The DM is a player, role-play is optional, fight me

[Easy_Lee]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. The DM has no more say over player actions or how the game is played than any player does. The DM should remember that he's not actually God, nor master, nor does he hold actual power over the others. The DM should not ban things just because he doesn't like them, nor punish players for actions of which he does not approve. No player would do that, nor should the DM.

When people act superior, we call them arrogant. When players act superior, we call them munchkins. When DMs act superior, we don't play with them.

Arrogant DMs are the single biggest problem in all of tabletop gaming. Dexter's Laboratory demonstrated this years ago - Dexter was a power-tripping jerk and no one wanted to play with him. It's amazing to me that some DMs still haven't gotten with the program.

Role-play is optional. Some role-players have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone else play like them. If you refuse to role-play, they get angry. They throw fits. They have tantrums. They try to kick you out of the group. They try to kill your character. They threaten to leave the table. They call you a bad person.

Many role-players insist that this is a "role-playing game." Therefore, you have to role-play! If you don't, you're playing the game wrong! I won't play with you! You aren't allowed at my table! Go find some rules lawyers and munchkins to play with somewhere else!

If this sounds childish to you, it should. This kind of role-player is no different from the child on the playground who throws a tantrum because the other kids want to play football instead of basketball. Except that on the playground, everyone else knows that kid is being childish. In D&D, there are so many of these types among role-players that it's almost accepted. Almost, but we all know what's really going on.

You don't get to decide how other people play the game. Nor should you think, even for a second, that it's reasonable for you to quit or kick others out of a game just because not everyone plays your way. If you get in the habit of insisting that everyone else behave just like you, you'll quickly find yourself all alone, because you're weird and no one is just like you.

Do you disagree with any of the above? If so, you're wrong. Fight me - in a colloquial sense, obviously.

[KorvinStarmast]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. The DM has no more say over player actions or how the game is played than any player does. This thread is in the wrong forum. This forum is for discussions on D&D 5e. What you wrote is, in the generic sense, not consistent with D&D 5e's layout. DM's have to make rulings. That alone bankrupts your underlying premise. Try another forum.

Regarding "role play is optional." As a separate topic: I find the way you phrased that badly done.
Each person will be moved to role play, or to immerse themselves in a role, as the muse strikes them. We do this for fun, this is a leisure activity. Putting pressure on people to role play, or to role play differently/more than they want to, is to my mind borderline rude. We do this for fun, and we ought not to try and force the fun.

[Easy_Lee]

This thread is in the wrong forum. This forum is for discussions on D&D 5e. What you wrote is, in the generic sense, not consistent with D&D 5e's layout. DM's have to make rulings. That alone bankrupts your underlying premise. Try another forum.

If you think I'm talking about rulings, you haven't understood a single thing I've written. I'll assume that you actually have, and are deliberately trying to avoid my argument.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you think I'm talking about rulings, you haven't understood a single thing I've written. I'll assume that you actually have, and are deliberately trying to avoid my argument. The fact that the DM needs to make various rulings puts the DM in a position of at least modest authority, hence your premise is dead on arrival.
I will revise my estimate, and conclude that you are trolling. Cheers, see who else bites.

[Easy_Lee]

I will revise my estimate, and conclude that you are trolling. Cheers, see who else bites.

This is for you.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

[Finieous]

I disagree, but I won't "fight" you. As DM, contrary to your trolling, I do have "more say" over how my campaign will be played and over character actions, and I have all the say in who gets to play in my campaign. I have way more people wanting to play than I have seats available.

[bard voice]
I don't need to fight you cause I simply won't invite you.
[/bard voice]

[Easy_Lee]

I disagree, but I won't "fight" you. As DM, contrary to your trolling, I do have "more say" over how my campaign will be played and over character actions, and I have all the say in who gets to play in my campaign. I have way more people wanting to play than I have seats available.

[bard voice]
I don't need to fight you cause I simply won't invite you.
[/bard voice]

I think the color for that is purple.

I'll restate what I said in the other thread. The most popular kid on the playground is the one playing the game everyone else wants to play.

[Max_Killjoy]

The fact that the DM needs to make various rulings puts the DM in a position of at least modest authority, hence your premise is dead on arrival.
I will revise my estimate, and conclude that you are trolling. Cheers, see who else bites.

Based on the deliberately inflammatory wording of the opening post, and the belligerent nature of the subsequent replies, I have to concur that the poster was looking to instigate a fight, rather than looking for a discussion.

[Finieous]

I'll restate what I said in the other thread. The most popular kid on the playground is the one playing the game everyone else wants to play.

I'm not trying to be the most popular kid on the playground. I'm running a game that my six players, and I, will all love. Everyone else can kick rocks.

[Dudewithknives]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. The DM has no more say over player actions or how the game is played than any player does. The DM should remember that he's not actually God, nor master, nor does he hold actual power over the others. The DM should not ban things just because he doesn't like them, nor punish players for actions of which he does not approve. No player would do that, nor should the DM.

When people act superior, we call them arrogant. When players act superior, we call them munchkins. When DMs act superior, we don't play with them.

Arrogant DMs are the single biggest problem in all of tabletop gaming. Dexter's Laboratory demonstrated this years ago - Dexter was a power-tripping jerk and no one wanted to play with him. It's amazing to me that some DMs still haven't gotten with the program.

Role-play is optional. Some role-players have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone else play like them. If you refuse to role-play, they get angry. They throw fits. They have tantrums. They try to kick you out of the group. They try to kill your character. They threaten to leave the table. They call you a bad person.

Many role-players insist that this is a "role-playing game." Therefore, you have to role-play! If you don't, you're playing the game wrong! I won't play with you! You aren't allowed at my table! Go find some rules lawyers and munchkins to play with somewhere else!

If this sounds childish to you, it should. This kind of role-player is no different from the child on the playground who throws a tantrum because the other kids want to play football instead of basketball. Except that on the playground, everyone else knows that kid is being childish. In D&D, there are so many of these types among role-players that it's almost accepted. Almost, but we all know what's really going on.

You don't get to decide how other people play the game. Nor should you think, even for a second, that it's reasonable for you to quit or kick others out of a game just because not everyone plays your way. If you get in the habit of insisting that everyone else behave just like you, you'll quickly find yourself all alone, because you're weird and no one is just like you.

Do you disagree with any of the above? If so, you're wrong. Fight me - in a colloquial sense, obviously.

The second point I do agree with, however the first I do not.

The DM is not a player like everyone else, the DM is a storyteller, and does their best to run a game to the benefit of all those involved.
If certain things are not going to be in the game or additional things will be added to fit the environment and story of the DM's setting that is perfectly fine.
Or if certain abilities/spells/feats etc are considered outside the power scale of where the DM believes they should be, or if it does not make sense for the theme it is perfectly fine for the DM to ban those things as long as everything is gone over in session 0 and agreed on.

ex. Many people do not agree with the overwhelming power that Leomund's Tiny Hut can give as a resource, I have seen many DM's ban the spell.
In some games I have seen DM's ban teleport spells because it eliminates the actual traveling adventure and time restraints on a game.
In some games certain classes/races might not make sense. If someone runs a Dragonlance game, there would be no Dragonborn PCs ect.

Every rule in the game is up for debate, but needs to be handled in session zero before everyone makes characters.

[Honest Tiefling]

Based on the deliberately inflammatory wording of the opening post, and the belligerent nature of the subsequent replies, I have to concur that the poster was looking to instigate a fight, rather than looking for a discussion.

Ya think? Through the arguments themselves aren't really so bad, if the first argument is what I think it is (It might not be, it's a little uncelar). It makes me wonder what the average age and sobriety level of Easy Lee's groups is.

If the first argument is that the DM can't arbitrarily ban classes, shift tone or demand players do something...That's kinda common sense? I mean, they're not a player like everyone else, they make rulings because they're the only one who knows what goes on. But I don't think that's Easy Lee's point, just that the DM needs to consider how others have fun as well.

However, the argument can be made that the DM must have control on setting, tone, and themes. Because DMing isn't easy and a lot of people can only do it when they are telling the kinds of stories they want to tell, and sometimes, people only work well in their comfort zone. You can't ask a Japanese cheft trained only to make Japanese dishes to make you a French meal, and he probably won't enjoy the process if he just wants to make Japanese food and that's what he has on hand to work with.

[StoicLeaf]

The DM is a player just like everyone else.


I think when looked at from an idealistic point of view, then yes, you are correct. Thing is real life never mirrors the ideal, pragmatism and losses twist it.
So ideally, players will actively participate in the story (instead of letting the DM do all the work), will want to be challenged and put themselves into situations where their character will lose something (as opposed to wanting to win all the time with little to no contest) and the players will know the rules as well as the DM does and only use his/her word as a veto to break a stalemate (instead of not knowing how the system works and/or trying to misread stuff to their advantage in an attempt to get something for nothing).
In a living, breathing pnp game, the DM is not just a player.



Role-play is optional.

I think it's better to say: play with people that want the same thing from the game as you.
Optional is whatever people don't regard as integral to their enjoyment of the game.

[Regitnui]

Answer 1

The DM is the "AI" if I may use a video game metaphor. They decide what's going on and how and where the players get involved. Are they playing the game? Yes. Are they in a position of authority? Yes. Like the dealer in blackjack or the banker in Monopoly, the DM has a certain level of power over the other players. Anyone who's been a DM knows this. So yes, the DM is a player. The DM is also 'in charge' at the gaming table, just like the referee is in charge of a rugby or soccer match. The players are playing the game, but the DM/referee ensures the rules are enforced and calls out cheating and inappropriate behaviour in their game.

The job of the DM is to ensure a balanced and fun play experience for all players. Session 0 is for the DM and players to lay out their expectations for the game. That's where the players and DM should make it understood that multiclassing is or isn't allowed, what sort of roleplay expectations there are, and other variables.

Answer 2

Uh... If you don't want to roleplay, why are you here, at a D&D game? A certain amount of roleplay is embedded in the system. If you want to just make a character and smash things, there are any number of video games, both online and single-player, that let you do that. The main strength of D&D is that you are the character. At the table, I'm not Regitnui the pedantic subeditor, I'm instead Cas the changeling bard with a taste for novelty and messing with people's heads.

By choosing character entirely on numbers, you're missing an essential part of the D&D experience. After all, it's far more interesting that you're a warforged in a world that questions if you have a soul than being a bunch of numbers on a sheet. Frankly I don't understand how you can play D&D without roleplaying at least as much as "This is my character, Steel, and he enjoys punching heads in". White-room optimizing, sure, but actually playing the game is about the character you made and the inter-party dynamics and the stories.

Anyone here have a great D&D story that doesn't involve the roleplaying aspects of the game?

Answer 3
No. I won't fight you. It seems pointless when you're being so confrontational to even debate you, since you've clearly already made up your mind and don't seem to want to listen to anyone else any longer than it takes to tell them all the ways they're wrong by your standards.

[Easy_Lee]

The first step to changing anyone's mind is to find out what they think. Thanks you your responses, I know exactly what all of you think.

People often use language as a cloak, concealing their immoral ideas behind flowery language and excuses. Instead of saying, "the DM should force everyone to play the way he wants them to," people instead opt to say, "the DM is in a position of authority and is expected to make rulings." See how the fist is clear, and the second isn't?

If you think the DM is above the players, or that role-playing is mandatory, think about the implications. Think about what you're actually saying. Abstractions are only useful when applied to specific cases.

[Max_Killjoy]

Accusations of "immorality" over gaming styles... OK.

[Honest Tiefling]

Accusations of "immorality" over gaming styles... OK.

Racism against tieflings, I tell you! I am a moral, upstanding, lawful, and honorable member of society!

And a very confused one. Those are different statements. Literally different. Do I need to drink more tea to make them seem equivalent, or did I miss something?

[Regitnui]

The first step to changing anyone's mind is to find out what they think. Thanks you your responses, I know exactly what all of you think.

People often use language as a cloak, concealing their immoral ideas behind flowery language and excuses. Instead of saying, "the DM should force everyone to play the way he wants them to," people instead opt to say, "the DM is in a position of authority and is expected to make rulings." See how the fist is clear, and the second isn't?

If you think the DM is above the players, or that role-playing is mandatory, think about the implications. Think about what you're actually saying. Abstractions are only useful when applied to specific cases.

You think you might be taking a game a little too seriously here, Easy Lee? For all your even tone, you're clearly very... harsh (diplomatically) about what you think is wrong. I feel like you're about to bring out a gun and start accusing us all of tyranny and undermining the Great Socialist Game.

I think the DM is to D&D what the referee is to a soccer match. They are explicitly put in the position to make rulings and call out inappropriate behaviour. And by the way, page 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, near the bottom of the first column, final paragraph (emphasis quoted);


The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You are the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

[Easy_Lee]

You think you might be taking a game a little too seriously here, Easy Lee? For all your even tone, you're clearly very... harsh (diplomatically) about what you think is wrong. I feel like you're about to bring out a gun and start accusing us all of tyranny and undermining the Great Socialist Game.

Everything is relative, but I can tell you this: it's much better to believe in something than to believe in nothing. You can't change an opinion you never really held.

Actions speak louder than words. When someone tells you what they think, perhaps your first reaction should not be to criticize they way they said it.

Also, regarding the DM being "in charge," a manager is also in charge. But good managers know better than to make unreasonable demands.

What is an unreasonable demand? If you're honest with yourself, you'll know it when you see it.

[Honest Tiefling]

Everything is relative, but I can tell you this: it's much better to have beliefs than to have thoughts. Actions speak louder than words. When someone tells you what they think, perhaps your first reaction should not be to criticize they way they said it.

Why not? Tone and phrasing can be insulting or misleading, especially in text. Why would you ever try to limit yourself by not trying to improve your ability to communicate your ideas with others?


Also, regarding the DM being "in charge," a manager is also in charge. But good managers know better than to make unreasonable demands.

But they're still in charge, are they not? Their demands don't change that.


What is an unreasonable demand? If you're honest with yourself, you'll know it when you see it.

Introspection and compromise with other points of view are vital to reach consensus. Without either, you're not going to be able to make a very good group if you just go by your gut instinct.

My gut instinct tells me that tiefling only campaigns are the way to go!

[Regitnui]

Also, regarding the DM being "in charge," a manager is also in charge. But good managers know better than to make unreasonable demands.

Easy Lee, a manager is in charge. Like DMs, you get good ones and bad ones. But what you'll never get is a DM or manager who is not in charge of the game, and therefore in a position of power.

You seem to be overlooking the Session 0, where the players and DM decide together precisely what "unreasonable demands" are. Multiclassing being illegal, sandbox vs railroad, level of roleplay investment, feats, flanking... All can be decided between the players and DM in Session 0 alongside character creation. In the end, the DM is like a manager in that they're both in charge and responsible for the environment around them. In the latter, that makes them partially a servant of the players, but it does not make them subservient to the players' whims.

Do you expect to be able to barge into the office of the President and demand that you be personally catered to? No. The president is in charge. But his job is to ensure the country is made better for all its citizens. That's why they call politicians and those involved in the administration of the state "public servants". The relationship between DM and player is similar to that of President and citizen.

[Beelzebubba]

If you think I'm talking about rulings, you haven't understood a single thing I've written. I'll assume that you actually have, and are deliberately trying to avoid my argument.

See, you go ballistic when I get a tiny little forward with you on another thread, and here you are going right for the jugular. There is no reason for it.

You bring knives to coffee klatches, and get surprised when people treat you the same.

You get what you give. By far.

[smcmike]

My only takeaway from this thread is that Lee doesn’t like his DM and doesn’t like doing accents or whatever.

Get a new DM?

[Bastian Weaver]

Dude, DM, like, actually stands for Master. Of Dungeons. So, if you want them to be something else, you should call them, like, Dungeon Player or Dungeon Someone or Dungeon Person or Dungeon Whoever. Because that would make sense. Logic and all.
Otherwise, whatever rocks your socks. If you have fun playing without role-playing and with DP or DS or the other DP or DW instead of DM, cheers, cool for you, keep up the good work. No fighting required, absolutely none.
Also, Dexter's Laboratory was an awesome cartoon, but seriously, Dee Dee made a lousy DM. She, like, just let everyone auto-win except for her brother. That's just boring and no mistake.

[Ganymede]

Y'all looked at this obvious Mimic of a topic and said, "Yup, there's some legit treasure in there."

[Demonslayer666]

The DM is not a player. They have to run the game that the players play in. The DM has a specific role in this game, and I think that's what you are getting at.

I agree that roleplaying is optional. By that I mean you do not have to talk like your character and everything you say is verbatim of what comes out of your character's mouth. I do encourage it, because it's fun. I allow my player's to simply describe what they are doing. Player skill is not near as important in my games as character skill.

[Finieous]

Y'all looked at this obvious Mimic of a topic and said, "Yup, there's some legit treasure in there."

Damn sneaky mimics.

[Potato_Priest]

Y'all looked at this obvious Mimic of a topic and said, "Yup, there's some legit treasure in there."

Or maybe they used my personal strategy of attacking all treasure chests before opening them.

[Chugger]

Role-playing can get way out of hand. One or two narcissistic (okay that's going too far) - or rather tedious players can go on and on and on and on "role playing" but accomplishing nothing. It gets truly boring for many of us at the table, but we have to be polite.

The DM is more than a player but not quite the players' adversary - the DM is the provider of fun - the director - and (a good one is) the traffic cop (who among other things realizes when role-playing has gone too far and become boring for 5/6's of the players - or who tries to lure shy players into at least saying something).

But hey, seriously, is it moral to kill an orc? (ooooo I didn't just say that did I? what is WRONG with me?!)

[Coffee_Dragon]

My only takeaway from this thread is that Lee doesn’t like his DM and doesn’t like doing accents or whatever.

Also, the people he played with who did accents were the same people who had to be told to stop torturing cats under the table whenever their turn came around.

[DivisibleByZero]

See, you go ballistic when I get a tiny little forward with you on another thread, and here you are going right for the jugular. There is no reason for it.

You bring knives to coffee klatches, and get surprised when people treat you the same.

You get what you give. By far.

I've tried to explain this before, and then I gave up.

[Tanarii]

Nah. The single biggest problem facing TRPGs is clearly entitled players.

[DivisibleByZero]

Nah. The single biggest problem facing TRPGs is clearly entitled players.

I'd have typed that without the blue font, personally.

[Tanarii]

I'd have typed that without the blue font, personally.
It's a very common problem. iMX far more than DMs are a problem. But I DM more than I play, so I see more players than DMs, so of course I think that. :smallamused:

I just don't honestly think it's the single biggest one facing TRPGs.

[2D8HP]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. .


Sure you can play like that, and then the game becomes less about exploring a fantastic world and more about competitive soliloquies.

No thanks!



Role-play is optional. Some role-players .


That's fine:


...Seems that I'm a dungeon delving Guild Thief (I hope Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser don't slay me :smalleek:)!



...getting the gold won in the Dungeons to spend in the tavern is my RL goal as well!

Method acting a different personality need not be required.

[Tanarii]

That's fine:





Method acting a different personality need not be required.
Most people don't understand what roleplaying is. They think of it as a subset of roleplaying. Either talky-time and funny voices. Or deep character development / method acting. I've definitely crossed the line on that last one more than a few times in posts.

But ultimately Roleplaying is the player making decisions for what the character does in the fantasy environment. And playing your character as an avatar of yourself, your own personality with different abilities, interacting with the fantasy environment, is still roleplaying.

[Astofel]

So if a DM says "Hey guys, I get a lot of my enjoyment of the game through roleplaying, speaking in-character and suchlike, so I want to run a game for players who enjoy the game the same way I do," suddenly they're tyrannical and morally corrupt if they don't change their game to suit you. Okay.

Of ****ing course roleplay is optional, at least in the sense of what you define as roleplay. But if a DM goes to the effort of preparing and running a game, they deserve to run a game that they will enjoy running. Imagine if there was a football commentator who hated football. Their commentary would be derisive, uninspired, and nobody would watch the game with them commentating. It's the same with a DM who ends up running something they don't enjoy.

[damascoplay]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. The DM has no more say over player actions or how the game is played than any player does. The DM should remember that he's not actually God, nor master, nor does he hold actual power over the others. The DM should not ban things just because he doesn't like them, nor punish players for actions of which he does not approve. No player would do that, nor should the DM.

When people act superior, we call them arrogant. When players act superior, we call them munchkins. When DMs act superior, we don't play with them.

Arrogant DMs are the single biggest problem in all of tabletop gaming. Dexter's Laboratory demonstrated this years ago - Dexter was a power-tripping jerk and no one wanted to play with him. It's amazing to me that some DMs still haven't gotten with the program.

Role-play is optional. Some role-players have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone else play like them. If you refuse to role-play, they get angry. They throw fits. They have tantrums. They try to kick you out of the group. They try to kill your character. They threaten to leave the table. They call you a bad person.

Many role-players insist that this is a "role-playing game." Therefore, you have to role-play! If you don't, you're playing the game wrong! I won't play with you! You aren't allowed at my table! Go find some rules lawyers and munchkins to play with somewhere else!

If this sounds childish to you, it should. This kind of role-player is no different from the child on the playground who throws a tantrum because the other kids want to play football instead of basketball. Except that on the playground, everyone else knows that kid is being childish. In D&D, there are so many of these types among role-players that it's almost accepted. Almost, but we all know what's really going on.

You don't get to decide how other people play the game. Nor should you think, even for a second, that it's reasonable for you to quit or kick others out of a game just because not everyone plays your way. If you get in the habit of insisting that everyone else behave just like you, you'll quickly find yourself all alone, because you're weird and no one is just like you.

Do you disagree with any of the above? If so, you're wrong. Fight me - in a colloquial sense, obviously.

I Agree...to disagree with this.:smallamused:

[UrielAwakened]

As a DM I almost always let me players as a whole decide how something should work if it's not clear in the rules.

[Easy_Lee]

My only takeaway from this thread is that Lee doesn’t like his DM and doesn’t like doing accents or whatever.

Get a new DM?

I am a DM. So, good luck with that.

[DivisibleByZero]

When people act superior, we call them arrogant.

Some players have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone else play like them. If you refuse to, they get angry. They throw fits. They have tantrums. They try to kick you out of the group. They try to kill your character. They threaten to leave the table. They call you a bad person.

You don't get to decide how other people play the game.

They post rants about arrogant players?

I mean, am I the only one who is completely amused by these three things occupying the same space here?
Calling people arrogant, and telling us that they have to allow every play style, while simultaneously telling us that we don't get to decide how other people play?

Umm.... that's exactly what the entire OP is doing. You cannot do this. You have to allow that.
It's telling us how we should play.... by saying that no one gets to tell us how we should play....

[GreyBlack]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. The DM has no more say over player actions or how the game is played than any player does. The DM should remember that he's not actually God, nor master, nor does he hold actual power over the others. The DM should not ban things just because he doesn't like them, nor punish players for actions of which he does not approve. No player would do that, nor should the DM.

When people act superior, we call them arrogant. When players act superior, we call them munchkins. When DMs act superior, we don't play with them.

Arrogant DMs are the single biggest problem in all of tabletop gaming. Dexter's Laboratory demonstrated this years ago - Dexter was a power-tripping jerk and no one wanted to play with him. It's amazing to me that some DMs still haven't gotten with the program.

Role-play is optional. Some role-players have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone else play like them. If you refuse to role-play, they get angry. They throw fits. They have tantrums. They try to kick you out of the group. They try to kill your character. They threaten to leave the table. They call you a bad person.

Many role-players insist that this is a "role-playing game." Therefore, you have to role-play! If you don't, you're playing the game wrong! I won't play with you! You aren't allowed at my table! Go find some rules lawyers and munchkins to play with somewhere else!

If this sounds childish to you, it should. This kind of role-player is no different from the child on the playground who throws a tantrum because the other kids want to play football instead of basketball. Except that on the playground, everyone else knows that kid is being childish. In D&D, there are so many of these types among role-players that it's almost accepted. Almost, but we all know what's really going on.

You don't get to decide how other people play the game. Nor should you think, even for a second, that it's reasonable for you to quit or kick others out of a game just because not everyone plays your way. If you get in the habit of insisting that everyone else behave just like you, you'll quickly find yourself all alone, because you're weird and no one is just like you.

Do you disagree with any of the above? If so, you're wrong. Fight me - in a colloquial sense, obviously.

Just to clarify.

You believe role playing to be optional.... in a role playing game? I mean, even if you're playing a brute who only wants to smash stuff and get treasure, that's still a role.

[2D8HP]

...ultimately Roleplaying is the player...


I getcha and agree @Tanarii, but it seems a bit like the long ago effort of calling "Fantasy Role-playing Games", "Adventure Games", or "Frankenstein is the Doctor, not the Monster".

Maybe you'll be luckier, but colloquially, Role-playing = Method acting another personality now seems pretty rooted.

[smcmike]

I am a DM. So, good luck with that.

This is a little surprising to me, since you very frequently complain about bad DMs on this forum.

[Easy_Lee]

Role-playing can get way out of hand. One or two narcissistic (okay that's going too far) - or rather tedious players can go on and on and on and on "role playing" but accomplishing nothing. It gets truly boring for many of us at the table, but we have to be polite.

The DM is more than a player but not quite the players' adversary - the DM is the provider of fun - the director - and (a good one is) the traffic cop (who among other things realizes when role-playing has gone too far and become boring for 5/6's of the players - or who tries to lure shy players into at least saying something).

But hey, seriously, is it moral to kill an orc? (ooooo I didn't just say that did I? what is WRONG with me?!)

I feel like you're the only one who fully understands my post. You're the only one who gets me.

To many of the others, I presented an argument that is extreme in the exact opposite way as many of you. I believe what I said. I'm not trolling. And I have little else to add to what I said, beyond restating it. But I'm also self-aware. I believe self-awareness is the virtue from which all others flow.

There are many ways to play the game. The important part is not to lord over others - not to assume you are justified in acting like a jerk.

I have vehemently stated that role-playing is optional and the DM is a player, no more. Do you disagree? Do you think role-play is required, or that a DM is justified in requiring players to play the game the way he wants to run it? If so, would you vehemently state it? On these forums? At the table? Would you run others off for not playing the way you want to play, or not accepting your demands? Would you sulk? Would you insist that you were right when everyone else thought you were wrong?

D&D is a collaborative game, and this is collaborative forum. Consider the toxicity thread, then consider your replies. Are you part of the problem? I'm not saying that you are, I'm asking you to decide. If all it takes to rile you up is a strongly worded post from an opinionated poster like me, that's something to think about.

[CantigThimble]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. The DM has no more say over player actions or how the game is played than any player does. The DM should remember that he's not actually God, nor master, nor does he hold actual power over the others. The DM should not ban things just because he doesn't like them, nor punish players for actions of which he does not approve. No player would do that, nor should the DM.

When people act superior, we call them arrogant. When players act superior, we call them munchkins. When DMs act superior, we don't play with them.

Arrogant DMs are the single biggest problem in all of tabletop gaming. Dexter's Laboratory demonstrated this years ago - Dexter was a power-tripping jerk and no one wanted to play with him. It's amazing to me that some DMs still haven't gotten with the program.

The DM does have more say over how the game is run in some significant ways. If you have 4 players and a DM, and a player dislikes the way the game is going enough to quit, then the session still happens, albeit somewhat reduced. If the DM doesn't like the way the game is going and HE quits, then there is no session. In the groups I've been in, plays outnumber DMs massively, most players don't want to DM. Even the DM would usually rather be playing if someone else would DM. Keeping the DM happy and willing to run sessions is more important than keeping each individual player happy and willing to play sessions.

As a result, I'm willing to compromise with my DMs quite a bit and help them run the kind of game they want to run, even if that means sacrificing things I like about the game. Because if they're under too much pressure to 'do it right' or 'run 5e the way it was intended to' then they lose interest and the campaign dies. Are there DMs who want to run games that are so far off from what I want to play that I won't make those compromises? Yes, but my margin of error is pretty damn wide.


Role-play is optional. Some role-players have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone else play like them. If you refuse to role-play, they get angry. They throw fits. They have tantrums. They try to kick you out of the group. They try to kill your character. They threaten to leave the table. They call you a bad person.

Many role-players insist that this is a "role-playing game." Therefore, you have to role-play! If you don't, you're playing the game wrong! I won't play with you! You aren't allowed at my table! Go find some rules lawyers and munchkins to play with somewhere else!

If this sounds childish to you, it should. This kind of role-player is no different from the child on the playground who throws a tantrum because the other kids want to play football instead of basketball. Except that on the playground, everyone else knows that kid is being childish. In D&D, there are so many of these types among role-players that it's almost accepted. Almost, but we all know what's really going on.

You don't get to decide how other people play the game. Nor should you think, even for a second, that it's reasonable for you to quit or kick others out of a game just because not everyone plays your way. If you get in the habit of insisting that everyone else behave just like you, you'll quickly find yourself all alone, because you're weird and no one is just like you.

Do you disagree with any of the above? If so, you're wrong. Fight me - in a colloquial sense, obviously.

I do not want to play in a game with zero role-play. I don't care about 'how the game was meant to be played' or whatever arguments like that, all I'm saying is that if a gaming group has no roleplaying whatsoever then I'm not interested in playing.

That doesn't mean funny voices and deep backstories for everyone, or even talking in-character, that means that your character has their own identity seperate from the player and they are a person that could feasibly make sense in the world you're playing in. I've seen the difference between someone making decisions that their character would make, and treating their character as a puppet. I don't want to play D&D with someone else's Skyrim character, where they just screw with things in the game because it amuses the player. All I want is for you to put the tiniest shred of effort into having some kind of consistent identity for your character.

That doesn't mean that when I meet those kinds of players I punch them in the face, that means when I play with too many of those kinds of characters I lose interest in the game and stop playing because I can't get invested in it. When I'm setting up a group I don't invite those kinds of players because I don't want to deal with that. If I'm the only one in a group that isn't like that, then I don't throw a tantrum, I just don't play. I am under no obligation to play a game I won't be able to enjoy, so I don't.

Edit: Oh, and lets just get something clear, if someone is throwing a tantrum over something then they don't belong in your D&D group. It hardly matters what they're throwing the tantrum over. So if you have problems with people who DM badly or prefer when others roleplay, but don't throw tantrums, then I'm willing to argue on behalf of those people. Phrase your complaints in a less awful way if you want a useful argument.

[smcmike]

I have vehemently stated that role-playing is optional and the DM is a player, no more. Do you disagree? Do you think role-play is required, or that a DM is justified in requiring players to play the game the way he wants to run it? If so, would you vehemently state it? On these forums? At the table? Would you run others off for not playing the way you want to play, or not accepting your demands? Would you sulk? Would you insist that you were right when everyone else thought you were wrong?

Let’s say I vehemently state the opposite, that a DM should be the final arbiter at a table, and that it’s ok to run a game where everyone is expected to role-play. You disagree. You have vehemently stated it on these forums. Do you do so at the table? Would you run people off for not playing the way you want to play? Would you sulk? Would you insist that you were right when everyone else thought you were wrong?

[Tanarii]

I'm not trolling.You posted a controversial & extreme statement with the express intent of eliciting reactions. That's trolling. Whether you believe your extreme & controversial statement or not.

(I don't think all of that kind of trolling is bad. So don't take that the wrong way.)

Edit: I forgot Trolling is a specifically defined forum rules violation. You're not doing that as far as I can see.

[Astofel]

I have vehemently stated that role-playing is optional and the DM is a player, no more. Do you disagree? Do you think role-play is required, or that a DM is justified in requiring players to play the game the way he wants to run it? If so, would you vehemently state it? On these forums? At the table? Would you run others off for not playing the way you want to play, or not accepting your demands? Would you sulk? Would you insist that you were right when everyone else thought you were wrong?

The DM is a player, but they're the player with authority. If a situation comes up that falls outside the rules the group is familiar with, it's up to the DM to resolve it. They might take advice from their players, but ultimately the DM is the one who has the final say. That, combined with the fact that while the players only control their characters, the DM controls all of the NPCs and monsters, gives the DM more power than any of the other players. It is abuse of this power that leads to bad DMing.

The DM is justified in saying that they want to run a certain kind of game, just as the players are justified in responding "Yeah I'm in," or "No thanks, maybe another time." This way the DM doesn't have to force anyone to play the way they want, since only the players who want what the DM wants joined the game to start with. If the DM says they want to run a game with an all-bard party, and a player shows up with a single-classed ranger, it is the DM's right to ask them to change their character or leave. Similarly, if a DM says they want a roleplay-heavy game and a player only says "I attack the goblin" or "I cast fireball" or "I make a persuasion check" then it is the DM's right to ask them to change the way they're playing, or leave. Sure, roleplay like the DM wants is optional in the game as a whole, but if you signed up for a game run by a DM who wants roleplay, then you should be roleplaying. That's the agreement you made when you signed up.

The DM's game is like their household. They own it, clean it, run it, and may have chosen to invite you inside. If you are invited to someone's home and they ask you to take your shoes off before entering, it would be very rude to then traipse all over their carpet in muddy boots, and you wouldn't be invited back.

[RedMage125]

The first step to changing anyone's mind is to find out what they think. Thanks you your responses, I know exactly what all of you think.

People often use language as a cloak, concealing their immoral ideas behind flowery language and excuses. Instead of saying, "the DM should force everyone to play the way he wants them to," people instead opt to say, "the DM is in a position of authority and is expected to make rulings." See how the fist is clear, and the second isn't?

If you think the DM is above the players, or that role-playing is mandatory, think about the implications. Think about what you're actually saying. Abstractions are only useful when applied to specific cases.
Easy_Lee, this (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes) is for you.

There's a wide gulf between acknowledging that a DM is in a position of authority and submission to DM tyranny. There's an even bigger gulf between "making rulings" and "trying to force people to play the way he wants them to".

And your OP was an example of Appeal to Extremes as well, as not every roleplayer will "throw fits" or "try and kick people out for not playing like them". I've DMed for and played with plenty of groups that have a mix of player types. Sometimes only one person that likes to get really into their character and speak in a voice. And I've NEVER even SEEN, in 20+ years of gaming, someone act the way you claim roleplayers act. I don't pretend that my personal experience constitutes any kind of empirical evidence for a universal statement, but it DOES undermine YOUR assertion that roleplayers act like whiny, insistent, spoiled children.

Everything is relative, but I can tell you this: it's much better to believe in something than to believe in nothing. You can't change an opinion you never really held.

Actions speak louder than words. When someone tells you what they think, perhaps your first reaction should not be to criticize they way they said it.
And yet, everyone is responsible for the way we come across. No one is accountable for the way you are perceived except YOU. That's part of being an adult is taking accountability for your own words and actions. In the military, we have a saying, "Perception IS Reality". What that means is, to the person viewing your words or actions, the perception they have of them is the reality to them, so one should always be aware of the perception that one is creating, and strive to ensure that the perception that we create is one that we would like to have attributed to us.

When you deliberately choose to use inflammatory language and be combative, you create a very specific perception for those of use reading your posts. And it's not a flattering one, truth be told. I've seen you speak in much more mature tones with more care and foresight in the past. So my perception is that you were emotionally spooled up and basically looking for a fight when you posted this. But it DOES make you seem like you're trolling.


Also, regarding the DM being "in charge," a manager is also in charge. But good managers know better than to make unreasonable demands.

What is an unreasonable demand? If you're honest with yourself, you'll know it when you see it.
In this instance, however, there is no set barometer of what is and is not an "unreasonable demand". Some players think that any races or (sub)classes being restricted is "unreasonable". Others do not.
I place certain restrictions in my game, and I've never had a complaint. Were any of them "unreasonable"? Example, I dislike the "Driz'zt clone" trope. But I don't disallow drow as a race. Based on events that occurred in the past in my game world (the events of a 3.5e game I ran in college), there are 2 communities on the surface where drow are either dominant (a small isolated town), or well-accepted (they're a little less than 10% of a Large, predominantly human city). PC drow must be from one of those original locations, were born and raised on the surface, and are not, under any circumstances "rebels from the Underdark". That's a restriction on game choices placed solely due to my personal prejudice and preference as a DM. Maybe someone finds them "unreasonable", but no one who's ever played with me has said so.

[LordEntrails]

I disagree with the OP. And given the confrontational tone I see no reason to explain why.

[Finieous]

I vehemently state my opinion that this thread has gotten a bit odd.

[Knaight]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. The DM has no more say over player actions or how the game is played than any player does. The DM should remember that he's not actually God, nor master, nor does he hold actual power over the others. The DM should not ban things just because he doesn't like them, nor punish players for actions of which he does not approve. No player would do that, nor should the DM.

When people act superior, we call them arrogant. When players act superior, we call them munchkins. When DMs act superior, we don't play with them.

Arrogant DMs are the single biggest problem in all of tabletop gaming. Dexter's Laboratory demonstrated this years ago - Dexter was a power-tripping jerk and no one wanted to play with him. It's amazing to me that some DMs still haven't gotten with the program.
Most of this I'm on board with - the DM is a player, with a distinct role in the game that still falls within the general umbrella of player. There's two exceptions here:

1) The idea that the DM shouldn't bad things just because they dislike them has a lot of assumptions built into it. One of them is that everything in the books is assumed to be available, and thus the removal of anything constitutes a ban. Another is that while the DM gets no say in how the players make their PCs, the rest of the players get a great deal of say into how the DM makes their setting. That's nonsense, and it outright conflicts with the DM being just another player, better fitting a model where they're some sort of lesser player. It's also a recipe for players repeatedly playing in the same repeatedly bland settings, because the DM had to build around restrictions that might be in place if the players happen to pick something. As a GM, screw that. As a player, screw that. Heck, I've managed to build player excitement by restricting characters before, most notably with "characters are restricted to anyone who might plausibly be aboard a zeppelin".

2) The idea that arrogant DMs are the single biggest problem in all of tabletop gaming is laughable. They're just a player, and like any player perfectly capable of ruining the game for everyone else. By sheer numbers alone that suggests that arrogant players are a larger problem. Both of these problems are dwarfed by any number of other problems. There's the contingent of gamers who are just total jerks as people, separate from whatever role they happen to be in for whatever game they happen to be playing - that's problem number one. Other larger problems include the ridiculously lopsided market in the hobby and the extent to which that limits how RPGs are played, the way RPGs are almost all terrible at bringing in new players through any mechanism other than older players, and the way what games are actually specialized for in terms of play is weirdly opaque (consider how RPGs don't even have gameplay genres, and only really have literary genres - there's "fantasy", but no analog for "worker placement"). Then there's my personal bugbear, which is the structure of getting the same group of people together regularly to play the game and the logistical nightmare that entails.



Role-play is optional. Some role-players have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone else play like them. If you refuse to role-play, they get angry. They throw fits. They have tantrums. They try to kick you out of the group. They try to kill your character. They threaten to leave the table. They call you a bad person.

Many role-players insist that this is a "role-playing game." Therefore, you have to role-play! If you don't, you're playing the game wrong! I won't play with you! You aren't allowed at my table! Go find some rules lawyers and munchkins to play with somewhere else!

If this sounds childish to you, it should. This kind of role-player is no different from the child on the playground who throws a tantrum because the other kids want to play football instead of basketball. Except that on the playground, everyone else knows that kid is being childish. In D&D, there are so many of these types among role-players that it's almost accepted. Almost, but we all know what's really going on.

You don't get to decide how other people play the game. Nor should you think, even for a second, that it's reasonable for you to quit or kick others out of a game just because not everyone plays your way. If you get in the habit of insisting that everyone else behave just like you, you'll quickly find yourself all alone, because you're weird and no one is just like you.
You don't get to decide how other people play the game - however, if it is your table (often with a collective you) you can absolutely kick people out because they're not playing it your way. To use your playground analogy - if you've got a group of five kids trying to play Horse, and a sixth kid joins in then takes the basketball and starts dribbling it and keeping it away from people that sixth kid can absolutely expect to be kicked out. That you can play Horse while doing that and that some people may have more fun doing it that way than in just shooting the ball then passing it is immaterial.

Role playing only really works when everyone is doing it, and joining a role playing game that contains it and then not doing so is hijacking the game. It's rude, it's every bit as annoying as people showing up to dungeon crawls with a strict pacifist with no useful support abilities, and it rightfully gets people booted from groups - or, more likely, just not invited to the next one. Not everyone needs to be included in everything, and "I won't play with you" only comes across as childish because of the phrasing.

[smcmike]

I vehemently state my opinion that this thread has gotten a bit odd.

I mildly (and in rather poor Bavarian accent) state my thought that it has been odd from the start.

[Honest Tiefling]

Y'all looked at this obvious Mimic of a topic and said, "Yup, there's some legit treasure in there."

The real treasure is friendship.


You believe role playing to be optional.... in a role playing game? I mean, even if you're playing a brute who only wants to smash stuff and get treasure, that's still a role.

I think Easy_Lee means the stuff like talking in character or having a backstory or stuff like that. People can sometimes treat DnD of many different editions as nothing more then a string of combats, and who the crap cares what people do in their free time.


1) The idea that the DM shouldn't bad things just because they dislike them has a lot of assumptions built into it. One of them is that everything in the books is assumed to be available, and thus the removal of anything constitutes a ban. Another is that while the DM gets no say in how the players make their PCs, the rest of the players get a great deal of say into how the DM makes their setting. That's nonsense, and it outright conflicts with the DM being just another player, better fitting a model where they're some sort of lesser player. It's also a recipe for players repeatedly playing in the same repeatedly bland settings, because the DM had to build around restrictions that might be in place if the players happen to pick something. As a GM, screw that. As a player, screw that. Heck, I've managed to build player excitement by restricting characters before, most notably with "characters are restricted to anyone who might plausibly be aboard a zeppelin".


I personally hate fantasy kitchen sinks. I despise them. I'd rather play in a setting without my favorite race and class if I get tonal consistency and unique ideas. Sell me on this idea, give me rich imagery and interesting scenarios and grand world building. Better to have a good setting then an inclusive one.

I detest playing with people who insist Warforged need to be in primitive settings or want to play a worshiper of Olimmidara in every single setting. Let's just freaking try the DM's vision first and then decide if it works or not!

[fbelanger]

Obviously role play is optional in a role playing game.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I vehemently state my opinion that this thread has gotten a bit odd.

Oh yeah!?

https://media.giphy.com/media/s1zC6Xy7MPUQ0/giphy.gif

[KorvinStarmast]

If the DM doesn't like the way the game is going and HE quits, then there is no session. The OP has chosen to overlook that significant difference. :smallcool:

You posted a controversial & extreme statement with the express intent of eliciting reactions. That's trolling. Edit: I forgot Trolling is a specifically defined forum rules violation. You're not doing that as far as I can see. Actually, that's exactly what is going on, as evidenced by the OP's reaction to my clearly identifying it as such.

Most of this I'm on board with - the DM is a player, with a distinct role in the game that still falls within the general umbrella of player. Fairly said. A player with a distinct role.

You don't get to decide how other people play the game Nice and concise. *golf clap*

[GlenSmash!]

The DM is a player just like everyone else.
Yup. DMs may hold a little more weight that another player at the table by virtue of there being fewer DMs. To me that's simply supply and demand of DMs. But I do agree DMs are a player and in the social agreement of the game they have the same power as anyone else.


Role-play is optional.
I'll disagree with this, but it's probably a semantic issue.

I believe that if you have a character sheet and you are making decisions for your character, you are roleplaying. Even if the only decision you ever make is to swing your sword, you are still roleplaying. You're playing the role of sword swinger.

One does not have to delve into the psyche of a their character to roleplay.

[Laurefindel]

The DM is a player just like everyone else.
Yes, in the broadest sense, PCs and DM are both players, just like actors and directors are both artists.

It is important however to recognize that the DM has a different role within the game, which comes with different expectations, responsibilities and privileges. Even though they are both players, a DM is not a player character. PCs have their own privileges, responsibilities and expectations.

I agree with you that on a human scale, all are equal "players", but the DM is the authoritative/leader figure around the table. Like the coach of a sport team, or the referee.


Role-play is optional.

Hum, I guess we can get tangled in definition of R-P here, but the way I see it, saying "I swing my axe at this orc" is role-playing. Like some have stated before, there are different levels of R-P implication; one does not need to adopt a different personality (or any personality whatsoever) to R-P. Deciding of the fate of a character is enough, and at its most basic, that's what a RPG expects you to do. Even if that game is a one shot. Even if you did not participate in the creation process of your character. In that sense I consider many board games to be very basic RPG.

Thus in that sense, role-play is not optional; that's the basic premise of a RPG. That being said, I expect more at my table. That's not discrimination, that's saying what kind of game will be played. It's like saying "this game is not touch-football; it's full contact. If you want to play, you need equipment."

[edit] I guess one could say that role-playing is optional for the DM if we take it's role only as a referee.

[KorvinStarmast]

One does not have to delve into the psyche of a their character to roleplay. I like the way you put that. Thanks. :smallcool:

[Easy_Lee]

Do you know what I think is funny? I made a tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, but honest argument basically for one point: no matter who you are, don't tell other people how to play. Neither DMs or role-players ought act arrogant or bossy.

And look at the response. People disagree with that!

If nothing else, this thread illustrates two points:

If you phrase a post correctly, people will argue with anything.
Some posters on this forum have seriously screwed up views about what D&D is.

I'd like D&D to gain more popularity, to be something anyone can enjoy. Most people don't enjoy being bossed around or forced to play a certain way. That's something to consider.

And gosh, maybe I need to color all of my posts blue so people don't get so angry. Trolling? Drunk? No, I'm just different from you. As is everyone else.

[Psikerlord]

Someone has to be in charge and make rulings, so while the GM is also a player, they're in a special category.

[GlenSmash!]

no matter who you are, don't tell other people how to play. Neither DMs or role-players ought act arrogant or bossy.
If I were the type of poster to have a sig, I would sig this. This to me is key to having fun at the table.


If you phrase a post correctly, people will argue with anything.
I can only speak for myself, but yes. Always :smallbiggrin:


Some posters on this forum have seriously screwed up views about what D&D is.
Also true.


Trolling? Drunk? No, I'm just different from you. As is everyone else.
You phrased things differently than I would, but as far as the sentiment goes seemingly not all that different from me.

[Easy_Lee]

Someone has to be in charge and make rulings, so while the GM is also a player, they're in a special category.

No doubt about that. But what is the DM? Arbitrator and storyteller seem to be the most common definition. No where in that definition does it say "God."

I don't have a problem with the DM who says, "I'll allow it." I have a problem with the DM who looks down his nose and, after a long pause, says, "I'll allow it, this time." Everything starts with a person's perception of himself.

And that's what I'm saying, here. DMs should not think of themselves as the superior "master" of anything. They should think of themselves as a player in a different role, like others have said.

[Honest Tiefling]

Do you know what I think is funny? I made a tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, but honest argument basically for one point: no matter who you are, don't tell other people how to play. Neither DMs or role-players ought act arrogant or bossy.

And look at the response. People disagree with that!

So you made an tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, but honest argument post on a forum where people sometimes make tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, but honest argument and discuss them and are surprised that people discussed it? So shocking! Much unusual! Many surprise.

[CantigThimble]

Do you know what I think is funny? I made a tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, but honest argument basically for one point: no matter who you are, don't tell other people how to play. Neither DMs or role-players ought act arrogant or bossy.

And look at the response. People disagree with that!

If nothing else, this thread illustrates two points:

If you phrase a post correctly, people will argue with anything.
Some posters on this forum have seriously screwed up views about what D&D is.

I'd like D&D to gain more popularity, to be something anyone can enjoy. Most people don't enjoy being bossed around or forced to play a certain way. That's something to consider.

And gosh, maybe I need to color all of my posts blue so people don't get so angry. Trolling? Drunk? No, I'm just different from you. As is everyone else.

Yeah, hilarious. Lets just go into WHY things happened this way. If your only point was 'People shouldn't be arrogant and bossy' then we all could have agreed and gone home. But that wasn't the point your OP was trying to make. You chose broad points about the game: 'The DM is fundamentally the same as a player', 'roleplaying isn't necessary' and made those. THEN you made your case for those points using examples of arrogant and childish people.

That is fundamentally different from making the point: "People shouldn't be arrogant and bossy" and then backing it up with examples of DMs or roleplayers. Now, after people have made coherent arguments against the two points you brought up (while including contingencies about how they don't like arrogant bossy people in those arguments) you have decided to retroactively change your points from:
1) The DM is no more important than a player
2) Roleplaying is unecessary
to:
1) People shouldn't be arrogant and bossy
So that you can call everyone who disagreed with the first two points silly and feel intellectually superior. Whether or not this fits the forum's definition of trolling it absolutely fits mine. Bait-and-switch is a classic, but you really need to be more subtle about the switch. Your form needs work.

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah, hilarious. Lets just go into WHY things happened this way. If your only point was 'People shouldn't be arrogant and bossy' then we all could have agreed and gone home. But that wasn't the point your OP was trying to make. You chose broad points about the game: 'The DM is fundamentally the same as a player', 'roleplaying isn't necessary' and made those. THEN you made your case for those points using examples of arrogant and childish people.

That is fundamentally different from making the point: "People shouldn't be arrogant and bossy" and then backing it up with examples of DMs or roleplayers. Now, after people have made coherent arguments against the two points you brought up (while including contingencies about how they don't like arrogant bossy people in those arguments) you have decided to retroactively change your points from:
1) The DM is no more important than a player
2) Roleplaying is unecessary
to:
1) People shouldn't be arrogant and bossy
So that you can call everyone who disagreed with the first two points silly and feel intellectually superior. Whether or not this fits the forum's definition of trolling it absolutely fits mine. Bait-and-switch is a classic, but you really need to be more subtle about the switch. Your form needs work.

In an effort to keep arguing, you're no longer arguing about my points, and instead are arguing about me. I'll ignore that

[CantigThimble]

In an effort to keep arguing, you're no longer arguing about my points, and instead are arguing about me. I'll ignore that

Just to be clear, what are your points? The first, two the second one, or something else entirely?

[Coffee_Dragon]

In an effort to keep arguing, you're no longer arguing about my points, and instead are arguing about me.

You had already made it about you by congratulating yourself on getting people to post in your bait thread. Again, much surprise.

[Tanarii]

Do you know what I think is funny? I made a tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, but honest argument basically for one point: no matter who you are, don't tell other people how to play. Neither DMs or role-players ought act arrogant or bossy.Here's what I saw: You made an over-the-top, what you thought was tongue-in-cheek but was actually aggressively-combative, and most likely honest argument telling people how to play.

And unsurprisingly, people are disagreeing with both your tone, and you telling them how to play.

[Pex]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. The DM has no more say over player actions or how the game is played than any player does.

The DM has some authority. There needs to be a final decision on things about the game. The DM makes them. What the DM says, goes. If the DM says enough stupid stuff the players go too.


The DM should remember that he's not actually God, nor master, nor does he hold actual power over the others. The DM should not ban things just because he doesn't like them, nor punish players for actions of which he does not approve. No player would do that, nor should the DM.

When people act superior, we call them arrogant. When players act superior, we call them munchkins. When DMs act superior, we don't play with them.

Arrogant DMs are the single biggest problem in all of tabletop gaming. Dexter's Laboratory demonstrated this years ago - Dexter was a power-tripping jerk and no one wanted to play with him. It's amazing to me that some DMs still haven't gotten with the program.

Role-play is optional. Some role-players have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone else play like them. If you refuse to role-play, they get angry. They throw fits. They have tantrums. They try to kick you out of the group. They try to kill your character. They threaten to leave the table. They call you a bad person.

Many role-players insist that this is a "role-playing game." Therefore, you have to role-play! If you don't, you're playing the game wrong! I won't play with you! You aren't allowed at my table! Go find some rules lawyers and munchkins to play with somewhere else!

If this sounds childish to you, it should. This kind of role-player is no different from the child on the playground who throws a tantrum because the other kids want to play football instead of basketball. Except that on the playground, everyone else knows that kid is being childish. In D&D, there are so many of these types among role-players that it's almost accepted. Almost, but we all know what's really going on.

You don't get to decide how other people play the game. Nor should you think, even for a second, that it's reasonable for you to quit or kick others out of a game just because not everyone plays your way. If you get in the habit of insisting that everyone else behave just like you, you'll quickly find yourself all alone, because you're weird and no one is just like you.

Do you disagree with any of the above? If so, you're wrong. Fight me - in a colloquial sense, obviously.

Everything else I agree. However, the underline part needs clarification. There are certain behaviors that should be prohibited. The Jerk players, That Guy, people who disrupt. They ruin the game.

[Contrast]

I don't have a problem with the DM who says, "I'll allow it." I have a problem with the DM who looks down his nose and, after a long pause, says, "I'll allow it, this time." Everything starts with a person's perception of himself.

In fairness that's a pretty reasonable response.

Part of the DMs role 'as a player' is to keep the game balanced as well as fresh and interesting. The player saying 'I do three backflips and stab him between each one like I do three times every turn which should give me advantage because you let it work that way that one time back when we were level 2' is none of those things.

[Mara]

A DM is just another player. A 5e DM is also a game designer, because of how they have to write the skill rules.

[Max_Killjoy]

Just to be clear, what are your points? The first, two the second one, or something else entirely?



You had already made it about you by congratulating yourself on getting people to post in your bait thread. Again, much surprise.


Well said.

I think we've seen the thread-starter before somewhere...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

[2D8HP]

:confused:

*Ahem*

I believe that I was invited to a "Fight me" @Easy_Lee.

Let's see:


....Do you disagree with any of the above? If so, you're wrong
Fight me - in a colloquial sense, obviously..
Ah yes, I was.

Now I posted over two dozen letters, including


No thanks!


and


That's fine


.and in response?:


...I know exactly what all of you think.


"all of you"

So your response?

While another Playgrounder bantered with me, I have not been quoted with any attempt to refute my comments, nor have I seen an acknowledgment of my correctness from you @Easy_Lee

I have not yet received my turn on the dance floor.

I feel vexed!

:annoyed:

[Easy_Lee]

:confused:

*Ahem*

I believe that I was invited to a "Fight me" @Easy_Lee.

Let's see:

.
Ah yes, I was.

Now I posted over two dozen letters, including




and




.and in response?:




"all of you"

So your response?

While another Playgrounder bantered with me, I have not been quoted with any attempt to refute my comments, nor have I seen an acknowledgment of my correctness from you @Easy_Lee

I have not yet received my turn on the dance floor.

I feel vexed!

:annoyed:

You did indeed follow proper form. You were just a little too nice about it. This thread was supposed to be an over-the-top argument - or, at least, that was the first level of meta. We would throw around deliberately angry statements and, in general, vent in a funny way.

My posts are multi-layered. Even when people like Coffee Dragon insist on making the thread about me, I always have other motives

This thread was never about me. It was deeper than that. Only one person so far has seen through me, and I gave him his due respect. But no, this thread had three layers:

The top layer: a strongly-worded but honest statement. This is where most people got stuck and, sadly, never got past.
The realization that this is deliberately over-the-top: the first level of meta. This is where you landed, 2D8. You weren't the first, but your insight check was a definite pass.
The true purpose: the second level of meta, and why i created the thread in the first place.

Little did anyone, save a single one of you, suspect that this thread had a third layer, a second level of meta. The first and second layer concealed the thread's true purpose, one any of you might have guessed from the opening post: get people to stop derailing the magnificent Xanathar's thread.


You and I are done arguing about this here. This derail has gone on long enough.


Spawned from another thread.

I knew if I made an even stronger statement, and put it in its own thread, that people wouldn't be able to resist. And no one can be in two places at once.

So, you see, it was never about me. And it was never about insulting each other, except in jest - I'm disappointed how few people caught the jest even after I spelled it out...but that's another story.

Because you asked, and because you were polite, 2D8, I thought you deserved to know the truth.


You had already made it about you by congratulating yourself on getting people to post in your bait thread. Again, much surprise.

No, Coffee, I was not congratulating myself earlier. Now I am congratulating myself.

[Regitnui]

Easy Lee, you do not get to think you're intellectually superior or even right here. You started this thread with a troll. I'm sorry, but that's what you did. So you're not allowed to now claim victory on what everyone else was telling you. Your initial, extreme viewpoint, is wrong. It's wrong and inelegant. If you wanted to say DMs shouldn't be jerks and Deep roleplaying should be optional, then you should have said that. Everyone agrees with that.

That's not what you did. You can't claim any victory on that. You stated that the DM is no different from a player. Demonstratably wrong. You also stated that roleplaying is optional in a roleplaying game. That's positively nonsensical. Its like claiming that the ball is optional in a game of football. Finally, and most importantly, you ended the topic title with "fight me". We're all very polite and nice people here. That's unjustified aggression, for no other reason than a blatant attempt to project your no doubt deeply held feelings on this matter into a debate that nobody but you seems intent on having.

So congratulations. You "won" a debate nobody was trying to have with you while abandoning the one that took up two pages of this thread when you were conclusively disproved. I wish you a long a fruitful career convincing your intended partners that intimacy is optional in an intimate relationship and telling any employees you may have that you're just the same as they are while trying to maintain authority.

[Easy_Lee]

Easy Lee, you do not get to think you're intellectually superior or even right here. You started this thread with a troll. I'm sorry, but that's what you did. So you're not allowed to now claim victory on what everyone else was telling you. Your initial, extreme viewpoint, is wrong. It's wrong and inelegant. If you wanted to say DMs shouldn't be jerks and Deep roleplaying should be optional, then you should have said that. Everyone agrees with that.

That's not what you did. You can't claim any victory on that. You stated that the DM is no different from a player. Demonstratably wrong. You also stated that roleplaying is optional in a roleplaying game. That's positively nonsensical. Its like claiming that the ball is optional in a game of football. Finally, and most importantly, you ended the topic title with "fight me". We're all very polite and nice people here. That's unjustified aggression, for no other reason than a blatant attempt to project your no doubt deeply held feelings on this matter into a debate that nobody but you seems intent on having.

So congratulations. You "won" a debate nobody was trying to have with you while abandoning the one that took up two pages of this thread when you were conclusively disproved. I wish you a long a fruitful career convincing your intended partners that intimacy is optional in an intimate relationship and telling any employees you may have that you're just the same as they are while trying to maintain authority.

I'm not claiming intellectual superiority. You ad-hominem types keep saying things like that as if I have once, even one time, said I'm better than you. I haven't. You're assuming that I think that. You're accusing me of being a bad person so that you can feel justified attacking me.

You're a crybully.

Do you understand? You're assuming negative things about me, then pretending they're true in order to attack me.

Does that seem fair to you? Does that seem reasonable? Do you feel better about yourself now?

"We're all very polite and nice people here." Are you ****ing joking? I hope you are, because I'm laughing.

To the rest of you - it's been fun, guys. I mean that. I've enjoyed myself. This thread has been a lot of fun, and it did exactly what I wanted it to do. I don't claim to be superior to anyone here. After all, i can't convince anyone that I'm smarter than they are. People have to do that themselves.

[Regitnui]

I'm not claiming intellectual superiority. You ad-hominem types keep saying things like that as if I have once, even one time, said I'm better than you. I haven't. You're assuming that I think that. You're accusing me of being a bad person so that you can feel justified attacking me.

You're a crybully.

Do you understand? You're assuming negative things about me, then pretending they're true in order to attack me.

Does that seem fair to you? Does that seem reasonable? Do you feel better about yourself now?

"We're all very polite and nice people here." Are you ****ing joking? I hope you are, because I'm laughing.

I'm an ad hominem type when you spent this entire post insult and attacking me personally?

[Astofel]

Little did anyone, save a single one of you, suspect that this thread had a third layer, a second level of meta. The first and second layer concealed the thread's true purpose, one any of you might have guessed from the opening post: get people to stop derailing the magnificent Xanathar's thread.

Wait what. I honestly thought that was so obvious it didn't bear mentioning. I mean, when someone makes a thread to continue discussion that spawned in another thread, the very first thing I assume is that the person made the thread in order to move the discussion to someplace it belongs so the original thread can get back to its purpose.

Also, I've seen other people on this very forum post and rant about things in the same style and tone as your OP, and they've been dead serious about it. On the internet where anonymity reigns, it's difficult to discern the true intent of anyone you're unfamiliar with. All we have is the words on the page. The words I saw were aggressive and inflamatory. I responded in what I hope was a calmer manner.

Honestly, I suspect you're backpeddaling. You showed no sign of being 'tongue-in-cheek' in the Xanathar's thread, instead you looked to be genuinely riled up. You made this thread to continue your rant without derailing the thread, but you started to cool off/realise that the other side made good points, but you didn't want to admit you were wrong so you tried to play it off like you were just joking the entire time.

How's that for an Insight check?

[Regitnui]

How's that for an Insight check?

Nat 20 with maxxed expertise, I think. But then, I'm only a DM. The players should decide whether that has beaten the DC that they don't know about and haven't set.

[2D8HP]

the thread's true purpose, one any of you might have guessed from the opening post: get people to stop derailing the magnificent Xanathar's thread..


The Xanathar's thread?.


You mean the one based on watching some video, or the one based on reading a Forum thread at some hard-to-read-website, both of which seem devoted to "What splat will be imported from 3.x"?

I haven't, nor did I have any plans to post to those threads. Maybe when I get the book in my hands, I'll have an opinion, otherwise I'm looking forward to the book, but I have little speculation about it.


Because you asked, and because you were polite, 2D8, I thought you deserved to know the truth..

Well thanks for that.

Now please put another post in one of my (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?129013-2D8HP) more recent threads, the point of this one now eludes me.

[Easy_Lee]

Wait what. I honestly thought that was so obvious it didn't bear mentioning. I mean, when someone makes a thread to continue discussion that spawned in another thread, the very first thing I assume is that the person made the thread in order to move the discussion to someplace it belongs so the original thread can get back to its purpose.

Also, I've seen other people on this very forum post and rant about things in the same style and tone as your OP, and they've been dead serious about it. On the internet where anonymity reigns, it's difficult to discern the true intent of anyone you're unfamiliar with. All we have is the words on the page. The words I saw were aggressive and inflamatory. I responded in what I hope was a calmer manner.

Honestly, I suspect you're backpeddaling. You showed no sign of being 'tongue-in-cheek' in the Xanathar's thread, instead you looked to be genuinely riled up. You made this thread to continue your rant without derailing the thread, but you started to cool off/realise that the other side made good points, but you didn't want to admit you were wrong so you tried to play it off like you were just joking the entire time.

How's that for an Insight check?

First post. Read it again:


Fight me - in a colloquial sense, obviously.

"Fight me," posted on a forum...then I crack a joke about the phrase, in the same post, as if it even needed a joke cracked about it...

Hey, whatever makes you feel better. I've been honest in this entire thread - I meant what I said, still mean it, and still support it. I posted it in an inflammatory way because I knew people like you couldn't resist - and that would put an end to the derailment of Xanathar's.

And that's the whole point. Calm down and stop derailing threads with arguments. You'd be derailing this thread right now if it weren't for me derailing this thread for you.

[Easy_Lee]

Now please put another post in one of my (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?129013-2D8HP) more recent threads, the point of this one now eludes me.

Well, I'm in the "Mean Spiritedness (formally Toxicity) in the 5e forum" thread, posting basically the same message as I did here. Over the Internet, people are free to assume whatever negative thing they want about you, even if it isn't true. You can scroll up for plenty of evidence for that one.

[Max_Killjoy]

You're assuming negative things about me, then pretending they're true in order to attack me.


Hmmm...



Arrogant DMs



power-tripping jerk



some DMs still haven't gotten with the program.



role-players have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone else play like them. If you refuse to role-play, they get angry. They throw fits. They have tantrums. They try to kick you out of the group. They try to kill your character. They threaten to leave the table. They call you a bad person.



This kind of role-player is no different from the child on the playground who throws a tantrum



you haven't understood a single thing I've written. I'll assume that you actually have, and are deliberately trying to avoid my argument.



concealing their immoral ideas



You ad-hominem types



You're a crybully.



It really doesn't take much assumption on anyone's part.





Hey, whatever makes you feel better. I've been honest in this entire thread - I meant what I said, still mean it, and still support it. I posted it in an inflammatory way because I knew people like you couldn't resist - and that would put an end to the derailment of Xanathar's.


I think the best response to this actually came from you:



People often use language as a cloak, concealing their immoral ideas behind flowery language and excuses.


Ironic. Enjoy your petard.


/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet))

[Regitnui]

It really doesn't take much assumption on anyone's part.

Have a cookie and Inspiration for your next three rolls at my table.

[2D8HP]

Well done, @Max_Killjoy.

@Easy_Lee, so the purpose of this thread is to "prevent derailing" a thread that I'm only marginally aware of?

Please go contribute more posts to @Darth Ultron's.Plot Railroading: How much? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536612-Plot-Railroading-How-much) thread.

I think that your contributions would be a good fit.

[Temperjoke]

Nat 20 with maxxed expertise, I think. But then, I'm only a DM. The players should decide whether that has beaten the DC that they don't know about and haven't set.

Well played sir.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, you should never let bossy, arrogant people tell you how to play your D&D game!




Those of you advocating for fewer standards, who don't want D&D to have any kind of standardized rules or known mechanics for the players to consider, you people are ruining the game for me. WotC already listened to you lax, inconsistent types once, and I pray to Oghma that they never listen to you again.





Then go fix it.

In my games, I do. I don't want to just fix it in my own games.

Oh, wait.

Well at least Easy_Lee actually listen to people and sincerely believe all his "first step to change someone's opinion" stuff, right?


I use this forum more to iron out my own thoughts than anything. Whether you agree with me or not, I'm getting exactly what I want out of you.

Oh, wait.


Easy_Lee is an hypocrite who wants to impose his ideas on everyone's games and to have WotC never listen to people he disagree with ever again, and then claim that bossy, arrogant people shouldn't have a word to say in how you play.

He also is not interested in discussing anything, he just uses threads as a way to "confirm" his own thoughts and bias. This is not the first thread that go that way.

So, draw your own conclusion.

[RedMage125]

Do you understand? You're assuming negative things about me, then pretending they're true in order to attack me.


Do you understand? This is blatant hypocrisy. You have done the exact same thing. And then you assume that when others do it back to you that it somehow ennobles you as some kind of martyr.

Bad form, Lee.

[Zalabim]

Y'all looked at this obvious Mimic of a topic and said, "Yup, there's some legit treasure in there."
Yep. I found a few gems.

Oh yeah!?

https://media.giphy.com/media/s1zC6Xy7MPUQ0/giphy.gif
Here.

Well said.

I think we've seen the thread-starter before somewhere...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

And there.

Little did anyone, save a single one of you, suspect that this thread had a third layer, a second level of meta. The first and second layer concealed the thread's true purpose, one any of you might have guessed from the opening post: get people to stop derailing the magnificent Xanathar's thread.
Waterdeep Merch had already done that, and directed that topic to their spun-off thread in the derailed thread, before you finished this OP. So all you've done is made a duplicate post in an attempt to satisfy your own ego.

[Bastian Weaver]

If nothing else, this thread illustrates two points:

If you phrase a post correctly, people will argue with anything.
Some posters on this forum have seriously screwed up views about what D&D is.



Not really, no. It just illustrates that some of us have lots, lots of free time on our hands. Everything else is irrelevant.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm an ad hominem type when you spent this entire post insult and attacking me personally?
Yep

Hmmm...

It really doesn't take much assumption on anyone's part.

I think the best response to this actually came from you:

Ironic. Enjoy your petard.

/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet))
Yep

Yeah, you should never let bossy, arrogant people tell you how to play your D&D game!

Oh, wait.

Well at least Easy_Lee actually listen to people and sincerely believe all his "first step to change someone's opinion" stuff, right?

Oh, wait.

Easy_Lee is an hypocrite who wants to impose his ideas on everyone's games and to have WotC never listen to people he disagree with ever again, and then claim that bossy, arrogant people shouldn't have a word to say in how you play.

He also is not interested in discussing anything, he just uses threads as a way to "confirm" his own thoughts and bias. This is not the first thread that go that way.

So, draw your own conclusion.
Yep.

I've tried to explain this before, but E_L doesn't get it.


See the hypocrisy I was talking about? You claim that we can't know the intentions, motivations, and thoughts of another. You claim it because it suits your purposes at the time to claim it.
And then you follow that with a claim that you know my intentions and motivaitons and thoughts.
Hypocrisy.

The fact of the matter is that sometimes we do agree. You only notice the times that we don't, and you focus on them, because you go out of your way to be rude and disrespectful to me.
The fact of the matter is that you hypocritically disrespect someone and then rant a sermon about respect.
The fact of the matter is that you expect to be treated with respect while not treating others with respect.
The fact of the matter is that you make claims when they suit your purposes, and then claim the EXACT opposite when THAT suits your purposes.
The fact of the matter is that you take the low road and then get all up in arms when someone responds in kind, as if you thought you had been on the high road all along.
And these are just the things from this one particular thread. This thread is not an anomaly.

Once again, this thread is not an anomaly.
That's E_L's MO. That's E_L's SOP. That's what E_L does.
He doesn't get it at all. But he claims to be, and I quote E_L here, "very self aware."
So one of two things is true.
Either E_L is nowhere NEAR as self aware as he thinks he is, or he actually is self aware and is the biggest troll we have around here. Possibly a little bit of both. Who knows?

[Unoriginal]

Yep

Yep

Yep.

I've tried to explain this before, but E_L doesn't get it.



Once again, this thread is not an anomaly.
That's E_L's MO. That's E_L's SOP. That's what E_L does.
He doesn't get it at all. But he claims to be, and I quote E_L here, "very self aware."
So one of two things is true.
Either E_L is nowhere NEAR as self aware as he thinks he is, or he actually is self aware and is the biggest troll we have around here. Possibly a little bit of both. Who knows?

Either way, it's best to put him on Ignore. Save yourself a lot of troubles. I've done it myself, just came here to add my piece.

[2D8HP]

...Once again, this thread is not an anomaly.
That's E_L's MO. That's E_L's SOP. That's what E_L does. Possibly a little bit of both.
Who knows?


I believe that this shows an accurate illustration of how to achieve the same effect as attempting to decipher his recent posts:

http://rs166.pbsrc.com/albums/u91/pearlin2/BANGHEADDESK.gif~c200

@Easy_Lee, you invited us here for a "Fight me", and when people took you up, instead of arguing in good faith, or at least making jokes, you instead declared "meta behind meta behind meta", and "I'm defending another thread" (which you previously did not name).

Please apologize to me now.

[Malifice]

I got invited to play this roleplaying game yesterday. Some kind of game that was explained to me as one where I assume the role of a character inhabiting a fantasy world, and along with other people, explore, socialise and overcome obstacles as that character.

And then, when I rocked up... the group actually expected me to roleplay!

Tyrants!

[War_lord]

People, you just don't get it.

When we make definitive statements about our expectations for our D&D experience, we're telling others how to play.
When Easy_Lee literally tells people what the right way to play is, he's speaking the truth. We're just mad at his incontestable brilliance.

When we have a viewpoint that a game book contradicts, we need to stop posting in the thread.
When Easy_Lee has a viewpoint that a game book contradicts... the book actually agrees with him and we're just reading it wrong.

When we say something about Easy_Lee's behavior, we're making unfair assumptions about him as a person.
When Easy_lee resorts to straight out namecalling, that's because we need to be "straightened out" so we can learn to accept the truth (that Lee is right and y'all just jealous).

Easy_Lee, I'd say that I hope you learn something from hearing exactly what many prominent posters in this sub-forum think of you. But I just know you're already working on finding some justification so that you don't have to take any responsibility for these reactions. It's not about your opinions on the forum, or whether any given poster agrees or disagrees with your stances, it's how you choose to present those arguments, that is all we have to judge you by. And the person responsible for that presentation is you.

[Unoriginal]

Tyrants!

Vandals!

Don't you hear, don't you hear?
They are hiding everywhere!
In your pudding in your cup in the space behind your ears!
Don't you hear, don't you hear?
Always creeping far or near,
Asking to do dark acts that you can't bear!


They walk around, in the sun
Choosing ways to have some fun
But beware if you should disagree!

They walk around, in the night
Like monsters from tales of fright,
Offering to share their activities.

Tyrants!

Vandals!

Don't you hear, don't you hear?
They are hiding everywhere!
In your pudding in your cup in the space behind your ears!
Don't you hear, don't you hear?
Always creeping far or near,
Asking to do dark acts that you can't bear!



Around tables, around settings,
They babble, they're talking
About UA or Baldur's Gate

But if their sweet talk does reach you,
They will ask, like silk and honey dew
The unimaginable: to roleplay!

Tyrants!

Vandals!

Don't you hear, don't you hear?
They are hiding everywhere!
In your pudding in your cup in the space behind your ears!
Don't you hear, don't you hear?
Always creeping far or near,
Asking to do dark acts that you can't bear!


Scream and flee, little one,
Your time at this table is done
No one can force you to play!

RPG should be free,
Don't roleplay if don't agree,
Even though it's called RolePlaying Games.

Tyrants!

Vandals!

Don't you hear, don't you hear?
They are hiding everywhere!
In your pudding in your cup in the space behind your ears!
Don't you hear, don't you hear?
Always creeping far or near,
Asking to do dark acts that you can't bear!

That you caaaaaaaaan't bear!


----------------------------------------------------------


What do you guys think? It's a first draft.

[2D8HP]

Vandals....

....What do you guys think? It's a first draft.


:biggrin:

Superb!

[Easy_Lee]

Oh dear, I seem to have created a vortex. This thread has become a black hole, drawing in every offensive post, off-topic comment, and personal attack on the forum. And most of it is directed at me.

Could I really be so lucky?

Like I said before, you can't be in two places at once. Please stick around insulting me in this thread. That will keep the rest of the forum much cleaner. I'll keep stoking the fire, as needed.

On a related note, murdering orcs is a perfectly justifiable thing to do, especially in FR. If you don't play in FR, you aren't playing the official setting and, therefore, your opinion on its lore doesn't matter.

[Brawndo]

Spawned from another thread. My contentions:

The DM is a player just like everyone else. (*snip*)

Role-play is optional. (*snip*)



The section after the first bolded text is very clearly putting forth the proposition that the game should be played in a certain way.

The section after the second bolded text explains that telling other people how to play the game is childish.

These two positions don't really make sense when presented as facets of the same opinion.

It's a pretty common issue when people raise concerns about DM overreach; the proposed solution usually ends up being "the DM should stop forcing the players to play the game his way, and should instead run the game the way the players want it run."

This doesn't really solve the issue.

The more reasonable, adult way to deal with an issue between mismatched player and DM expectations is to not play games with people whose playstyle you don't like.

EDITED TO ADD: "No gaming" is better than "bad gaming."

[Bastian Weaver]

Vandals!


----------------------------------------------------------


What do you guys think? It's a first draft.

In my bardic opinion, it's rather good.

[smcmike]

Oh dear, I seem to have created a vortex. This thread has become a black hole, drawing in every offensive post, off-topic comment, and personal attack on the forum. And most of it is directed at me.

Could I really be so lucky?

Like I said before, you can't be in two places at once. Please stick around insulting me in this thread. That will keep the rest of the forum much cleaner. I'll keep stoking the fire, as needed.

On a related note, murdering orcs is a perfectly justifiable thing to do, especially in FR. If you don't play in FR, you aren't playing the official setting and, therefore, your opinion on its lore doesn't matter.

If you post junk like this, no one will want to engage with you on any thread. What are you doing, man?

[DivisibleByZero]

Oh dear, I seem to have created a vortex. This thread has become a black hole, drawing in every offensive post, off-topic comment, and personal attack on the forum. And most of it is directed at me.

I think you mean to say that most of it was started by you.
In the OP, in your first response after the OP, and continuing on pretty much every single time you hit the Send button beyond that.
Is it really any wonder? You reap what you sow.
Stop playing the victim. Literally no one is buying it.

[Easy_Lee]

The section after the first bolded text is very clearly putting forth the proposition that the game should be played in a certain way.

The section after the second bolded text explains that telling other people how to play the game is childish.

These two positions don't really make sense when presented as facets of the same opinion.

It's a pretty common issue when people raise concerns about DM overreach; the proposed solution usually ends up being "the DM should stop forcing the players to play the game his way, and should instead run the game the way the players want it run."

This doesn't really solve the issue.

The more reasonable, adult way to deal with an issue between mismatched player and DM expectations is to not play games with people whose playstyle you don't like.

EDITED TO ADD: "No gaming" is better than "bad gaming."

Not exactly. There's a difference between telling someone to role-play and telling someone not to be a jerk. It's the difference between saying "you must say X" and saying "you may not say Y." I'm not prescribing a way to play the game, but a way not to behave toward others.

[Bastian Weaver]

Not exactly. There's a difference between telling someone to role-play and telling someone not to be a jerk. It's the difference between saying "you must say X" and saying "you may not say Y." I'm not prescribing a way to play the game, but a way not to behave toward others.

Ahh... nope. That's exactly the same thing. In fact, both can be summarized in two words. Behave, please.

[Easy_Lee]

If you post junk like this, no one will want to engage with you on any thread. What are you doing, man?

Having fun. Isn't that the point? I don't think I'm doing so at anyone's expense.

The best response to toxicity is to show people how easy it is to make them toxic. Self-awareness is the virtue from which all others flow. If you think I'm being toxic in this thread, the best thing to do is to not reply. If you think I'm having a laugh by being over the top - and you'd be right - the best thing to do would be to respond in kind. And if you simply can't stand to read my posts, the best thing to do is ignore me.

None of those has been the typical response. People decided they didn't like what I had to say, took my tone 100% seriously, and responded. And kept responding...why do you suppose that is?

I think I know why.

To quote another thread:

I'm curious what people think about the current toxicity that permeates this forum. Threads result in multiple people making insulting and derogatory comments towards each other.

To be clear, I have participated in this as well, and I am in no way saying I'm above or outside of it. In fact, it was a recent response I made that I regretted immediately after posting that made me realize how much fighting happens here.

I guess I'm looking for people's thoughts on:

1. Why is this forum so toxic (maybe you don't agree even)
2. What could we in this forum do to make it better?
3. Should the admin be more aggressive in deleting trolling posts, and/or rude comments, or should this forum remain as is?

EDIT: I should clarify. Toxic wasn't real the best word I could have used to describe what I was trying to get across. What I mean, is I see so many people take each other out of context, misrepresent, and mischaracterize peoples posts often.


Also


Ahh... nope. That's exactly the same thing. In fact, both can be summarized in two words. Behave, please.

In the US, you may not slander or incite violence, but you aren't required to say the pledge of allegiance. Forced speech and prohibited speech are not the same at all.

Behavior is the same way. Regardless of your feelings toward me,, I'm sure you understand that.

[Unoriginal]

@Easy_Lee, you invited us here for a "Fight me", and when people took you up, instead of arguing in good faith, or at least making jokes, you instead declared "meta behind meta behind meta", and "I'm defending another thread" (which you previously did not name).

Please apologize to me now.


If you post junk like this, no one will want to engage with you on any thread. What are you doing, man?

Seriously, guys, just put him on Ignore. You're not going to get anything from him expect what he keeps doing.

I'm all for giving second chances, but when it's continually thrown at your face there is a limit.

...Actually, Easy_Lee just admitted being deliberately trying to bait people into being angry. Isn't that a bannable offense?


:biggrin:

Superb!


In my bardic opinion, it's rather good.

Thank you :)

[DivisibleByZero]

The best response to toxicity is to show people how easy it is to make them toxic. Self-awareness is the virtue from which all others flow.

You're not showing people how easy it is to make them toxic.
You're being toxic and then pretending it is a response.

And here we go again about how "self aware" E_L is.... when the exact opposite is what we're being presented with.

[War_lord]

Not very self aware to make an intentionally incendiary series of posts, and then be genuinely offended when people take you up on your invitation to "fight" you. If you feel this forum is overly toxic, well continuing to be a major contributor to that atmosphere isn't exactly helping, particularly when you totally refuse to take any responsibility when you're told you're a major offender.


In the US, you may not slander or incite violence, but you aren't required to say the pledge of allegiance. Forced speech and prohibited speech are not the same at all.

Behavior is the same way. Regardless of your feelings toward me,, I'm sure you understand that.

Social interaction isn't the same as protected politic speech, you're allowed hold whatever opinions you want, people are allowed decide they don't want to associate with you or interact with you as a result of those beliefs. You have no "right" to people's time.

[smcmike]

The best response to toxicity is to show people how easy it is to make them toxic. Self-awareness is the virtue from which all others flow. If you think I'm being toxic in this thread, the best thing to do is to not reply.

Wait, I thought the best response to toxicity was to show how people how easy to make them toxic? Which is it? Am I supposed to troll people to draw out the toxicity, or ignore them?

I’m here to try to demonstrate to you that trolling people into negative responses is pretty toxic.



None of those has been the typical response. People decided they didn't like what I had to say, took my tone 100% seriously, and responded. And kept responding...why do you suppose that is?

Because taking someone seriously and responding to their arguments is a respectful mode of conversation.

As to why we keep responding, well, some of us just can’t resist an argument. I freely admit that about myself. I try to keep it respectful, though, and to argue in good faith.

You have demonstrated bad faith on this thread. That’s the real toxicity.



In the US, you may not slander or insite violence, but you aren't required to say the pledge of allegiance. Forced speech and prohibited speech are not the same at all.

They are actually quite similar. The reason you don’t have to recite the pledge of allegiance is the same reason that you can engage in active political speech.

[Easy_Lee]

Not very self aware to make an intentionally incendiary series of posts, and then be genuinely offended when people take you up on your invitation to "fight" you.

What makes you think I'm "genuinely" offended? I expected all of this.

If people wonder where the toxicity comes from, this is it: taking offense to your perception of the person you're talking to. If I can teach people that one thing, I'll have done some good.

[War_lord]

If I can teach people that one thing, I'll have done some good.

More toxic behavior. Right now, if I was asked "who do you think is the most toxic person on the forum", it would be Easy_Lee, because this is the tone you take to every. Single. Post.

You keep complaining about our perception of you, if you don't want to be perceived this way, stop acting it.

[Bastian Weaver]

In the US, you may not slander or incite violence, but you aren't required to say the pledge of allegiance. Forced speech and prohibited speech are not the same at all.

Behavior is the same way. Regardless of your feelings toward me,, I'm sure you understand that.

Good behaviour is what you do when you're not offending anyone.
Like, you've been writing awful things about people, horrible, even, or is awful worse than horrible? I'm not quite sure. Whatever, no one's really hurt, so we can safely say that you behave and no mistake.

[jas61292]

Not sure how on topic this thread still is, but to respond to the OP, I do agree that the DM is a player. That, however, does not mean that they are like everyone else. The DM is a player in a D&D game, just like a quarterback is a player in a football game. Yes, they absolutely are a player, but that does not mean their role is equal to other players, and nor does it mean that the rules apply to them in the same ways that they apply to everyone else. While they are there for the same reasons as the other players, and they win and lose (enjoy themselves or not) right alongside their teammates, that does not mean they do not, or should not, have different rules applying to them. After all, they certainly have different expectations applying to them.

Now as far as role-playing, well, to keep the metaphor going, playing D&D, a role-playing game, without role-playing, is like playing a football game without a ball. Is it technically possible? Sorta... but not really. Role-playing is essential to D&D, and you really are not playing it without it. That said, there are a ton of misconceptions about role-playing, and if the real point here is that "your way of role-playing is no more correct than mine," then yes, that is true.

[DivisibleByZero]

What makes you think I'm "genuinely" offended? I expected all of this.

So 100% clear admittance that this is purely trolling.
Saved for posterity.

And that, by the way directly contradicts what you said previously.


I will revise my estimate, and conclude that you are trolling. Cheers, see who else bites.

This is for you.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

So which is it?
No need to answer. We all already know.

And so here, once again, we have E_L claiming one thing when it suits his purposes, only to claim the exact opposite later when that suits his purposes instead.

Not an anomaly.

[Easy_Lee]

Whatever, no one's really hurt, so we can safely say that you behave and no mistake.

I'm not sure I understood that sentence...


You keep complaining about our perception of you, if you don't want to be perceived this way, stop acting it.

You seem to believe I can control the way I'm perceived. I can't. I can influence it, if you're open to me. But I can't make you perceive me the way I'd like to be perceived. That's a fact.

You are in full control of how you interpret my posts.

[War_lord]

You seem to believe I can control the way I'm perceived. I can't. I can influence it, if you're open to me. But I can't make you perceive me the way I'd like to be perceived. That's a fact.

No, you can very easily change the way you're perceived, if you act like a jerk who thinks he knows better then everyone else, that's how you'll be perceived, and people will treat you accordingly. The only person who can control your attitude is you. This is a basic tenet of social interaction. No one has a duty to go through your posts and try to present it in the best light possible. If to you legitimately don't want to piss people off as often was you do, you could start by being prepared to actually listen to opposing viewpoints. It is after all a discussion forum.

[Unoriginal]

I know it's tempting to keep arguing, but this thread demonstrated everything that needed to be demonstrated (or at least, that could be demonstrated).

Just Ignore Easy_Lee and let it go.

[Easy_Lee]

No, you can very easily change the way you're perceived, if you act like a jerk who thinks he knows better then everyone else, that's how you'll be perceived, and people will treat you accordingly. The only person who can control your attitude is you. This is a basic tenet of social interaction. No one has a duty to go through your posts and try to present it in the best light possible. If to you legitimately don't want to piss people off as often was you do, you could start by being prepared to actually listen to opposing viewpoints. It is after all a discussion forum.

If you're talking about social interaction specifically, I have some expertise here. Different groups decide what they find offensive, and what they don't. Beyond obvious things like violence, there's a lot of difference across cultures.

And this is an internet forum. We have people from all over the world. Do you really think you can consistently say a thing is offensive, or not?

Like I said, I can't control you. But you can. Instead of telling me what I should do, I suggest you think about what you can do. Taking action is always better than making demands.

[War_lord]

If you're talking about social interaction specifically, I have some expertise here.

Actually, you don't. Somebody with "some expertise" would have a basic handle on the idea that if one acts likes an odious jerk to a group of people, that group will eventually begin to respond in kind.


Different groups decide what they find offensive, and what they don't. Beyond obvious things like violence, there's a lot of difference across cultures.

Acting superior to the group without actually occupying any position of authority is universally a way to turn people against you. Nobody likes a know it all, nobody likes a hypocrite.


And this is an internet forum. We have people from all over the world. Do you really think you can consistently say a thing is offensive, or not?

Yes, we have rules for the purpose of outlining what behavior is and is not acceptable. Everyone agreed to them when creating an account. No one can claim ignorance of the expectations here. No one is above the rules as much as you like to act as if you are. If you want a free for all, go to 4chan, I suspect you already do.


Like I said, I can't control you. But you can. Instead of telling me what I should do, I suggest you think about what you can do. Taking action is always better than making demands.

If you're not going to act in good faith, no one is obligated to listen to you.

[Finieous]

But I'm also self-aware. I believe self-awareness is the virtue from which all others flow.


If you're talking about social interaction specifically, I have some expertise here.

I'm not asking because it's none of my business, but this is getting really uncomfortable and I feel like there may be something neuroatypical going on here. If that's the case (and no need to confirm or deny), I sincerely apologize to Easy for arguing with him in the past, and, if I'm honest, even mocking some of his commentary.

I'm starting to feel like a bit of a heel. :smallfrown:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not asking because it's none of my business, but this is getting really uncomfortable and I feel like there may be something neuroatypical going on here. If that's the case (and no need to confirm or deny), I sincerely apologize to Easy for arguing with him in the past, and, if I'm honest, even mocking some of his commentary.

I'm starting to feel like a bit of a heel. :smallfrown:

Being neuroatypical (or any other non-typical physiology or psychology) is not a shield for bad behavior. Especially when it's weaponized bad behavior. Blaming it on such also unfairly slanders the neuroatypical with the behavior of the obnoxious.

Neuroatypical =/= obnoxious (and vice versa). I've known people with that psychology who were the nicest people ever (and way more self-aware)--in fact, all of the real jerks I've known have been "normal" (whatever that means, since we're all weird in our own separate ways).

The solution to bad behavior on a forum is to use the ignore/report functionality and otherwise don't feed the behavior. Same goes for those larger behaviors--starting alignment fights, insisting on personal (and odd) definitions of railroading, etc. Minor things--let them go. Walk away. Major things (or minor things repeated over and over when asked to stop)--ignore the poster.

I'll admit to deleting a lot of posts before they're posted because I couldn't do it without getting personally involved and angry at "people being wrong on the internet." I've also let a few slip by, for which I apologize. Please call me out if I seem to be making a personal attack. I try not to (and only rarely are those attacks intended), but I'm never quite sure how text comes across in the absence of nonverbal cues.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Uggggh, how do we just get a moderator in here and ban-hammer this guy to kingdom come. Purposefully baiting people with promised debate followed up by toxic comments and non-commital points is obvious trolling. Trolling is a bannable offense, and apparently this is not the first time he's done things like this.
Ban Ban!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTulYQ4fMNnnEh97SWjb6TytJVME_cq3 j6GI_s_l9IaHVq1QBMrDQ

[Unoriginal]

I'm not asking because it's none of my business, but this is getting really uncomfortable and I feel like there may be something neuroatypical going on here. If that's the case (and no need to confirm or deny), I sincerely apologize to Easy for arguing with him in the past, and, if I'm honest, even mocking some of his commentary.

I'm starting to feel like a bit of a heel. :smallfrown:

No reason to feel like a heel.

[DivisibleByZero]

If you're talking about social interaction specifically, I have some expertise here.
Of course you do....


Instead of telling me what I should do, I suggest you think about what you can do.
You mean like telling us what we should and should not allow at our own tables, a'la the OP?
Take your own advice.


If you get in the habit of insisting that everyone else behave just like you, you'll quickly find yourself all alone, because you're weird and no one is just like you.
You mean like inciting others, and then getting backlash, and then having everyone come down on your for it, only to the backpedal and claim that was what you wanted all along?
Take your own advice.

[2D8HP]

...Please stick around insulting me in this thread. That will keep the rest of the forum much cleaner. I'll keep stoking the fire, as needed....

I fail to see how engendering anger and confusion "will keep the rest of the forum much cleaner"



...The best response to toxicity is to show people how easy it is to make them toxic.


Yes Easy_Lee,

You have demonstrated to me how obfuscation, and false invitations that are not leavened with humor may make me annoyed.

Sadly, previously I was feeling upbeat about the Forum, as I posted to the

Toxicity in the 5e forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541381-Mean-Spiritedness-(formally-Toxicity)-in-the-5e-forum) thread:


...I've only ever posted on one other Forum (a plumbers and tools Forum), which got quite rancorous over topics the Mods here wisely ban.

Compared to that Forum, this Forum seems quite polite....

....Oh yes, things flare up from time to time but generally I find folks very sweet here..!


Easy_Lee the only times previous to this thread that I bantered with you were:


D&D 5e encourages DMs to make Rulings, Not Rules. But what does that mean?

The core idea is simple: 5e is rules-light compared with previous editions, and the DM is encouraged to make rulings as he or she deems appropriate.
OK, I admit my eyes glazed over in reading arguments of I'm not sure what in this thread, and I skipped a lot of posts, so maybe someone has addressed this but "rules light compared with previous editions"??!!!??
The 1977 "blue book" rules from the Basic Set was 48 pages, the small-print 1978 PHB was 128 pages, as was the large-print 1994 The Classic Dungeons and Dragons Rules and Adventures Book. The 5e PHB is over 316 freakin' pages.

5e Light?

What monstrosity of an edition is heavy than?


Hahahahahahahaha. You really never looked at 3.5, did you?


To be fair, I should have qualified my post by saying 5e is rules-light compared to some previous editions. My preference would be for the core rules book to be less than 100 pages, and make judicious use of specific, defined, consistent terminology.

.and


....But almost every woman who gets coverage is pigeonholed into the same stereotype - manic pixie dream girl.....


Yes, that's been a big disappointment.

All the game playing women and girls (and boys and men as well) that I've known have been human.

Not a single pixie!

:annoyed:


At no time before saying I was "too nice" in this thread did you quote me, nor do I much remember you Easy_Lee, so I had no idea that you would pull the kind of bait-and-switch that you have here.

I suggest that you delete most of your posts in this thread that are after your OP, and then have the courtesy to start responding to the posts, such as mine, people made in response to those topics.

As to your "meta" agenda, that you had "all along"?

Please just don't.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not asking because it's none of my business, but this is getting really uncomfortable and I feel like there may be something neuroatypical going on here. If that's the case (and no need to confirm or deny), I sincerely apologize to Easy for arguing with him in the past, and, if I'm honest, even mocking some of his commentary.

I'm starting to feel like a bit of a heel. :smallfrown:

Ah, autism. There's bound to be some in any community. No, I'm not talking about autism. But, if you think I'm autistic (or neuro atypical) - in good faith to your post, I won't confirm or deny, but regardless - you shouldn't feel bad about arguing with me. You can't argue with someone who you don't at least respect a little.

[War_lord]

I'm not asking because it's none of my business, but this is getting really uncomfortable and I feel like there may be something neuroatypical going on here. If that's the case (and no need to confirm or deny), I sincerely apologize to Easy for arguing with him in the past, and, if I'm honest, even mocking some of his commentary.

I'm starting to feel like a bit of a heel. :smallfrown:

I can't say anything about anyone else, but I'm "neuroatypical", and acted like Lee is acting, and rationalized how Lee is rationalizing all through the equivalent of High School. The result of which was that I didn't have any mates in school and was a bitter young man.

My point being that I don't think anti-social behavior should be excused for any reason. Calling it out can do good, letting it sit does nothing but harm.