>dm starts off by saying his game isn't about "players vs. the dm"
is this a cause for concern?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>dm starts off by saying his game isn't about "players vs.
>you never had your car
>meet someone new
>they open by stating they're NOT going to skin and kill you
yes
One time!
It's not bad at all, and probably good to reassure your players that. Because I know if the DM is saying that, it's to set expectations. I had a player who insisted they wanted the game to be the "player vs. the DM" and that doing so would make me a better DM. He an actually diagnosed psychopath who, despite repeatedly being told that wasn't how things were going to go, still insisted on playing that way. The reality of was him arguing against any ruling, and insisting I should have killed another player's character when that player made a series of bad decisions. This guy insisted it was unfair to him for not doing so. This was his or third session at our table, and he was already complaining I wasn't being fair to him despite having nothing major being ruled for or against him by this point. He also attacked another player in the first session he did with us, a one-shot we did as our session zero.
>He also attacked another player in the first session he did with us
Unless there's a good reason (and I've rarely seen one given), the person that attacks another PC should always be kicked.
The only time I've ever seen that it could be legitimate is when the aggressive player expects consequences for their PC for this.
>Unless there's a good reason (and I've rarely seen one given), the person that attacks another PC should always be kicked.
I worked with him at the time. Kicking him would've been really awkward. I even told him I would normally kick someone for doing that, without a lot of trust or good reason involved.
I also hadn't had a player like this before, and thought with them agreeing to these things, they would understand the tone and style. It seemed like they just wanted me to change the existing campaign to suit their tastes. They asked to join, they were not originally invited.
>The only time I've ever seen that it could be legitimate is when the aggressive player expects consequences for their PC for this.
Only allowed him to attack another player because it was a one-off, and expected everyone to turn on him. Even warned him at the time, "If you do this, you have to accept the consequences of what comes afterwards." Nobody died, but if I could do all over again, I would've stopped them then and there. They insisted they only did it because it was a one-off and the tone of that session was already flippantly farcical.
I've had players like this. Just absolutely terrible and ruin a campaign. We've done a rotating GMs sort of thing, and it was new guy's turn within weeks. He already showed signs, but he immediately made it so the bad guys he developed were practically unbeatable and always had an edge against the players. Even when the players get a win, fair and square, he'd always downplay it. We promptly limited the rotating GMs thing to vets only afterwards. And did everything possible to soft-retcon his involvement in the campaign.
no
this is normal
Yes. last time this happened to me, I screamed, put my fist through the table, took a wet shit on the battle mat, and clambered up to the ceiling, flinging the rocks that I hide in my neck folds for an hour.
Completely unacceptable behavior that we need to gatekeep throughly. Do your part.
Dungeon masters should see the players as enemies
call yourself a game master or storyteller if you won't be actively attempting to kill them
>babies first non-low-trust game
it's almost like there are different play cultures and styles of play out there anon
Prove you're not shitposting.
He's tricking you and he's going to win if you fall for it!
Given the sheer fricking amount of "damage goods" players, it's a basic courtesy to inform them up-front they are not to be sodomized. This removes the shock when they make it through the session alive and without having to touch everything with 10 feet pole
"DM" is the biggest cause for concern.
Yes. Not because there is something inherently wrong with the statement in and of itself, but because such statements tend to be made by storyshitters that disregard or actively work against the by necessity adversarial nature of the player-GM relationship.
It doesn't *have* to mean much, but it's definitely a red flag.
Yeah, it will be Dm vs players.
Absolutely.
Whenever I GM it is STRICTLY players vs GM.
I don't like your system?
Fist fight.
I don't like your character image?
Fist fight.
I don't like your backstory?
Fist fight.
I don't like your roll?
Fist fight.
You complain about the fact we are in a dojo?
Fist fight.
You complain about the fist fight?
Kick fight.
Yes.
If the DM has to qualify their approach in such it's because they've had problems in the past. You don't just come out and say something like that without a reason.
You have such insightful thoughts, good thing you save the thread!
Maybe he only GM'd groups that thought RPGs are contests to defeat the GM, and this time he tries to make it clear from the start that's now how he wants his games to go. I'd say "sure" and see how the first session goes.
>3/4ths of the replies are "communication bad"
Communication is bad. It’s unmanly and makes men soft. Imagine a man saying “let’s talk out our differences”. You would immediately see him as weak. Men should be the strong silent types. You either aren’t talking, or you’re fighting. I’ve never seen an alpha chad leader who wanted to “talk things out”, they either put their foot down and tell you how it’s gonna be or they get violent.
>adult pretend time where I'm a magic elf should be a competition
unironically touch grass
>his idea of manliness is what was fed to him by Hollywood
Not a great look for you.
Hollywood manliness doesn't exist. Hollywood is one of the propaganda arms that push for the destruction of masculinity.
man these schizos pop up everywhere
He's probably memeing with bait, even if I gave him a serious answer. It's funny screenshot fodder, though. I'm not necessarily sure about calling The Witcher low fantasy, because we have a secondary protagonist who jumps through portals, is the divine, interdimensional chosen one, and a lot of the usual high fantasy races. Maybe it's hard fantasy that's on the lower end of high? More heroic/sword and sorcery?
Oh frick, somehow combined my response from another thread,
Napoleon was able to talk things out with the army sent to arrest him, and actually get them to back him into war. So I'd say that's an Alpha Chad Leader if there was one who talked it out.
He didn’t talk things out with them. He told them how it was gonna be. There was no compromise, just 100% utter obedience. So you’re wrong,
It was HIS army, loyal to him. He didn't just walk up to the English and talk things out with them, in fact the very reason his army would listen to him was because of how effective he was at NOT talking things out with all of their enemies.
His army that was sent to arrest him.
I'll give you another example: Vercingetorix uniting the Gauls against Julius Caesar, when the people were fractured politically and divided. He united them against a common foe, even when his father had been killed for trying to do that same exact thing generations prior.
Alfred the Great was enough of a diplomat that the Welsh kingdoms turned to him and aided him. The people that his people stole from.
Alfred's grandson Aethelstan is the the reason we're speaking 'English' and not 'Saxish' or 'Sexish' is because of his diplomacy in uniting the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons.
>DM says "high guys"
Is this a cause for concern?
depends on the system
Maybe. It's the kind of thing you say when you've heard a lot of DM horror stories or had some bad experiences.
Probably just him trying to tell you to be normal and not have a plan for some complex multiclass build that'll trivialize his encounters
Ask what he means, specifically. He is probably attempting to clarify the culture of play in the hopes of getting players to work along with him rather than adopt play styles that are unsuited to the type of game he is running (e.g. expecting railroading so you completely frick up a more open game with the expectation that you are on a railroad).
Not every system is adversarial. It'd be dumb to say that if you're running B/X and equally dumb not to say that if you're running Paranoia. Some systems are basically wargames where the GM acts as the adversary and referee. Other systems are basically improv sessions where the GM provides the scenarios for the players to work with. And there's a billion gradations inbetween. In some games, it really isn't about the players versus the DM, and in other games, it really is. Like 90% of the questions on this board the answer is that it depends on the system.
You challenge it by correcting them that it's actually dm vs dm and start counter-narrating.