Players Rights Do they even exist

I have often wonder why players have never been given any offical rights other then simply leave and start up your own game, you would think a players fantasy roleplaying game they would have offical rights, But it seems that the only person who has any rights and power what so ever is the Dm...

Official Warning From this point in time I will no longer deal with people who want to turn my post into flame war's, if you cannot respond in a civilized matter Then simply do not respond, all troll  implications or just plain rudeness will  no longer be tolerated and will reported to the mod as soon as I see the reply...

It is quite simple. If I am DM than I run the game. If you don't like how I run the game than leave. Door is right over there. If I say there are no half-orcs than you can not make one period. I run the game. I bring in the characters. I tell everyone what happens. You play your character in my world. The entire game revolves arround the DM controlling everything. He tells the players what happens to them.

If a DM is running a game and you have no fun. You as a player have the right to explain why you are not enjoying the game. Ask for him to make the game more fun for you. Leave the game. Become a DM and run you own game.

DM has the untimate in game authority. He controlls the game. Period.
Players have the nuclear option. They can all up and leave the game. No players No game.

Those are the only "true players rights" that exist. Quite frankly that is all that is needed. Players decide weather of not there even is a game. They controll their characters actions in the game, but that is all they controll. The DM controlls the results and the world they experiance.

What DNDN needs to do is put out a fantastic set of guidelines for the DM. They need to Put out all the charts and give advice on how to handle all the out side the box situations that are the core of DND. They need to explain that the DM must make those choices, but that his goal must always be about creating a fun game. Fun for him and his players.        
DMG pg 263 "No matter what a rule's source, a rule serves you, not the other way around."
1) It didn't occur to any of us that the campaign would end when the DM left. 


2) And that's a still a big nope.




1) For many it does, or start a new campaign, or maybe no one else wants to DM.


2) It's a fact, players can come in go in a campaign, that's generally not the deal with the DM.  I have a Planescape campaign I have been DMing sine 2005 (it's on hiatus currently), and 8 players have come and gone since it started (due to moving, visas expiring, etc), only one of the original players remains, so, yes, I am more important to this campaign than any one player. 




More important to a determination of whether or not this specific game continues, is not the same as more important.

It's not a hard distinction.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
1) It didn't occur to any of us that the campaign would end when the DM left. 


2) And that's a still a big nope.




1) For many it does, or start a new campaign, or maybe no one else wants to DM.


2) It's a fact, players can come in go in a campaign, that's generally not the deal with the DM.  I have a Planescape campaign I have been DMing sine 2005 (it's on hiatus currently), and 8 players have come and gone since it started (due to moving, visas expiring, etc), only one of the original players remains, so, yes, I am more important to this campaign than any one player. 




More important to a determination of whether or not this specific game continues, is not the same as more important.

It's not a hard distinction.




"...reach for the stars..."
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />

That's...really?

It's not that hard to understand. You asked how a hypothetical "me" that is a random peasant farmer would react to a dragonborn in their village.

You can't ask that question and then expect me to respond to it in any way other than under the premise that, for the purpose of that question, dragonborn exist. If you aren't willing to honestly discuss the logistical concerns that would be raised by the inclusion of dragonborn in your setting, stop replying as if you're engaging in that discussion.



First - I asked no such question. I just went back and read through the posts, and I see nowhere that I asked you any such question. Please point it out, as I've clearly missed it.

Second - I am only replying to clear up your misconception. I'm not interested in discussing those logistical concerns because A) they almost certainly aren't going to come up in the first place; and B) we'll do just fine roleplaying that out on our own, thanks.

In fact, you just decided to jump in and explain how dragonborn don't actually come from dragons and so on, and somehow it went from that to you claiming that I asked. Speaking of being dishonest...




"


For the underlined statement, see above. That's completely up to you. It's in no way necessary. Especially if the dragons are responsible for the rarity of the dragonborn, and that's a common part of the mythology that every farming village has heard from travelling storytellers, gaffers and (depending on particulars of the world) read in books their whole lives.

No reason for peasants to react negatively to dragonborn at all, unless you decide that you want them to. Which is fine. As a player, I sometimes want to play the character that has to overcome bigotry. It's cathartic. If none of your players enjoy that story, that's fine too. I don't have a stake in what happens in your campaign, obviously. I'm just discussing something interesting.



Let's say you're a peasant in my campaign world. You know dragons no longer exist, but they used to, and they caused widespread death and destruction. Tales say that villages used to have to sacrifice maidens to dragons, and so on and so forth, until an alliance of nations went to full-scale war with the dragons and drove them out. They're gone.

Then further imagine that you're working your field one day, and here comes a humanoid who looks like a dragon. How exactly are you going to react? The likelihood of you being sympathetic is small, and it's far more likely that you'll react with fear and violence.



"

All relevant text underlined, most relevant text bolded.

Yes, you quite factually did ask that question.




My authority in my home is unquestionable. If I tell you that there are no hats worn in my house (a silly rule I'd never posit, just an example), it doesn't matter what you think of that rule. You can either take your hat off in my house or leave. Period. Any compromise I make on the matter is a favour I'm doing, not something I've any obligation to do.

That doesn't actually mean that no will ever question it. It simply means that they don't have any right to do so. People do things they've no right to do all the time.

Refs have unquestionable authority. A coach can try to question them, challenge them, insult them or otherwise throw a tantrum all the want, but it's just sound and fury, because the ref's word is final.

Now, the NFL has muddied that a bit, which I don't like, but in any other case, the ref's word is, essentially, law.

That is not comparable to DnD, AFAIC.



Actually, the NFL has only muddied that a bit due to the Instant Replay rules, which have actually to many people ended up being a benefit, although it can still be wrong at times.

It is entirely comparable to D&D, actually. Part of a DM's job is to adjudicate (or referee) the rules, and players can - and obviously do - argue that. Just like in sports. And, just like in sports, it's the player being the dick doing it in the middle of game, and the ref/DM has the ability to kick them the hell out. Done. 




And now we've circled back around to the entire argument this thread is based upon.

There's nothing wrong with questioning a call mid game in DnD, unless the group has previously agreed not to do that.

Players have a right to question calls in DnD.

Those two things make DnD completely different from sports, and DMs very different from referees in sports.


@ the accusation argument: Seriously, man. Reread that statement. I stated that the right thing to do is to at least give the player some assurance that you aren't being arbitrary. That is not, in any way whatsoever, an accusation or even vague insinuation of anything of any kind. Ever.



See above, where I contrasted your reaction and Arithezoo's, on the correct, and incorrect, ways of handling the situation.




You're in the wrong. Just admit that, or at least stop accusing me of things I've not done.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I get the feeling that a lot of people don't trust their DM's.  

I keep seeing people arguing when or not the player should get an answer.  Honestly if the DM doesn't want to tell he shouldn't.  If you don't trust that the DM is trying to make the game more fun for everyone then leave.  Stop wasting time on that DM.

 



It's not about trust.

Debate with people under the assumption that they're being honest with you and themselves, or just stop and walk away.


If everyone did that, the forum would die off.



Well, it's population might dwindle a bit, but the atmosphere would certainly improve.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome



If you aren't willing to discuss the hypothetical (and yes, I know it's hypothetical, as I already stated that it was, multiple times ) situation of dragonborn existing, then you shouldn't have posited a hypothetical situation wherein they exist in order to explain why you don't want them to exist, nor should you have responded my discussion of that hypothetical situation with anything other than "doesn't matter, they don't exist", which would have told me that you weren't interested in a friendly discussion about hypothetical situations you yourself brought up.

Of course, you don't seem interested in a friendly conversation, in spite of my attempts to have one, which is why this has gone so far downhill at this point.



I'm exasperated that you keep going on with hypothetical "what ifs," trying to come up with other ways to get around something I've decided on for my campaign world, at least at the present time.

I didn't just randomly bring that situation up out of nowhere, as you seemingly think. I was responding to Arithezoo's challenge to come up with something that a DM would ban for plot reasons but couldn't tell the players why. So I did, and we discussed that, and that was/is fine, and you come in with these hypotheticals, apparently presuming things that aren't true in the least. So yes, it's exasperating having to discuss that.




You used a hypothetical situation wherein dragonborn exist, but are rare as one part of your reasoning for not allowing dragonborn. I "challenged", in a very friendly and non argumentative mannor, the assumptions of that reasoning, by pointing out ways in which your hypothetical dragonborn needn't be reacted to negatively by villagers. You then responded with counterarguments that did not include "but they don't exist, so it doesn't matter". Instead, you "played along" with the hypothetical.

Then, out of nowhere you have started just shutting down the discussion with "why are you talking about things that don't exist."

This behavior is dishonest. If you didn't want to discuss it, the you shouldn't have discussed it. Had you simply stated that you weren't interested in ways that hypothetical dragonborn in a peasant village might be better recieved when first responding to my musings on the subject, I would have simply said "fair enough" and moved on.


It's only a criminal act if it's not organized and consensual, actually. (and there's no betting, depending on where you are, and whatever random laws might come into play)

Are you a pacifist? Do you assume that I just physically attacked someone who had lied to be, probably about something not a huge deal?

Because I'm not seeing how the idea of being will to "throw down", as the kids say, with someone whose dishonesty nearly ruined your life is so completely foreign to you, or why you would assume that it was anything less important than that.

Well, I can think of one explanation, which I already posited.



Given the context in which this was brought up (being upset about whether or not a DM gave you what you considered an appropriate explanation - using the general "you" there, not specifically you), and given the fact that you gave no further context for your physical violence, and further given the fact that you could have given such further context in between then and now but didn't (instead choosing to get more belligerent and engage in personal attacks)....why, yes. Yes I did think that. Because the context, lack of further information, and your general attitude combined to give me that impression.

Don't want people to get that impression of you? Learn to pay attention to the context in which you're bringing up your anecdote, and when people call you out on it, instead of getting more belligerent and engaging in personal attacks, maybe - and I know this is going to sound crazy - explain yourself.

To answer your question - no, I am not a pacifist. However, I also known when and why to engage in actual violence (and the answer to both is "only if/when you have to"). One doesn't have to be a pacifist to believe that violence isn't the first answer to a problem, or even in the top three answers to a problem.






When a person makes an aside, they aren't talking about the same situation which is currently being discussed. That's why it's an aside.


I won't get into the violence thing with you any further. It will inevitably lead to discussion of things that are off limits on these forums, for good reason.


Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
After reading some pages, I think 99% of this is theorycraft. As a self-proclaimed liberal DM I'm VERY open to many ideas that come to the table. And when I DM I ALWAYS ask the sort of game the players want to run. I'm not sure if other people do but to me, it's pretty silly if the DM sits down at session zero and says "Well guys, we're gonna run Dark Sun right now so metal is ridiculously rare. If you were planning on playing a Warforged, then your gonna be really sad because they're not around." Instead, I think it goes more like: "Well guys I have this desire to run a Dark Sun game, but in the setting metal is pretty rare and because of that Warforged don't make much sense as other weapons made of metal don't. Can we try this type of game?" And then the players will either say "Sure!" or "Bleh, NO!" And the DM proceeds as normal.

But, in all seriousness, who doesn't talk to their DM first about the type of game the group wants to play? To me this is the very basics of starting a new campaign. The DM points out the sort of game he wants to run and shows the "gist" of what that campaign entails from acceptable source material to options and the level of which the players start at. From there the players accept this sort of game or they suggest alterations OR just out-right say "No" and the DM really shouldn't take it personally either. I've wanted to run a post-apocolypse Earth-based game using v3.5 (or 4E minus magic) for a while now. The game was set using S. M. Sterling's "Changed World" alternate history books and it was designed to be really gritty and dark. The group rejected the idea because they just didn't want to run in that sort of game. I didn't get mad or upset, I just rolled with it and suggested something that fit with a theme more to their liking. To me, that's being a good DM.

And what sort of DM limits options based on personal bias? I can undestand it if Half-Orcs aren't present in your Star Wars games or that Warforged are missing from your Dark Sun game or all the elves have shipped off to another part of the planet in your Tolkien game. But simply saying "No, I won't allow that race in ANY game I run because I don't like it." isn't being a very good DM to me and perhaps he should just take a seat with the rest of the players and allow someone with a bit less personal biased attached to run a game. This goes for classes as well or character options that are linked with the game. If someone is SO invested in a game that an option someone else uses utterly ruins your own, personal enjoyment then perhaps your playing with the wrong system or even game. Espically one dependant on social elemnts both in and out of game.


And what sort of DM limits options based on personal bias? I can undestand it if Half-Orcs aren't present in your Star Wars games or that Warforged are missing from your Dark Sun game or all the elves have shipped off to another part of the planet in your Tolkien game. But simply saying "No, I won't allow that race in ANY game I run because I don't like it." isn't being a very good DM to me and perhaps he should just take a seat with the rest of the players and allow someone with a bit less personal biased attached to run a game. This goes for classes as well or character options that are linked with the game. If someone is SO invested in a game that an option someone else uses utterly ruins your own, personal enjoyment then perhaps your playing with the wrong system or even game. Espically one dependant on social elemnts both in and out of game.


You were doing great until this paragraph.  

First let me agree with your first two sentiments.  I agree with what you said about the evolution of a game.  When I begin recruiting for a game I usually have an idea.  If that idea gets support, I run the game.  Obviously if no one is interested I don't.  I do tend to develop a campaign before looking for players because it takes me a while and the people willing to start a campaign today might not be the same group six months from now.

Now to the disagree part.  If I as DM really dislike something, be it a mechanic, a race, a class, whatever, I feel it is essential I ban it.  If it bothers me then it's going to detract from the game if someone plays it.  I tend to hate magic mart.  I'm sure the next game I run won't have it.  If the rules of 5e allow for it I will houserule it out.  I have houseruled raise dead for years so that it is more costly.  A DM has to put his own stamp upon the game.  Yes he does need players to run a campaign.  I've found if he is a good DM though he will have a lot of leeway on setting flavor.  There are a lot of lousy DM's out there.   



My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


And what sort of DM limits options based on personal bias? I can undestand it if Half-Orcs aren't present in your Star Wars games or that Warforged are missing from your Dark Sun game or all the elves have shipped off to another part of the planet in your Tolkien game. But simply saying "No, I won't allow that race in ANY game I run because I don't like it." isn't being a very good DM to me and perhaps he should just take a seat with the rest of the players and allow someone with a bit less personal biased attached to run a game. This goes for classes as well or character options that are linked with the game. If someone is SO invested in a game that an option someone else uses utterly ruins your own, personal enjoyment then perhaps your playing with the wrong system or even game. Espically one dependant on social elemnts both in and out of game.


You were doing great until this paragraph.  



Lol, I kind of figured you would say that.

First let me agree with your first two sentiments.  I agree with what you said about the evolution of a game.  When I begin recruiting for a game I usually have an idea.  If that idea gets support, I run the game.  Obviously if no one is interested I don't.  I do tend to develop a campaign before looking for players because it takes me a while and the people willing to start a campaign today might not be the same group six months from now.



Agreed. I probably worked on the Alternate-Earth campaign for a few weeks, developing NPCs and plots and sites for them to go visit along with some side quests and the like before approaching them with the idea. Sure, I was bummed out that I couldn't run it but if they weren't going to enjoy it, then theres little point to running it. I think MOST DMs operate this way outside of an "Offiical" capacity. Official being Living D&D campaigns. I know a lot of people who go to them, so the RAW is a much more important factor in their eyes because they're often going to a meeting place with varying people each week and the DM is usually NOT a close personal friend like it is with other groups. Because of this, the player is at much more mercy of the DM when the campaign gets brought up because the DM is under no obgliation to change the game to fit a few of his groups desires (where a friend would be....well a friend and change).

Now to the disagree part.  If I as DM really dislike something, be it a mechanic, a race, a class, whatever, I feel it is essential I ban it.  If it bothers me then it's going to detract from the game if someone plays it.  I tend to hate magic mart.  I'm sure the next game I run won't have it.  If the rules of 5e allow for it I will houserule it out.  I have houseruled raise dead for years so that it is more costly.  A DM has to put his own stamp upon the game.  Yes he does need players to run a campaign.  I've found if he is a good DM though he will have a lot of leeway on setting flavor.  There are a lot of lousy DM's out there.   



There is, however, a difference between a houserule in which the whole group accepts (or at least the majority of people accept) the removal of an option AND just the DM disliking an option of which the majority of the players enjoy and want to use. Your fitting the game to work in a manner which behooves your entire group. I know some groups that hate Dragonborn and so the race was banned. When the group is perfectly fine with a decision to remove said element of the game, it's not just the DM's personal bias, it's the groups concensus that it be removed. Our group did the same thing with Critical Confirmation rolls on a Nat. 20 in v3.5 and the game was (for us) better for it. The issue lies in when ONE player (who happens to be the DM) decides that an option, be it a class or race or feat or theme or general rule, is horrible and bans it yet the majority of the players actually like said option. This is where the confrontation lies. If one player (even if (s)he is the DM) cannot accept that this option is enjoyed and liked by the group then perhaps they're using the wrong system or even game. At the very least, banning while you are DM is fine so long as when someone else is DM, you accpet that this option might be opened up. If it is and your enjoyment is impacted, it's probably time to find a new group when your not DM'ing.

The matter does get worse when said person is ALWAYS the DM, thus NEVER allowing this option to be seen by the players who generally would enjoy this option. At this juncture, well I don't really know because I've never been in a situation where the DM hated something with so fierce a passion that he banned it's usage entirely AND still wanted to be DM 100% of the time and the players grudgingly accepted this veto despite their own personal likes. DMs tend to run games with people of similiar tastes and biases, so I doubt this happens often in casual play. Again, going back to the whole theorycraft element of this thread and all....
I'm a bit confused about this.  If people in the world would react a certain way toward a certain monster or race, why shouldn't the players know this?  How can they be expected to act their characters in a way consistent with the world if they don't know such things?

If it were the case of "this race exists, but it's not available for PC's," then sure, that logic follows, and would be explained. However, if the race doesn't exist, then there is nothing for the people in the world to react to....so it wouldn't be character knowledge at that point, because it isn't even a thing in the first place.

Bolded for emphasis.  It does make sense, and it seems like we are on the same page here.
But again, there doesn't seem to be a conflict between "unraveling the mystery organically" and "knowing the same things as the average person in the world".

In this case, those two things are the same - or, should I say they don't know the same things as the average person doesn't know. (And yes, the double negative there was on purpose.) The average person doesn't have a reaction to dragonborn because there aren't any, so they have no frame of reference. I'll provide the history for the players to read (if they so choose; I'm not going to make them), and it will include the whole war (well, both of the really, really big ones in the history - but one's way back). If someone asks "why no Dragonborn?," then I'll just point to the Dragon War and say "that's why." Then the PC's, in the event that they encounter a Dragonborn later on (should I include them), can react however their PC's would react and we'll go from there.

I see, sorry, I was following your earlier statement about the fact that a PC dragonborn wouldn't work because everyone would run screaming or try to kill them.

If that isn't the case, then couldn't a PC dragonborn be worked into the plot?  Much in the same way that I worked a cleric into the plot of my Dark Sun campaign (and it was awesome).  But really, it just comes down to personal preference.  I enjoy thinking outside the box and coming up with ideas to make things work.  I have found that it always leads to interesting plots and gets my players more involved in the world.  Other DMs enjoy making a very defined world with set limits.  They find it helps players inegrate their characters into the world.

Neither way is wrong.
I see, sorry, I was following your earlier statement about the fact that a PC dragonborn wouldn't work because everyone would run screaming or try to kill them.

If that isn't the case, then couldn't a PC dragonborn be worked into the plot?  Much in the same way that I worked a cleric into the plot of my Dark Sun campaign (and it was awesome).  But really, it just comes down to personal preference.  I enjoy thinking outside the box and coming up with ideas to make things work.  I have found that it always leads to interesting plots and gets my players more involved in the world.  Other DMs enjoy making a very defined world with set limits.  They find it helps players inegrate their characters into the world.

Neither way is wrong.



Well the PC dragonborn thing was a definitive "if" sort of statement. Which, I found out on Saturday, is an entirely moot point. We were having a combination 4th of July cookout/birthday party for one of the members of our group, and I brought this discussion up. I mentioned the challenge, and that I came up with "no dragonborn" as a response.

At the "no dragonborn" part, they unanimously said "okay, that's cool." (Or something to that effect, anyway.) I didn't need to give them any explanation at all, and they were completely and totally fine with there being no dragonborn in the game.

So you're right - neither way is wrong at all. Like so many things, it's up to the group to determine what works best for them, and no rules or advice to the contrary is (in my opinion) ever going to change that.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.


There is, however, a difference between a houserule in which the whole group accepts (or at least the majority of people accept) the removal of an option AND just the DM disliking an option of which the majority of the players enjoy and want to use. 



While technically I don't agree, I think practically it turns out that way.  I just don't have players married to anything so tight they'd get upset if I banned it.  I don't ban fighters or wizards.  Maybe I have self selected on people that really care about the things I care about.  They come to me wanting a world with depth and a lot of verisimilitude and they are willing to go along.   I will admit though I don't tend to play really odd stuff.  My cosmologies are sometimes weird but the main world is usually very traditional.   I usually have my own racial cultures and I often tweak each one.  I usually leave at least one of the cultures be similar to the book definition.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I see, sorry, I was following your earlier statement about the fact that a PC dragonborn wouldn't work because everyone would run screaming or try to kill them.

If that isn't the case, then couldn't a PC dragonborn be worked into the plot?  Much in the same way that I worked a cleric into the plot of my Dark Sun campaign (and it was awesome).  But really, it just comes down to personal preference.  I enjoy thinking outside the box and coming up with ideas to make things work.  I have found that it always leads to interesting plots and gets my players more involved in the world.  Other DMs enjoy making a very defined world with set limits.  They find it helps players inegrate their characters into the world.

Neither way is wrong.

Well the PC dragonborn thing was a definitive "if" sort of statement. Which, I found out on Saturday, is an entirely moot point. We were having a combination 4th of July cookout/birthday party for one of the members of our group, and I brought this discussion up. I mentioned the challenge, and that I came up with "no dragonborn" as a response.

At the "no dragonborn" part, they unanimously said "okay, that's cool." (Or something to that effect, anyway.) I didn't need to give them any explanation at all, and they were completely and totally fine with there being no dragonborn in the game.

So you're right - neither way is wrong at all. Like so many things, it's up to the group to determine what works best for them, and no rules or advice to the contrary is (in my opinion) ever going to change that.

Ha ha and that is another point I keep trying to make: in my experience, DMs know their group.  They know what their players like, and what they don't like.  So when you ban dragonborn, it doesn't cause a stir.

Which is why these discussions are much more about interactions between strangers than between existing groups.  And, as always, standard social rules govern here: don't be a jerk.  Be respectful, regardless of which side of the DM screen you are on.  A new player should feel free to ask questions, and expect to get answers (within reason...no spoilers!).  And if they don't like the answers, if they feel that the group isn't a good fit, they should politely explain why.  In the end, if things aren't going to work out, just leave and find a new group.

Ultimately, this is why I want D&D Next to make DMing as easy as possible.  I want everyone to think, "Hmm...maybe I should try DMing" even after playing just once or twice.  The more DMs available, the more people can play D&D...and that is a great thing.



Ultimately, this is why I want D&D Next to make DMing as easy as possible.  I want everyone to think, "Hmm...maybe I should try DMing" even after playing just once or twice.  The more DMs available, the more people can play D&D...and that is a great thing.



I agree.  

I think a lot of players have never DM'd.  I find players that have DM'd to be far more amenable.  I can honestly say that I could live with nearly anything banned in a D&D game.   I like magic though so I suppose if it was a real world game without magic I might not prefer that flavor.  There would be no hard feelings though if I passed on that game.  

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


Ultimately, this is why I want D&D Next to make DMing as easy as possible.  I want everyone to think, "Hmm...maybe I should try DMing" even after playing just once or twice.  The more DMs available, the more people can play D&D...and that is a great thing.



I agree.  

I think a lot of players have never DM'd.  I find players that have DM'd to be far more amenable.  I can honestly say that I could live with nearly anything banned in a D&D game.   I like magic though so I suppose if it was a real world game without magic I might not prefer that flavor.  There would be no hard feelings though if I passed on that game.  

 




um.... I know DM's who do not make good players     


 Ha ha and that is another point I keep trying to make: in my experience, DMs know their group.  They know what their players like, and what they don't like.  So when you ban dragonborn, it doesn't cause a stir.

Which is why these discussions are much more about interactions between strangers than between existing groups.  And, as always, standard social rules govern here: don't be a jerk.  Be respectful, regardless of which side of the DM screen you are on.  A new player should feel free to ask questions, and expect to get answers (within reason...no spoilers!).  And if they don't like the answers, if they feel that the group isn't a good fit, they should politely explain why.  In the end, if things aren't going to work out, just leave and find a new group.

Ultimately, this is why I want D&D Next to make DMing as easy as possible.  I want everyone to think, "Hmm...maybe I should try DMing" even after playing just once or twice.  The more DMs available, the more people can play D&D...and that is a great thing.



Yep, I said the same thing...oh, pages and pages ago at this point, I think. So we agree.

And yeah, more people DM'ing would be fine, and I think that doing that does open players' eyes to certain things. I know the one guy in my group changed certain things he was doing after DM'ing some Pathfinder and so forth because he realized what he was doing wasn't really workable for the group.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Sign In to post comments