Let's remember that all ways of playing D&D are valid

[Hackulator]

There are a lot of arguments on this board about how to play this game. RAW, RAI, almost no rules, homebrew out the yin-yang and everything in between, above and below. It's important to remember that even though we, as high level nerds, may get hyped up in these arguments because we believe our way is best, there is no best way to play D&D. The only thing that matters when you play D&D is that everyone at the table is having a good time. Whatever set of rules interpretations you used to get to everyone having a good time is immaterial. Now, at any given table, it may take some time to work out a good way for everyone to have fun, but that's not really that different from any other social situation, and that's what D&D is, it's just a social situation, a bunch of people hanging out doing things they enjoy.

So while we may disagree on the details, let's not forget in the end D&D is something that's bringing us all joy, however we might be playing it. Even the arguments about it.

[maruahm]

Wrong. The only correct way to play D&D is to play a monk.

[JNAProductions]

There are a lot of arguments on this board about how to play this game. RAW, RAI, almost no rules, homebrew out the yin-yang and everything in between, above and below. It's important to remember that even though we, as high level nerds, may get hyped up in these arguments because we believe our way is best, there is no best way to play D&D. The only thing that matters when you play D&D is that everyone at the table is having a good time. Whatever set of rules interpretations you used to get to everyone having a good time is immaterial. Now, at any given table, it may take some time to work out a good way for everyone to have fun, but that's not really that different from any other social situation, and that's what D&D is, it's just a social situation, a bunch of people hanging out doing things they enjoy.

So while we may disagree on the details, let's not forget in the end D&D is something that's bringing us all joy, however we might be playing it. Even the arguments about it.

You're wrong and should feel bad for that. :P

Yeah, I getcha. Everyone has their own playstyle-so long as you aren't calling others wrong or bad for how they enjoy their game (barring, of course, if they're actually hurting people with their style*) who really cares?

There's a poster on this forum who takes pride in sending players running from their table in tears. That's not acceptable.

But just not having fun due to stylistic incompatibilities? Find a new table, but it's not a bad deal.

[Hackulator]

You're wrong and should feel bad for that. :P

Yeah, I getcha. Everyone has their own playstyle-so long as you aren't calling others wrong or bad for how they enjoy their game (barring, of course, if they're actually hurting people with their style*) who really cares?

There's a poster on this forum who takes pride in sending players running from their table in tears. That's not acceptable.

But just not having fun due to stylistic incompatibilities? Find a new table, but it's not a bad deal.

Yeah there is a line where you move from it being any sort of D&D argument to just straight being an *******.

[zlefin]

There are a lot of arguments on this board about how to play this game. RAW, RAI, almost no rules, homebrew out the yin-yang and everything in between, above and below. It's important to remember that even though we, as high level nerds, may get hyped up in these arguments because we believe our way is best, there is no best way to play D&D. The only thing that matters when you play D&D is that everyone at the table is having a good time. Whatever set of rules interpretations you used to get to everyone having a good time is immaterial. Now, at any given table, it may take some time to work out a good way for everyone to have fun, but that's not really that different from any other social situation, and that's what D&D is, it's just a social situation, a bunch of people hanging out doing things they enjoy.

So while we may disagree on the details, let's not forget in the end D&D is something that's bringing us all joy, however we might be playing it. Even the arguments about it.

pedantic counterpoint:
you're disputing your own premise.
1. you state all ways of playing DnD are valid.
2. you state that the only thing that matters is everyone at the table having a good time.
3. but there exist ways of playing DnD that depend on ruining others' fun; as well as a whole lot more that ruin others' fun but don't directly depend on it.

so your positions 1 and 2 are in conflict.
(and note that mine includes issues beyond what JNA noted, so counterpoints to him don't fully address mine)

[maruahm]

pedantic counterpoint:
you're disputing your own premise.
1. you state all ways of playing DnD are valid.
2. you state that the only thing that matters is everyone at the table having a good time.
3. but there exist ways of playing DnD that depend on ruining others' fun; as well as a whole lot more that ruin others' fun but don't directly depend on it.

so your positions 1 and 2 are in conflict.

It's not necessarily in conflict if you believe that it's possible that ruining others' fun is a valid way to play D&D. :smalltongue:

[Quertus]

Oh, fun, maximum pedantry thread.

So,


there is no best way to play D&D.

Sounds reasonable. But is it true?

Most people agree that "my guy" is a bad thing - so is "playing in a way that doesn't produce 'my guy'" better than not doing so?

Most people agree that the players cheating is bad - so is "not cheating" better than not doing so?

Most people agree that failure to follow the GM's character creation rules is bad - so is "following the GM's character creation rules" better than not doing so?

I think that, of the criteria listed, if we made a Venn diagram or some such, most people would agree that, of the possible combinations, a game where players "follow the GM's character creation rules, don't cheat, and don't play 'my guy'" is best.

So, is it meaningful to have conversations about gaming habits, and the ability to make improvements, or are cheating my-guys who field characters irrespective of the campaign requirements welcome at your tables?

[RoboEmperor]

There are wrong ways to play the game. The most egregious example is the scrub DM.

The scrub DM doesn't like how AC is rendered useless mid game so he house rules that all characters, including fighters, only get half BAB.
The scrub DM doesn't like how Troll's regeneration works so he house rules its regeneration to just fast healing.
The scrub DM instead of learning the system and dealing with the issues within the rules, he nerfs anything and everything he doesn't like until the game is no longer d&d.
The scrub DM brings in his real world politics into the game and defines what is justice, good, evil and has an epic level wizard controlling a 1st level party to railroad them into his justice and TPK them whenever they do anything he views "evil".

I rather play with munchkins and cheaters than a mother ****ing scrub DM.

[Darth Ultron]

There's a poster on this forum who takes pride in sending players running from their table in tears.

A group of lions is known as a pride :)

In a vague statement, sure, all ways of playing are valid.....but that does not really make them all 'ok'.

[Hackulator]

As I said above when I replied to JNAProductions, there is a line when we're not talking about differences in how we play D&D but basic decency. If at any point your idea of having fun is to make other people miserable, you're kind of a ****ty person and that has nothing to do with D&D.

[Selion]

Let's remember that all ways of playing D&D are valid

Fixed

[Quertus]

Let's remember that all ways of playing D&D are valid

Fixed

"All are valid" is substantially different from "there is not a best".

Given that I was taught that role-playing was Good, and "my guy" was grounds for sainthood, I'm all about the validity of multiple styles. I can agree with this much more readily than the details of the supposition of the OP, and the implications of the OP.

And, for the record? Games played in the "my guy" style are the most fun - or, rather, have the highest ceiling for fun IME.

[Ellrin]

Let's remember that all ways of playing D&D are valid
Does this include playing Freecell solitaire and calling it D&D? I always thought that was at least partially invalid.

[maruahm]

Does this include playing Freecell solitaire and calling it D&D? I always thought that was at least partially invalid.

If this is wrong, I don't want to be right.

[Selion]

"All are valid" is substantially different from "there is not a best".

Given that I was taught that role-playing was Good, and "my guy" was grounds for sainthood, I'm all about the validity of multiple styles. I can agree with this much more readily than the details of the supposition of the OP, and the implications of the OP.

And, for the record? Games played in the "my guy" style are the most fun - or, rather, have the highest ceiling for fun IME.

Well, you could like "fettuccine alfredo"*, i can say that fettuccine alfredo are not an italian dish, i can say that you won't find fettuccine alfredo anywhere in italy and that it is wrong to serve them in italian restaurant in USA, but you like them the same. We probably won't have a lunch together, and if we do it would be just to have company, but i will not enjoy the meal.

*Calling fettuccine alfredo, the way they are found in USA, an italian dish is worse than calling freecell solitaire D&D

[Uncle Pine]

There are a lot of arguments on this board about how to play this game. RAW, RAI, almost no rules, homebrew out the yin-yang and everything in between, above and below. It's important to remember that even though we, as high level nerds, may get hyped up in these arguments because we believe our way is best, there is no best way to play D&D. The only thing that matters when you play D&D is that everyone at the table is having a good time. Whatever set of rules interpretations you used to get to everyone having a good time is immaterial. Now, at any given table, it may take some time to work out a good way for everyone to have fun, but that's not really that different from any other social situation, and that's what D&D is, it's just a social situation, a bunch of people hanging out doing things they enjoy.

So while we may disagree on the details, let's not forget in the end D&D is something that's bringing us all joy, however we might be playing it. Even the arguments about it.
I broadly agree with the statement that there are no wrong ways to play d&d, as long as everyone at the table is having fun. However, it can be hard to discuss on such a broad topic on an online board if you need to build common bases for the debate in regards to some hot topics such as RAW/RAI. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that most of these arguments you mention are far less about antagonizing different styles of playing and more about attempting to provide better guidelines for the user who created a thread asking a question: labels like RAW/RAI only serve as ways to better navigate the spectrum of possibilities.

[noob]

I broadly agree with the statement that there are no wrong ways to play d&d, as long as everyone at the table is having fun. However, it can be hard to discuss on such a broad topic on an online board if you need to build common bases for the debate in regards to some hot topics such as RAW/RAI. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that most of these arguments you mention are far less about antagonizing different styles of playing and more about attempting to provide better guidelines for the user who created a thread asking a question: labels like RAW/RAI only serve as ways to better navigate the spectrum of possibilities.

That is simply not true unless you add the extra following things: following the laws and not harming humans.(if some business owners played at dnd and decided that each time one of their characters die they fire an employee I am quite sure most people would consider it is not an appropriate way to play dnd)

[Uncle Pine]

That is simply not true unless you add the extra following things: following the laws and not harming humans.(if some business owners played at dnd and decided that each time one of their characters die they fire an employee I am quite sure most people would consider it is not an appropriate way to play dnd)
An irrelevant specification, as those are covered by the "living in a civilized society" clause.

[MeimuHakurei]

I wanted to join the conversation because my biggest draw for D&D is the game mechanics, thinking how individual feats, classes, spells and so on can be used in a build and also how the backstory of a character would look with a given spec, especially the oddball ideas. Roleplaying is quite nice, but the ability to socialize, get into character or come up with creative ideas is not inherent to D&D - the game mechanics very much are, however.

[Crake]

There are wrong ways to play the game. The most egregious example is the scrub DM.

The scrub DM doesn't like how AC is rendered useless mid game so he house rules that all characters, including fighters, only get half BAB.
The scrub DM doesn't like how Troll's regeneration works so he house rules its regeneration to just fast healing.
The scrub DM instead of learning the system and dealing with the issues within the rules, he nerfs anything and everything he doesn't like until the game is no longer d&d.
The scrub DM brings in his real world politics into the game and defines what is justice, good, evil and has an epic level wizard controlling a 1st level party to railroad them into his justice and TPK them whenever they do anything he views "evil".

I rather play with munchkins and cheaters than a mother ****ing scrub DM.

Just want to point out that since the DM is the arbiter of the game, their definition of justice/good/evil is the setting's definition of justice/good/evil while you're playing under them. If you can't accept that, don't play something that hinges on morality.

[Cosi]

The statement "all games are valid" is either so vacuous as to be meaningless, or false. If you just mean "it's possible to have fun playing in any particular way", then sure, but that's because RPGs are just a derivative of "hanging out with people you like talking about a mutual interest" which is inherently fun. But there are absolutely ways to "do it wrong" to one degree or another while playing a RPG. You could, for example, decide to play E6 because you wanted a game about world-conquering demigods. It's not that an E6 game is an inherently bad choice, it's that the reason you're making it doesn't align with the effects of doing so.


Just want to point out that since the DM is the arbiter of the game, their definition of justice/good/evil is the setting's definition of justice/good/evil while you're playing under them. If you can't accept that, don't play something that hinges on morality.

Or, maybe the paradigm where DM is 100% in charge and makes all decisions about the setting and paradigm without any input or negotiation from the rest of the players is unhealthy and leads to games that are unsatisfying. "Do what I want or leave, no questions asked" is not a sign of a good DM. Part of the job of the DM is being flexible enough to support the character concepts people want. You should not be saying things like "that Cleric is unacceptable because it requires a different take on alignment" or "that Incarnate is unacceptable because I didn't leave any space for Incarnum in my setting". You should be working to facilitate those characters, making minor modifications to your ideas as necessary.

[Hackulator]

There are wrong ways to play the game. The most egregious example is the scrub DM.

The scrub DM doesn't like how AC is rendered useless mid game so he house rules that all characters, including fighters, only get half BAB.
The scrub DM doesn't like how Troll's regeneration works so he house rules its regeneration to just fast healing.
The scrub DM instead of learning the system and dealing with the issues within the rules, he nerfs anything and everything he doesn't like until the game is no longer d&d.
The scrub DM brings in his real world politics into the game and defines what is justice, good, evil and has an epic level wizard controlling a 1st level party to railroad them into his justice and TPK them whenever they do anything he views "evil".

I rather play with munchkins and cheaters than a mother ****ing scrub DM.

I'll be honest, almost none of this made a lick of sense to me. The scrub DM...does homebrew? The last part I sort of get, though how you expect the DM to not be the one who defines good and evil in his game is beyond me.

[HouseRules]

I'll be honest, almost none of this made a lick of sense to me. The scrub DM...does homebrew? The last part I sort of get, though how you expect the DM to not be the one who defines good and evil in his game is beyond me.

They are the players that play Chaotic Evil Characters that are labeled Lawful Good within the game.

[Particle_Man]

I am more of a pluralist. There are multiple ways to do it right and multiple ways to do it wrong. Luckily people can improve from doing one of the latter to doing one of the former.

[unseenmage]

Much as with this conversation, is the only way to win not to play?

Seriously though, is abstaining from play a valid style of play?

In part or in full?

Does the player who agreed to play, built the character, then never shows up get credit for playing acceptably?
The oft encountered (or oft un-encountered) absentee GM here on the boards?

Does the player who builds to obviate as much play as possible still count as playing?

A godwizard or even presenting Pun-Pun as a serious character concept that literally sidesteps as many interactions with the rules as possible so as to never need to roll; do those count?

[Quertus]

Or, maybe the paradigm where DM is 100% in charge and makes all decisions about the setting and paradigm without any input or negotiation from the rest of the players is unhealthy and leads to games that are unsatisfying. "Do what I want or leave, no questions asked" is not a sign of a good DM. Part of the job of the DM is being flexible enough to support the character concepts people want. You should not be saying things like "that Cleric is unacceptable because it requires a different take on alignment" or "that Incarnate is unacceptable because I didn't leave any space for Incarnum in my setting". You should be working to facilitate those characters, making minor modifications to your ideas as necessary.

+1 this... mostly. I very strongly agree with most of this.

So, I'm all about letting the GM do cool world-building. And, if it is physically impossible for X to exist on the world, or to survive once it gets there (an ancient epic spell once per round no save insta-kills anything with Draconic heritage within 10 light years of the planet), then, yeah, it's valid for the GM to say "nothing Draconic".

At which point, I'll likely be playing the agent of the dragons, here to take down the barrier.

Of course, if the GM is making the world from scratch, then intentionally building the world to invalidate someone's character is a **** move. But preexisting worlds are allowed to exist, and to be internally consistent. The question is, is that the world that will produce the most fun for this group? Or should you run the game set somewhere else?

Otherwise, yes, your mindset is clearly "better" than the alternative.


A godwizard or even presenting Pun-Pun as a serious character concept that literally sidesteps as many interactions with the rules as possible so as to never need to roll; do those count?

Well, that's one way to put emphasis on "role-playing": by deemphasizing the "game" aspect.

[Troacctid]

Some other things that we should all remember:

1. All players are people.
2. Someone generally has to be the GM in order for a game to happen.
3. Dungeons & Dragons is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast.
4. While the game has had several editions over the years, all of them use dice.
5. The default setting in D&D 3.5 is Greyhawk, but other settings are also supported.
6. Despite common misconceptions among certain religious communities, D&D is not actually designed to be a gateway to Satanism.
7. In addition to the classic roleplaying game, several other tabletop games have been produced using the D&D brand, including but not limited to Lords of Waterdeep, Dragonfire, and Dungeon Mayhem.
8. Druids are actually somewhat overpowered compared to monks.
9. All classes in the PHB have 20 levels, although the epic rules can advance them further.
10. Your wizard character may be able to fly and turn invisible in the game, but LARPing as them will not grant you the ability to fly and turn invisible in real life.

I assume all of these incredibly uncontroversial statements will also be getting their own helpful PSA threads in the near future.

[jdizzlean]

Wrong. The only correct way to play D&D is to play a Lightning Warrior.

fixed that for you.

[RoboEmperor]

I'll be honest, almost none of this made a lick of sense to me. The scrub DM...does homebrew? The last part I sort of get, though how you expect the DM to not be the one who defines good and evil in his game is beyond me.

Scrub:https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Scrub

A Scrub is a player of a competitive video game who adamantly believes that their "house rules" should apply to everyone to promote their view of "fair play". If a scrub sees a move or strategy they don't like (or can't beat), they ban it (if only in their own mind), and complains that anyone who uses it is cheap.

A scrub DM is one that doesn't bother learning the system and immediately jumps to house rules. A DM who thinks monks are OP and needs to be banned for example, or a DM who thinks making fighters should only get half BAB so AC stays relevant later levels, or a DM who thinks troll regeneration is OP, are DMs who don't deserve to DM because they spent 0 minutes learning the system and is in it solely to railroad players through his fantasy story that he wrote.

When you get a communist DM or a DM spouting "justice" and acts like a lawful stupid r***** and railroad punishes anyone who disagrees him, you know this is a problem. I kid you not I had a communist DM spouting what you hear in pro communism propaganda from those old cartoons with NPCs all stronger than the PCs killing any PC who disagrees with his view. DM defines good and evil my ass. He used his position to act like he was the wisest human being on earth and that he knew what's right and what's wrong and he was "educating" us about the truth.

[Deophaun]

I broadly agree with the statement that there are no wrong ways to play d&d, as long as everyone at the table is having fun.
To be fair, if you do cause the players who are not having fun to actually run screaming from the table, then everyone at the table at the end is having fun, making that a valid play style.

[maruahm]

1. All players are people.

True, unfortunately. We've been experimenting with a doggo, but he's not ready for his own character yet.


2. Someone generally has to be the GM in order for a game to happen.

True.


3. Dungeons & Dragons is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast.

Yep. TSR went defunct when I was too small to play AD&D. That said, I will insist that the best lore was written in those years. Nothing quite like Planescape has come out since.


4. While the game has had several editions over the years, all of them use dice.

True. Even if your build maximally avoids dice-rolling, you'll eventually have to roll Spot, Listen, or initiative against your will. Not to mention possible dice-rolling for ability scores and HP.


5. The default setting in D&D 3.5 is Greyhawk, but other settings are also supported.

True. It's default and yet it's somehow also one of the most poorly supported 3.5e settings. Outside of the Greyhawk Gazetteer, you'll need to dive back into AD&D 2e books to get any real lore about the setting. The lore isn't that great anyways IMHO, so we're not missing out on much.


6. Despite common misconceptions among certain religious communities, D&D is not actually designed to be a gateway to Satanism.

True. Unfortunately.


7. In addition to the classic roleplaying game, several other tabletop games have been produced using the D&D brand, including but not limited to Lords of Waterdeep, Dragonfire, and Dungeon Mayhem.

This is new to me.


8. Druids are actually somewhat overpowered compared to monks.

Too true. An IRL table back in college needed an experienced DM, and I gently brought them into RPGs through 5e and OSR. That's when they asked me about 3.5e, and I told them the story of the arseplomancer. Naturally, they asked to play 3.5e.

Even for totally-new players, or perhaps especially among totally-new players, the druid quickly outshines everyone else.

The party was a sorcerer, cleric, druid, and monk. I gave the monk a free VoP without drawbacks. The monk actually did kinda OK at level 6, then fell off by level 10.


9. All classes in the PHB have 20 levels, although the epic rules can advance them further.

I could swear there's a 13-level class somewhere.


10. Your wizard character may be able to fly and turn invisible in the game, but LARPing as them will not grant you the ability to fly and turn invisible in real life.

Partly false. I can LARP as a wizard then fly from NYC to Hong Kong. Only haters will say that taking a plane isn't flying.

Just gotta figure out the invisibility part.

[HouseRules]

I could swear there's a 13-level class somewhere.

Are you sure you are not talking about Grand Master of Flowers (level 14) of OD&D and AD&D the level cap for Monks?

[RifleAvenger]

Or, maybe the paradigm where DM is 100% in charge and makes all decisions about the setting and paradigm without any input or negotiation from the rest of the players is unhealthy and leads to games that are unsatisfying. "Do what I want or leave, no questions asked" is not a sign of a good DM. Part of the job of the DM is being flexible enough to support the character concepts people want. You should not be saying things like "that Cleric is unacceptable because it requires a different take on alignment"I agree with this, up to a point...


or "that Incarnate is unacceptable because I didn't leave any space for Incarnum in my setting". You should be working to facilitate those characters, making minor modifications to your ideas as necessary.Here's where I get off. Something like Incarnum necessitates major changes to the setting, or foreshadows major changes if it's a recent discovery. Setting, characters, tone, and story should be collaborative to an extent (esp. characters and as relates to the PC's and their personal arcs). But imo the GM should get the biggest say in everything not related to the PC's, and sometimes that includes running a setting that prohibits specific character ideas.

I think this because, as a GM, I want to hold games in the settings and worlds I actually wish to run. I can tweak stuff to an extent, and you have to be flexible for a world to survive contact with PC's, but someone essentially requesting I add an entire crystal magic/magitek system into the setting to accommodate their character begins to veer into "asking too much."

In my current group, which has played together several years unbroken at this point, the only game that outright died was one in which everyone was excited to PLAY in the setting, but no one wanted to RUN it, and the GM (not me) who was pressured into filling the role hated it. The GM needs to have fun too, and having a larger degree of control over the world is, imo, a big part of that fun.

To the original point about alignment and morality, abiding the GM's code is only ok if the system/worldview it investigates is actually interesting. If it's used as a way to push the GM's worldview or has gaping flaws, but exploring those flaws is discouraged instead of being a point of the game, it's easily a huge negative and a great example of where authoritarian setting building creates unpleasant games.

[Particle_Man]

I could swear there's a 13-level class somewhere.


Are you sure you are not talking about Grand Master of Flowers (level 14) of OD&D and AD&D the level cap for Monks?

Wasn't there some sort of rule for league play that you had to retire at level 13? And of course, outside of core there are prestige classes that don't neatly fit into 3-level, 5-level or 10-level boxes.

[Hackulator]

Scrub:https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Scrub


A scrub DM is one that doesn't bother learning the system and immediately jumps to house rules. A DM who thinks monks are OP and needs to be banned for example, or a DM who thinks making fighters should only get half BAB so AC stays relevant later levels, or a DM who thinks troll regeneration is OP, are DMs who don't deserve to DM because they spent 0 minutes learning the system and is in it solely to railroad players through his fantasy story that he wrote.

When you get a communist DM or a DM spouting "justice" and acts like a lawful stupid r***** and railroad punishes anyone who disagrees him, you know this is a problem. I kid you not I had a communist DM spouting what you hear in pro communism propaganda from those old cartoons with NPCs all stronger than the PCs killing any PC who disagrees with his view. DM defines good and evil my ass. He used his position to act like he was the wisest human being on earth and that he knew what's right and what's wrong and he was "educating" us about the truth.

You're quoting me a trope about competitive video game players, but D&D is not a video game.

A communist DM? Where do you live that these things are happening?

[AmeVulpes]

A communist DM? Where do you live that these things are happening?

I'm having a hard time thinking of any first-world country without a communist party.

[Particle_Man]

I'm having a hard time thinking of any first-world country without a communist party.

Canada has or had two. I kept wondering what made their differences so great that they felt the need to split the few votes they got in federal elections. It was like the splitters joke in Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.

[Hackulator]

I'm having a hard time thinking of any first-world country without a communist party.

I more meant like, having a hardcore communist DM who is forcing his players to listen to communist propaganda, which is clearyl what he is implying.

[HouseRules]

Wasn't there some sort of rule for league play that you had to retire at level 13? And of course, outside of core there are prestige classes that don't neatly fit into 3-level, 5-level or 10-level boxes.

Pathfinder Society plays E12 rules. Your character has to retire if they reach level 13.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Here's where I get off. Something like Incarnum necessitates major changes to the setting, or foreshadows major changes if it's a recent discovery. Setting, characters, tone, and story should be collaborative to an extent (esp. characters and as relates to the PC's and their personal arcs). But imo the GM should get the biggest say in everything not related to the PC's, and sometimes that includes running a setting that prohibits specific character ideas.

I think this because, as a GM, I want to hold games in the settings and worlds I actually wish to run. I can tweak stuff to an extent, and you have to be flexible for a world to survive contact with PC's, but someone essentially requesting I add an entire crystal magic/magitek system into the setting to accommodate their character begins to veer into "asking too much."

In my current group, which has played together several years unbroken at this point, the only game that outright died was one in which everyone was excited to PLAY in the setting, but no one wanted to RUN it, and the GM (not me) who was pressured into filling the role hated it. The GM needs to have fun too, and having a larger degree of control over the world is, imo, a big part of that fun.


I'm largely in agreement with this sentiment, but I'd expand on it. If you're the DM, you can pitch whatever you want for your campaign to your (potential) players. If they agree to your pitch unconditionally, then they shouldn't later complain when they can't play such-and-such thing that conflicts with your setting. If they say, "that sounds interesting, but..." then that's where the give-and-take begins. Of course, you're always free to decline to run a campaign a certain way, as players are to decline to play.