D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[EzekielRaiden]

I didnt think it was controversial to assume the GM by far does the most work in a traditional RPG like Dungeons and Dragons?

There are a lot of things people assume about D&D that I don't personally think they should, so...controversy or not, maybe some assumptions merit being questioned.

I think GMs should listen to their players but I also think they end up being the final arbiter because 1) ultimately someone needs to make a decision if there isn't consensus and 2) theyre the ones running the game. Location, snacks, all that is external to the core structure of a traditional RPG like DnD.

So if the host says "Get the hell out of my house" and nobody else can host, that's it? Again, seems kinda funny to me that the GM's role is essential but the host's role isn't.

All that said, players should feel empowered to approach the GM with their concerns about a ruling or make suggestions.

Not the way people speak about it around here.

If there's disagreement there, then either party has a choice: be okay with the DnD theyre playing and keep playing, or decide thats a bridge too far and stop playing.

And no one is forced to play DnD with anyone. If a player feels that a GM is 'abusing' their GM authority or simply doesnt like the playstyle, they should just stop playing with them.

As always, you make this advice without considering the social cost of doing this.

It is no simple matter to nope out of a game. That has a social cost. Sometimes a steep one. Given people talk so extensively about the "social contract", you'd think this would be even the teeniest, tiniest bit included in their discussions of it. It never, ever is.

Leaving is a form of breaking the social contract--and leaving first means you're the one in the wrong. Yes, I have seen this happen. Yes, it is incredibly, monumentally frustrating. No, it is not some weird aberration that never occurs except in bizarro circumstances.

There are tons of options now, especially in the age of the internet and in a time where DnD is more popular than it ever has been.

Not in my experience!

I've been lurking in this thread and this feels like there's a lot of pain from games past where neither party were willing to put their money where theyre mouth was and stop playing because it got to where they thought it wasnt fun anymore.

Because putting your money where your mouth is has a substantial social cost, and people often quite rightly fear paying such a cost.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I didnt think it was controversial to assume the GM by far does the most work in a traditional RPG like Dungeons and Dragons?

I think GMs should listen to their players but I also think they end up being the final arbiter because 1) ultimately someone needs to make a decision if there isn't consensus and 2) theyre the ones running the game. Location, snacks, all that is external to the core structure of a traditional RPG like DnD.

All that said, players should feel empowered to approach the GM with their concerns about a ruling or make suggestions. If there's disagreement there, then either party has a choice: be okay with the DnD theyre playing and keep playing, or decide thats a bridge too far and stop playing.

And no one is forced to play DnD with anyone. If a player feels that a GM is 'abusing' their GM authority or simply doesnt like the playstyle, they should just stop playing with them. And if the GM isn't meshing with the players and their playstyles dont match, that GM does not have to continue running DnD for them.

There are tons of options now, especially in the age of the internet and in a time where DnD is more popular than it ever has been.

I've been lurking in this thread and this feels like there's a lot of pain from games past where neither party were willing to put their money where theyre mouth was and stop playing because it got to where they thought it wasnt fun anymore.

sometimes people have a tough history in gaming or other areas and struggle to not map that experience into the wider world.

You see this clearly where someone says an uncommon thing is common or they overgeneralize.

I find it best not to contradict their stated experience but to let people express what they need and move on.

Of course not every group is one constant power struggle against a tyrannical gm. Some are. But I always think about a bell curve and the big lump of satisfied players in the middle.

Most groups figure it out. For some of us it took a while. Our 12 year old’s issues are not our adult issues and thank goodness.

A lot of stuff is related to social skills and emotional intelligence. If a gm struggles with those things (or if players do) there is a greater likelihood of problems. But I think the egregious stuff are outliers (whether dm or player side).

 

[Bravesteel25]

I'm way late to this thread, but I've just never had any issues crop up with alignment. Sure, when I first started playing back at the very end of 2E (D&D Adventure Game boxed set) we would adhere pretty strictly to alignments, but as I grew up I realized people are more complex than that just as OP said.

Alignments, to me, suggest the overall ruling tendencies of the character. That doesn't mean a Lawful Good Cleric won't lie or steal and it doesn't mean that a Chaotic Evil Goblin can't show mercy towards a wounded captive.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didnt think it was controversial to assume the GM by far does the most work in a traditional RPG like Dungeons and Dragons?

I think GMs should listen to their players but I also think they end up being the final arbiter because 1) ultimately someone needs to make a decision if there isn't consensus and 2) theyre the ones running the game. Location, snacks, all that is external to the core structure of a traditional RPG like DnD.

All that said, players should feel empowered to approach the GM with their concerns about a ruling or make suggestions. If there's disagreement there, then either party has a choice: be okay with the DnD theyre playing and keep playing, or decide thats a bridge too far and stop playing.

And no one is forced to play DnD with anyone. If a player feels that a GM is 'abusing' their GM authority or simply doesnt like the playstyle, they should just stop playing with them. And if the GM isn't meshing with the players and their playstyles dont match, that GM does not have to continue running DnD for them.

There are tons of options now, especially in the age of the internet and in a time where DnD is more popular than it ever has been.

I've been lurking in this thread and this feels like there's a lot of pain from games past where neither party were willing to put their money where theyre mouth was and stop playing because it got to where they thought it wasnt fun anymore.

What they said @EzekielRaiden .

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are a lot of things people assume about D&D that I don't personally think they should, so...controversy or not, maybe some assumptions merit being questioned.


So if the host says "Get the hell out of my house" and nobody else can host, that's it? Again, seems kinda funny to me that the GM's role is essential but the host's role isn't.


Not the way people speak about it around here.


As always, you make this advice without considering the social cost of doing this.

It is no simple matter to nope out of a game. That has a social cost. Sometimes a steep one. Given people talk so extensively about the "social contract", you'd think this would be even the teeniest, tiniest bit included in their discussions of it. It never, ever is.

Leaving is a form of breaking the social contract--and leaving first means you're the one in the wrong. Yes, I have seen this happen. Yes, it is incredibly, monumentally frustrating. No, it is not some weird aberration that never occurs except in bizarro circumstances.


Not in my experience!


Because putting your money where your mouth is has a substantial social cost, and people often quite rightly fear paying such a cost.

I left a game more than once. Sometimes I came back later, sometimes I didn't. I paid the social cost every time, and moved on. I'm sorry that experience has been so much harder for you personally.

 

[Necropolitan]

Even if that other person were in fact more essential

You creating imaginary roles that are somehow more essential than DMs doesn't change the fact that in reality the DM is most essential.

So if the host says "Get the hell out of my house" and nobody else can host, that's it? Again, seems kinda funny to me that the GM's role is essential but the host's role isn't.

Another person can DM.

Why should a DM be forced to run a campaign they don't want to?

 

[AlViking]

Remember when this thread was about alignment?

 

[Necropolitan]

Alignment's a great tool, the lore around it in D&D (such as the Upper and Lower Planes) is incredible, and it's useful for both DMs and players.

Removing it from D&D would be a massive mistake.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You creating imaginary roles that are somehow more essential than DMs doesn't change the fact that in reality the DM is most essential.

You dismissing the argument without even bothering to try to engage with it doesn't make your attempted proof by assertion any more successful.

Another person can DM.

Why should a DM be forced to run a campaign they don't want to?

Maybe they should want different things, rather than trying to force everyone else to play only the things that please them?

Maybe they should consider collaborating, rather than pronouncing from on high?

Maybe they should try starting from a point of "what would other people like doing" and then find something they can find joy in, rather than projecting their own thoughts onto everyone else and being surprised when somehow that isn't actually how life works?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Remember when this thread was about alignment?

View attachment 416875

Do you have anything to actually add on a discussion about alignment?

If not, how is this any better than anything else not actually discussing alignment?

Because it seems to me that the discussion about alignment played out quite some time ago. If you think differently, why not...discuss that?