D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[Scott Christian]

Note taken @hawkeyefan and @Seramus . But, as Seramus pointed out, I have never heard this as advice. In fact, I have never seen stated explicitely on this site outside of the context of, "In my campaign, the elves are racist xenophobes" or other such statements. But I have never seen another person tell another person to run such a campaign.

And this is where hyperbolic statements come from. Which then snowball into - a bunch of the people, right here on Enworld, are "repugnant" or use fidelity as an excuse even though the gmae has dragons (which implies they are bad people).

I'm not trying to call you out, but it's statements like that, that ring untrue of the people who post here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have never heard this advice - ever. In thirty years never ever heard a DM utter to another DM this as advice.

I haven't seen it in person, but I've seen it as a defense of such things online because its "authentic" before. Sometimes its just because of people who want their games gritty and, honestly, kind of ugly, sometimes--well, let's just say I think there are other motives, whether acknowledged (even to themselves) or not.

 

[Seramus]

I'm not trying to call you out, but it's statements like that, that ring untrue of the people who post here.

No worries! I can't speak for the people here on ENWorld.

But when I say repugnant, I mean grooming an underage player to come over and play alone at the house of a 40 year old man kind of stuff.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And this is where hyperbolic statements come from. Which then snowball into - a bunch of the people, right here on Enworld, are "repugnant" or use fidelity as an excuse even though the gmae has dragons (which implies they are bad people).

I’m not trying to label anyone a bad person. I just think people tend to carry certain default assumptions but are willing to let others go. I think it’s silly to feel the need to enforce realism as it relates to gender roles and similar kinds of considerations but be willing to totally abandon any snese of realism in other ways.

Now, maybe that’s a desired element for whatever reason, but sometimes when discussing, some folks can’t even grasp setting such things aside. It’s odd.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’m not trying to label anyone a bad person. I just think people tend to carry certain default assumptions but are willing to let others go. I think it’s silly to feel the need to enforce realism as it relates to gender roles and similar kinds of considerations but be willing to totally abandon any snese of realism in other ways.

Now, maybe that’s a desired element for whatever reason, but sometimes when discussing, some folks can’t even grasp setting such things aside. It’s odd.

This is going to be a little devil's advocacy, and I want to make it clear I don't intrinsically consider this a reason to enforce hostile environments about race and gender.

But its not necessarily comparing like to like when looking at things that define a social matrix and things that define a physical reality. The former, along with psychological realism, can be required for some people to engage with a setting and actually be able to connect to it, in a way that magic, monsters and non-human intelligences don't.

Its not actually that surprising that people will find things about how people interact more jarring than the fact that the setting has people who can throw fireballs. Yes, it still requires ignoring some things (with most incarnations of D&D and its offshoots, the fact you still see conventional castles and walled cities doesn't make too much sense without a lot more unpacking), but it operates on a different level.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is going to be a little devil's advocacy, and I want to make it clear I don't intrinsically consider this a reason to enforce hostile environments about race and gender.

But its not necessarily comparing like to like when looking at things that define a social matrix and things that define a physical reality. The former, along with psychological realism, can be required for some people to engage with a setting and actually be able to connect to it, in a way that magic, monsters and non-human intelligences don't.

Its not actually that surprising that people will find things about how people interact more jarring than the fact that the setting has people who can throw fireballs. Yes, it still requires ignoring some things (with most incarnations of D&D and its offshoots, the fact you still see conventional castles and walled cities doesn't make too much sense without a lot more unpacking), but it operates on a different level.

Oh sure, but there are all kinds of anachronistic elements of the quasi-medieval vibe of default D&D. Different folks will have different thresholds or different elements that will break their immersion or what have you. I get that.

But when I’ve seen the sentiment about gender roles and such expressed, it tends to be in a blind spot kind of way. Like the person doesn’t even seem to get that that stuff can be ignored or altered the same as tech level and so on.

Again, I don’t think that this means anyone’s a bad person. If it indicates anything at all, perhaps just how strongly certain social assumptions have been drilled into us collectively.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I have never heard this advice - ever. In thirty years never ever heard a DM utter to another DM this as advice.

I have!

And now we're in dueling anecdotes territory - it's unusual, but some people think that tieflings and/or dragonborn are supposed to be hated to the point of not being allowed to enter towns, and if you don't do that your somehow making the game less good - either it becomes unbalanced or it cheapens the story potential.

It's kind of like the advice that you should always put paladins through unsolvable moral paradoxes.

The killer to these lines of thinking is, as usual, the word "always." The only thing you should "always" do is be considerate of the other people at the table.

 

[éxypnos]

I think it’s silly to feel the need to enforce realism as it relates to gender roles and similar kinds of considerations but be willing to totally abandon any snese of realism in other ways.

Right, it's a free world. What is "silly" to you makes sense to others. To assume YOUR opinion is the right one for everyone is to assume you are wiser than all who don't hold to your opinion.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right, it's a free world. What is "silly" to you makes sense to others. To assume YOUR opinion is the right one for everyone is to assume you are wiser than all who don't hold to your opinion.

No, not at all. I’ve been guilty of that thinking myself. I wouldn’t say any specific approach to a fictional world is silly…it’s all a matter of preference.

What’s silly is when folks don’t even realize that it’s a choice and a preference, but instead think of it as an assumed default.

 

[Scott Christian]

I have!

And now we're in dueling anecdotes territory - it's unusual, but some people think that tieflings and/or dragonborn are supposed to be hated to the point of not being allowed to enter towns, and if you don't do that your somehow making the game less good - either it becomes unbalanced or it cheapens the story potential.

It's kind of like the advice that you should always put paladins through unsolvable moral paradoxes.

The killer to these lines of thinking is, as usual, the word "always." The only thing you should "always" do is be considerate of the other people at the table.

So you have heard a DM tell another DM to make sure at their table, for their game, to impose hatred on tieflings?

DM1: You need to make sure at your table, in your setting, everyone hates tieflings and dragonborns.
DM2: laughs

Again, this seems like such an exaggeration, that it rings untrue.