D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Panzeh]

I do personally tend to avoid highly curated D&D games for the simple reason that it implies a certain belongingness to the world that d&d doesn't really support that well. It's not a knock against the style, really, as i've said before, but if i'm playing an all-human game, i prefer something with a bit more meat on the bones for the whole 'being a part of society' deal- typically, a more robust skill system. A human in a human-centric game, IMO, should probably be able to call on people they know for things and have that be mechanically reflected, and d&d just isn't about that.

To me, it's about a group of outsiders spelunking and dealing with the situations outsiders have. Burning Wheel has a specific mechanic for checking if you know someone who can do something for you, d&d does not- the assumption is, you don't know anyone. You're an outsider, so it's really in fact a core part of the experience that you'd be a strange species, or at least one aspect of it. I kinda model the role of d&d PCs in society like early modern soldiers- cosmopolitan, often coming from far away, though I tone down the degree of hatred they engender from the commonfolk because the d&d adventurers i play/DM aren't the ones plundering villages, but they are outsiders who deal in cash money and come and go. Thusly, them being highly integral to the world almost works against my vision of it.

Of course, some people disagree with this, which is why they make highly curated games, and I respect that. Certainly, people see d&d as a broader game than I do, and i've got no problem with that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A discussion? Sure. I disagree. Good?

Slightly longer: whichever side of the DM screen I'm on, the DM makes the final call. Someone has to, and no I don't think voting on issues is a good idea. In many cases it will just mean the strongest personality gets their way.

This at least has an actual point. A discussion is not just a presentation of taste.

A good DM, like a good supervisor will listen and honestly consider the options. But sometimes things simply work better with a clear structure. We're not talking life or death here. Unlike a supervisor, a DM has no real power over their players. Every player is free to get up and walk away at any time.

An easy out in situation where the number of available GMs may be sharply limited.

Which doesn't mean it's the only way of course, just the way the vast majority of tables have been run and I assume will continue to be run. Because most of the time it works better than the alternative.

Does not follow. All it says is it works well enough. Works better requires more than "its been that way and hasn't heavily changed." Social inertia is more than enough for a functional method to stick even if one that would suit a lot of people better is available. For that to be overcome it has to be blindingly obvious in its problems to the majority of people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think most people just don't want to DM.

In practice, except with games that don't require much prep, its one of those things where you have to enjoy the process enough to be willing to put in the time and effort.

I agree. More people should give it a whirl.

My wife doesn't have the time and energy (her job is too demanding) but she found the period when she GMed at least instructive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I do wonder what is gained by having people do something they don't want to do for a leisure activity... I don't have much experience with it but does getting someone to DM who doesn't want to usually result in them enjoying it enough to keep DM'ing?

Even when they don't (see my post above) it can at least give them a different perspective on process. And it works both ways; if you have someone who mostly GMs it can pay to have them play once in a while to help keep perspective.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is not aimed at MGibster, I very much like the post. But it gives me something to ask my next question from.

Do those who don't like restricting races have the same expectations of new DMs to be open to everything, or do they get cut some slack?

("Thanks for DMing! We know you're still a bit nervous after running us through the starter adventurer with pre-gens, but it went great and we're here to help. Like we all said in the group chat, we love your idea of using Dark Sun based on that adaptation you found online and shared, it's super that module fits, and we're glad it will help you recapture some of the flavor of the novels you love so that you'll be more comfortable running it. The four of us have some characters ready that we've been drooling to play - Pure-blood Yuan-Ti , Kenku, Fairy, and Lizardfolk. We've got great backstories for our Oath of Vengeance Paladin, Arcane Trickster, Divine Soul Sorcerer, and Tempest Domain Cleric that should fit right in with your plans!")

So I realize you’re exaggerating to make a point….but I could very easily run that party through Dark Sun with few problems.

But aside from that…..no, there is no slack ever! New DMs will run an open game with no restrictions or they will be shot like the dogs they are!

 

[Oofta]

This at least has an actual point. A discussion is not just a presentation of taste.



An easy out in situation where the number of available GMs may be sharply limited.



Does not follow. All it says is it works well enough. Works better requires more than "its been that way and hasn't heavily changed." Social inertia is more than enough for a functional method to stick even if one that would suit a lot of people better is available. For that to be overcome it has to be blindingly obvious in its problems to the majority of people.

This is why I shouldn't bother with the longer reply. I don't want a game, no matter what side of the screen I'm on where every decision is made by committee or the person at the table with the most forceful/persuasive personality (which is what often happens with committees). I've been on "self directed teams" and after a while someone effectively takes charge or they produce lower quality results. Not that teams with a strict top down "obey my orders" necessarily works any better, but there's a happy medium. Someone leads, takes suggestions and listens to feedback and then makes a final call. It's not that the leader is 100% in charge, it's more akin to a 60/40 split with the leader making the final call on decisions or giving that authority to an individual on the team.

Ultimately though it just comes down to a judgement call. When I look at team dynamics (D&D is one such example of a team) there are times in small groups where collaboration and majority rule is best. I don't think D&D fits that paradigm. Other games may do it well enough, I know I enjoy some board games well enough that are collaborative.

I simply don't think D&D would work as well, or be as successful if we didn't have a DM. You disagree. Not sure where else a "conversation" is going to go other than the two of us saying "you're wrong" and "no you are". My justification that it works? D&D has always had the DM that makes the final call, 5E doubled down on it and it's the most popular version ever. Your justification? Your opinion.

 

[Oofta]

This is not aimed at MGibster, I very much like the post. But it gives me something to ask my next question from.

Do those who don't like restricting races have the same expectations of new DMs to be open to everything, or do they get cut some slack?

Serious answer? My wife runs a campaign in my world so she abides by the same rules and restrictions that I established. Occasionally we'll discuss options or she'll have questions about things like details on the 9 worlds or whatnot.

If she made her own campaign world? She could do whatever she wanted. Even if it was dark sun campaign with My Little Pony character creation rules.

 

[Cadence]

Serious answer? My wife runs a campaign in my world so she abides by the same rules and restrictions that I established. Occasionally we'll discuss options or she'll have questions about things like details on the 9 worlds or whatnot.

If she made her own campaign world? She could do whatever she wanted. Even if it was dark sun campaign with My Little Pony character creation rules.

"Do those who don't like restricting races have the same expectations of new DMs to be open to everything"

I figured you'd be fine with whatever the restrictions were if you liked the premise of the game.

 

[Oofta]

"Do those who don't like restricting races have the same expectations of new DMs to be open to everything"

I figured you'd be fine with whatever the restrictions were if you liked the premise of the game.

Hey, who wouldn't want to play Shining Armor? You have a name, a look, the entire character concept all right there!

 

[Imaro]

I do personally tend to avoid highly curated D&D games for the simple reason that it implies a certain belongingness to the world that d&d doesn't really support that well. It's not a knock against the style, really, as i've said before, but if i'm playing an all-human game, i prefer something with a bit more meat on the bones for the whole 'being a part of society' deal- typically, a more robust skill system. A human in a human-centric game, IMO, should probably be able to call on people they know for things and have that be mechanically reflected, and d&d just isn't about that.

To me, it's about a group of outsiders spelunking and dealing with the situations outsiders have. Burning Wheel has a specific mechanic for checking if you know someone who can do something for you, d&d does not- the assumption is, you don't know anyone. You're an outsider, so it's really in fact a core part of the experience that you'd be a strange species, or at least one aspect of it. I kinda model the role of d&d PCs in society like early modern soldiers- cosmopolitan, often coming from far away, though I tone down the degree of hatred they engender from the commonfolk because the d&d adventurers i play/DM aren't the ones plundering villages, but they are outsiders who deal in cash money and come and go. Thusly, them being highly integral to the world almost works against my vision of it.

Of course, some people disagree with this, which is why they make highly curated games, and I respect that. Certainly, people see d&d as a broader game than I do, and i've got no problem with that.

I think some of the backgrounds don't necessarily fall in line with this take on D&D... at least for 5e.

EDIT: To clarify... Backgrounds like Folk Hero, Noble, and Criminal have features that are very much mechanics around who you know and what they can do or get for you.