So while, yes, every game's style shifts with new members and over time, I think the notion that the DM's wishes should come second to those of the group- which is usually what this kind of discussion ends up boiling down to- is fallacious. They should all come together, sure, but in the end, the DM is the one that the game depends on. Don't like his style, run a game closer to what you want.</blockquote>

Verification