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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7509328" data-attributes="member: 5142">The rules do not prohibit this playstyle either so an appeal to the inherent state of D&D is a nonissue, if not a non-sequitor argument. I am less concerned about imposing notions of D&D's inherent state and more about play in praxis. And when one looks at how D&D is played on online streaming games (e.g., Critical Role) or around tables, the notion of an inherent state of D&D falls flat on its face, especially given the liberties with which the rules are followed or not and how various playstyles are supported. I have also often found that arguments regarding a "default stance" often beg the question. If "default stances" were really as clear as people made them out to be, thread discussions would be far more clear cut. And this is where I also take issue with your argument. And as the issue of entitlement has been raised before, I would point this wording (emphasis mine) as part of the problem. I don't believe that we are dealing with "the DM's world." These are shared worlds, cooperatively emergent worlds, that the DM facilitates. A DM may feel a sense of ownership over the world, but that also spakes to that entitlement and the what rubs a number of people here the wrong way, that the players exist to aggrandize "the DM's world," story, or DMing skills. That said, I have also made it clear in many of my past examples on this matter, that the warlock player - as should be the case with all players - should cooperatively work with the DM about the character and the DM (in good faith and respect to the player) should work with the player. There may be a communication breakdown. I don't see why or how you keep dismissively calling this "one man theater" when I am explicitly telling you are misreading my argument. Falsely repeating that assertion does not make it correct. I am saying that the player has decided on an interpretive lens or approach through which they will engage the story. It is almost about establishing the character hermeneutic. They have not decided the story. They may have decided on themes for their character, and they may have signalled to the DM what sort of themes they would like to explore. But they are primarily deciding how they will approach the story that the DM facilitates. Story Now approaches, which I do not claim as my approach, may do things differently. IMO what you write here does not respectfully follow what I wrote. You are scapegoating this as a "jerk DM issue," when this is also a matter of preferred approach to storytelling styles. Laying this at the feet of "jerk DMs" is somewhat lazy argumentation that I have found prevalent in this discussion, and I am likely guilty of this as well. A "jerk DM issue" is still a "DM issue." There are things that Lanefan does his players at his table that I would absolutely hate, but I do not necessarily believe that Lanefan is a "jerk DM." He's a DM whose style would find insufferable as a player or my players if I applied his style and preferences to them. It sounds like you don't trust my word. Except they are not a spectator, and the DM also engaged her own issues, questions, and themes the players brought. This does approach does not somehow magically exclude the DM's agency. I never once thought the DM in the campaign provided aimed to screw me over. My roleplaying preferences are not contigent on fearing a "jerk DM." I play with friends. It's about what I want as a player and what I want for my players. I don't believe that it was. There were far too many ways, IMHO, for me to answer that question. And you have the nasty habit of assuming the worst in what I write. I apologize for a bit of glib humor, but my intention here was not some sort of bad faith snark, so your accusations here are misplaced and insulting while also engaging in the sort of behavior you accuse of me. However, it would probably behoove us both to dial back our respective snark. I don't think that it does our discussion any favors here for you to assume that I am not. I don't think that this snarky, absurd argument is appropriate or fair. If you had asked me in good faith, I would tell you that I believe that this depends largely depends on the player and their own idiomatic preferences here. Some players would want the DM to play the warlock's patron because they want to engage this otherworldly entity. Some are fine with the DM having all the control around the NPCs in their backstory. That's fine. This absurd argument is not actually being touted. However, there are NPCs or story elements that a player may prefer the DM not to touch or bring to the foreground. It may be because of "jerk DMs" but also may be because that's not what the player wants their play experience to engage as a forefront element. Again, I believe that laying this at the feet of "jerk DMs" is looking for an easy out of this discussion that is far more nuanced than a "jerk DM" gives credit or merit.</blockquote>

Verification