D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Cadence]

Look, semantic loading works both ways; "tyranny" has associations you didn't like in the title, "kitchen sink" has associations others don't like in your characterization. If you don't want bad reactions, some lifting to avoid it is required on both ends.

Semi-tangentially, I think this is the first I've heard anyone react negatively to "kitchen sink" as a descriptor (instead of just reacting negatively to something being an all-the-options game). Is it commonly taken as negative and I've just been oblivious? [Edit: I am just fine with being described as having been oblivious about this point if that's the case.]

 

[Lyxen]

Right. You don't like the use of the word tyranny, despite the many clarifications that have been provided. We get it. You don't need to complain about it for another dozen pages.

No clarifications have been provided on the use of that word.

I don't know what you mean by pulling a @Faolyn but that seems like a poor use of the mention function and you probably shouldn't do that. I doubt you'd appreciate your name being used as a verb for behavior others take issue with, so you should probably show others that respect. And if you want to criticize me, feel free to speak openly and clearly.....I can take whatever it is you have to say.

And I have done so, and I will do so again and again until you realise that the methods that you use for "debating" are wrong.

As for my use of the word "allowed", I was talking about the hypothetical selfish and entitled players you mentioned who cared only about their own characters.

And that is once more simply a lie (especially considering that the sentence above makes no sense at all). Here are you two quotes:

• Post 494: "care about something other than the little bit they are allowed to craft."
• To which I answered "It's not a question of being "allowed..."
• Post 501: "I didn't mention being allowed..."

Please start debating properly, without lying and misquoting.

Tracking initiative is not the kind of thing I'm talking about. That's sharing maintenance. It's helpful, but doesn't accomplish the same kind of thing as involving players in the world building and other fictional elements of the game.

Now, if you don't involve your players in that and everyone's cool with it, then fine. But my point was, if your players were actually like those you were describing, then maybe involve them more and you might be surprised that they start to care about the setting more, rather than just their own characters.

And i've been gaming in part with the same friends for 35+ years, and it's just not what our tables expect. When they (and I, as well) are playing, we want to DISCOVER the world the DM has prepared for us, all the intrigues and all the surprises in there. We don't want to invent them. When I want to invent things, I'm a DM, and then I can surprise and delight my players with intrigues.

Because, for me, if my players only cared about their own character, it'd seem pretty clear to me that my setting doesn't really interest them all that much, and so any priority I place on setting fidelity above player satisfaction is in fact, counterproductive.

I'm sorry, but that kind of approach just does not cut it. What I specifically wrote is "creative players usually focus their creativity on their characters and their stories", because the stories are what results from the interactions of the characters (which the players play) with the world, created and incarnated by the DM. It works really well that way, so much so that it is actually the very principle of the game.

Some players might feel more involved if you let them participate in your world building, why not, I've never encountered those. But our players are very much involved in the setting and what is happening there, we have summaries, some of them with very nice writing of every single adventure that we've had there. We have summary tables, I'm actually just doing one for our current Odyssey of the Dragonlords campaign, to list all the locations that we have taken our odyssey too, all the clues that we've had, all the navigation clues, etc. So we are very much involved, but as players, not dictating what is in the world but enjoying and discovering it.

And we would not have it any other way, as it would ruin the joy of exploration and discovery. Please do not try to peddle player involvement in world building as "superior", it's not.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Again, it's one of those hypothetical situations... Has it ever happened ? I don't think it has ever happened to me in 43+ years of DMing. Has it ever happened to you? Moreover, there might be reasons that the players are not aware of, and should not be aware of. For example someone cannot hide somewhere because, actually, an invisible NPC is directly watching them. And in that kind of case, the DM is perfectly right to say "look guys, there are reasons that you don't know about and should not know about, let's move on and we'll discuss that at the end of the evening." And even, by then, the players might reconsider.

So let's not base complete arguments on situations that (almost) never happen...

Are you saying that you don't use hypotheticals to suss out the truth or falsity of issues/rules/arguments? Unless I understand you wrong you're basically saying that you don't accept any argument by analogy, ever.

 

[Helldritch]

This thread is again, a simple case of players' agencies vs DMs' agencies.
One thing is for sure, most of the work is done by the DM. That is a fact. Yes players can and will contribute, but never to the same amount as a DM will, ever. At some point, the work done by the DM must be acknowledge, any player refuting that simple fact, is just being selfish if not downright disruptive.

D&D is both a cooperative game of story telling and a tactical combat combat game. Where the emphasis is put is largerly decided by the DM and it is up to the players to decide if the DM's style fits what they are looking for.
On the other hand, a DM that wants to keep his current players must also adapt his styles to his group(s).

Be it rail road, open sand box, dungeon delving, world exploration, total RP, total combat or a blend of all the previous; a group and a DM will reach, at some point, a middle ground where everyone will be happy with the game they are on.

This brings us to the world of the DM him/herself.
Each DM has a clear idea of the game world that will be his. Be it decade long campaigns where every group will have an influence on the world's development or one shot world/region where that world will disapear in the sands of time. These world are usualy made almost exclusively by the DM. The amount of work done by the players will always be minimal (if not non existent) to what the DM will do. Yes, a player can come up with a nice idea that will miraculously fill a gap in a DM's world. But this is a rarity. In 40 years, it happened to me three of four times only! And it is not for a lack of trying or a lack of players. In my late teens, I had 12 running groups, 6 persons each with most group playing twice a month and my regular group playing once a week (one was once a month, at the hobby store as a demonstration of how to play a RPG). Almost no player ever wants to do the amount of work a DM is doing.

What I have seen though...
A player who wants to impose his/her view of the game on the DM's world.
A player that wants the game goes his/her way and never fail.
A player that wants to impose his/her godlike character instead of rolling.
A player that wants to force the DM to accept a race/class from a book/magazine/web site not owned or accessible by the DM.
And more recently, a player that wants the DM to accept any race (fitting the world or not) that the player deems the DM should... (that one I was a witness, did not happen to me, fortunately)

All these behaviors, for me, show a distressing lack of respect and a selfishness that is not tolerable for me. I am all opened for discussion, but the game belongs to both the fellow players of the group a player is in, and to the DM. We established a session zero 33 years ago where we voted on the rules for exactly that reasons.

On the negative side of DM. Some of which I fell into
Adversarial DMing. (guilty, I was 12 and almost lost all my players in 5 month. I had to change my views and that has been a good thing).
Not adapting to the player's expectations. (A DM must listen to the tastes of a group but anyone can fail at this one, even me.).
Excessesive railroading. (Players do not have any choice...)
Playing favorite (Saw that with a friend's wife. The group went up in flames!)
Never being prepared. (Improvisation can be fun, but at some point there must be a minimum of prep involved if a continuity is desired.) Some of my best gaming moment comes from improvisation, but a full improvised campaign often leads to Monty Haul type campaigns. It can be fun once in a while, but not always).

And strangely, of the negative side of DM, none is unforgivable but people will bang on the DM like crazy if guilty of being perceived to do one or the other. A player doing any of the above expects to either get his/her way or get forgiven for trying. Can't blame someone for trying no? At the same time, if the same player keeps insisting, it seems that this is acceptable. Well, sorry for those that do believe that, but it is a sure way to have me ask you to get out.

Respect goes both ways. As a player joins a new group, or a group gets a new DM. It is to them to adapt to the DM's style. Not the other way around. If the DM's style is not to your taste, then why did you join that DM's game in the first place? Yes, it is possible to ask to a DM for his next campaign to be something else. A discussion is always a good thing, preferably with a nice beer in hands. That discussion can lead a DM to change for his/her next campaign to suit your taste. But ultimately, it is the DM's decision and choice. Nothing is forcing a player to stay with a DM he does not like. But a DM can always kick out a disruptive player. I did it more than once.

And to those I hear saying a DM without player is nothing. I answer, I see more DMless players than I see playerless DMs. Be open. Talk, discuss what you want. A DM will always listen to his players but again, this is as much your game as it is your fellow players in your group, DM included.

 

[Lyxen]

Are you saying that you don't use hypotheticals to suss out the truth or falsity of issues/rules/arguments? Unless I understand you wrong you're basically saying that you don't accept any argument by analogy, ever.

The original intent was to give advice to DMs and Players, and basing this on cases that never happen is not the right way to go. This is also why, having had many (actually infinitely since I've never had a bad DM, but I'm willing to hear that some people have encountered bad DMs - although I'd like to know the specifics because, on forums, 95% of the people coming to complain about their "bad DM" are actually in the wrong) many more cases of bad players than bad DMs, I'm basing my arguments on facts. Solid facts are always better than nebulous hypothesis of cases that never happen.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I'm basing my arguments on facts. Solid facts are always better than nebulous hypothesis of cases that never happen.

Woof - the philosophy of science would like a word.

 

[Lyxen]

This thread is again, a simple case of players' agencies vs DMs' agencies.
One thing is for sure, most of the work is done by the DM. That is a fact. Yes players can and will contribute, but never to the same amount as a DM will, ever. At some point, the work done by the DM must be acknowledge, any player refuting that simple fact, is just being selfish if not downright disruptive.

Indeed.

Each DM has a clear idea of the game world that will be his. Be it decade long campaigns where every group will have an influence on the world's development or one shot world/region where that world will disapear in the sands of time. These world are usualy made almost exclusively by the DM. The amount of work done by the players will always be minimal (if not non existent) to what the DM will do.

100% agree.

Yes, a player can come up with a nice idea that will miraculously fill a gap in a DM's world. But this is a rarity. In 40 years, it happened to me three of four times only!

Same experience here.

And it is not for a lack of trying or a lack of players. In my late teens, I had 12 running groups, 6 persons each with most group playing twice a month and my regular group playing once a week (one was once a month, at the hobby store as a demonstration of how to play a RPG). Almost no player ever wants to do the amount of work a DM is doing.

Thanks for this, I have exactly the same view, I would just add that this does not make players "bad players". It's simply players using the game normal paradigm and enjoying it "as is".

What I have seen though...
A player who wants to impose his/her view of the game on the DM's world.

OMG, the FR generates the worst type of players there, those who always come up with "but supplement/book X says that..."

A player that wants the game goes his/her way and never fail.
A player that wants to impose his/her godlike character instead of rolling.
A player that wants to force the DM to accept a race/class from a book/magazine/web site not owned or accessible by the DM.
And more recently, a player that wants the DM to accept any race (fitting the world or not) that the player deems the DM should... (that one I was a witness, did not happen to me, fortunately)

Exactly the same experience, not to mention the fact that this kind of player is often argumentative and disruptive.

And note that I have been guilty of this too, especially in my powergaming period, and it took a really good and strong DM to make me see how bad it was for him and the other players. And another one later on when I backslid into that behaviour for a while.

All these behaviors, for me, show a distressing lack of respect and a selfishness that is not tolerable for me. I am all opened for discussion, but the game belongs to both the fellow players of the group a player is in, and to the DM. We established a session zero 33 years ago where we voted on the rules for exactly that reasons.

On the negative side of DM. Some of which I fell into
Adversarial DMing. (guilty, I was 12 and almost lost all my players in 5 month. I had to change my views and that has been a good thing).
Not adapting to the player's expectations. (A DM must listen to the tastes of a group but anyone can fail at this one, even me.).
Excessesive railroading. (Players do not have any choice...)
Playing favorite (Saw that with a friend's wife. The group went up in flames!)
Never being prepared. (Improvisation can be fun, but at some point there must be a minimum of prep involved if a continuity is desired.) Some of my best gaming moment comes from improvisation, but a full improvised campaign often leads to Monty Haul type campaigns. It can be fun once in a while, but not always).

Thanks for that, it is enlightening. I can't say that I've had the same problems, for some reason my DMing has never suffered from some of my bad tendencies as a player.

And strangely, of the negative side of DM, none is unforgivable but people will bang on the DM like crazy if guilty of being perceived to do one or the other. A player doing any of the above expects to either get his/her way or get forgiven for trying. Can't blame someone for trying no? At the same time, if the same player keeps insisting, it seems that this is acceptable. Well, sorry for those that do believe that, but it is a sure way to have me ask you to get out.

Yes, and in this internet age, the number of people coming to whine on forums (DDB is really renowned for this) and trying to make their DM look bad is really incredible.

Respect goes both ways. As a player joins a new group, or a group gets a new DM. It is to them to adapt to the DM's style. Not the other way around. If the DM's style is not to your taste, then why did you join that DM's game in the first place? Yes, it is possible to ask to a DM for his next campaign to be something else. A discussion is always a good thing, preferably with a nice beer in hands. That discussion can lead a DM to change for his/her next campaign to suit your taste. But ultimately, it is the DM's decision and choice. Nothing is forcing a player to stay with a DM he does not like. But a DM can always kick out a disruptive player. I did it more than once.

And to those I hear saying a DM without player is nothing. I answer, I see more DMless players than I see playerless DMs. Be open. Talk, discuss what you want. A DM will always listen to his players but again, this is as much your game as it is your fellow players in your group, DM included.

Indeed again.

Thanks for all the above.

 

[Lyxen]

Woof - the philosophy of science would like a word.

We are not discussing theoretical science here, we are discussing human behaviour, and basing any sort of reasoning or justification on things that (almost) never happen is just pointless to me, especially when it's presented in an argumentative tone.

Moreover, in science, you can have many interesting theories, but the ones that are remembered and used are the ones on which the facts actually match the theory to some extent.

 

[Imaro]

The issue was not with clear rules, it was with an unclear situation that required a ruling. The ruling made by the GM seemed unsatisfactory to everyone else playing the game.

Nice way to take my reply out of context... I didn't say the issue was with clear rules. But claiming that the most fun is attained when the majority get the outcome they want should, in theory eliminate the need for rules... right? I mean you just vote whether a monster hits a character or whether sneaking past the guards works and so on... since the most fun is attained when the majority playing get what they want.

If I'm a GM and I make a ruling and no one at the table is really willing to accept it, I'm likely going to give it some more thought.

I didn't say you shouldn't think on it...

It seems like one of those "It's not me, it's everyone else who's wrong!" kind of situations.

There was a point in time when the majority believed the world was flat... guess we should have just labeled those who though otherwise the problem, right?

 

[hawkeyefan]

This would make a boring game so I think most players don't want things to go their way all the time. The players I've had over the years usually choose to make their characters' lives harder when given the chance. Up the drama and angst!

I don't think that being dissatisfied with a GM ruling needs to be the same thing as not being happy with the result of a roll or what have you. Things are difficult for the characters and things don't always go their way.....that's fine. But if the GM makes a call that you don't think is fair or accurate, that's something else.

It's the equivalent of an umpire or referee making the wrong call.