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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6773394" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Okay, now that I've given others some time to take a swing at it, I'll give my own answers to the questions that I put forth, and then see if I can contrast some of the answers I was seeing.Absolutely not. Whether or not I know why they made the rules, it is their party. As a guest, I follow the rules or I do something else. Now, once in a while maybe the rules personally annoy me, but that would be my problem, not theirs.Same thing if the rules just seemed a bit uptight or whatever. I might find it silly or eccentric, but not selfish or jerkish.(Listening to music on an iPod or stepping outside to smoke or whatever is different because no one else is being exposed to it, so it would seem really odd to try to ban it. Even then though the host is only being eccentric.)Again, absolutely not. Going to a specific function hosted at another venue and asking them to change the function--now that is the selfish jerk's move.In this one, yes, I would consider him to be acting as a jerk. The reason is that he is a) not a host, and b) no specific activity was specified. Everyone came together in a democratic fashion to just have some unspecified fun, one guy ended up voted or volunteered to drive, and then he decided to impose his vision on everyone else. That's not cool.For me, that is a completely different situation than the previous two.I see respecting a host as an extremely high priority. As long as you knew ahead of time what the rules were, you have absolutely no right to show up and then try to get them changed. If you're invited to a party and the invitation says that everyone will be expected to refrain from talking, and fire-walking is mandatory--then if you choose to go, shut up and burn your feet! Lol. Crazy example, but the point is that when you voluntarily travel to an optional activity knowing what to expect, you have no right to complain or be disruptive about that activity.I think most people would agree with that, more or less, but perhaps some people don't agree. I don't really have much interest in debating it though. I just wanted to identify the issue.I also see upholding a previous specified activity as a high priority. When an activity is previously agreed upon, it is unfair to those who signed up for that activity to change it on a whim. That goes for the host also. The host is out of line if they invite you to a Star Trek party and then turn it into a Super Bowl party (or vice versa) without notice (either before you get there, or after the guests have arrived). The exception is if there is a consensus that everyone wants to change it.The reason for this is that when I decide to accept an invitation, I'm accepting that invitation, not some generic "whatev', maybe we'll do this, maybe something else." Anyone who was interested, on-board, or looking forward to the specified activity is being treated unfairly if it switched on them without their consent.There is probably less agreement on this. A lot of it is going to be based on personality type. Some people don't put a lot of value on expectations, and as long as they are enjoying themselves whether they are following the plan or not is irrelevant. For others, accomplishing goals is important to their enjoyment, and a particular pre-planned activity sets up a goal to be anticipated and dived into. If they can't do what they were told they could, they will not have fun no matter what is offered in place of it. And a lot of people fall somewhere in the middle. Again, nothing much to debate there, just identifying an issue. Any group (not D&D specific) with people on both ends of the spectrum is going to have problems unless they can identify the issue and account for it.It looked like there was broad agreement that the third situation was a jerkish move. (Though I should have specified that the driver was a democratically chosen representative of the group, not a host asking if some friends wanted to ride with him somewhere.) This makes sense because there is neither a specific activity planned, nor a host to respect. In a situation where everyone is coming together to decide what to do to have fun, you decide right there, right then, and everyone's opinions are entitled to be heard.By contrast, in a situation with a host and specified activity, some people (like myself) feel it is the responsibility of the host to maintain the activity that people were invited to. To change it last minute because someone wants it to is unfair to those who are interested in the agreed upon activity. It bothers me at least as much when I am a guest in such a situation as when I am a host.Interesting point. So as a DM, you are mostly enjoying being a host, with the specific activity you are hosting being less important. I think there are a lot of DMs coming from that angle.I definitely enjoy my game more if I can see that the players are particularly enjoying it. I like to send out post adventure surveys even, asking them what their favorite and least favorite parts were, and if they could have added anything to the experience what would they have like it to be.But, my primary measure of personal enjoyment is having not only an experience that everyone enjoys, but having a specific experience. That specific experience is what defines the campaign. And sometimes it is really darn specific! That said, the specificity that is relative to my enjoyment isn't about plot railroading, but about designing the sandbox, or...World-Building. Once I have that world, the parameters are known, and the players have appropriate characters running around in it, it's delightful to me to see the players go in unusual directions and do different things than what I expected.I still haven't decided whether reticence to the bounded sandbox style of play is primarily a personality thing or a lack of exposure. It's probably the lack of hosting and specified activity in scenario 3, as least as I intended to present it, that makes it a completely different dynamic.I don't think a lot of DMs ban races solely because they dislike the race (well, other than kender).  We've been talking about things from a world-building perspective, and it's mostly about what that DM's world includes as a personal creative vision, or what is going to be appropriate for a campaign.</blockquote>

Verification