Still Say Yes

[Pex]

I wanted to bring this up in the 5E/3E comparison thread, but to be technical this is more about game style than 5E itself. It is a criticism I have that I think 5E facilitates but is not really 5E's intent or fault. I broached the subject in other threads but would like to get a full discussion in.

First, an anecdote.

Way back when during 2E I was at a convention where I overheard a conversation of DMs describing their D&D gameworlds. One of them really irked me. He boasted that there was no healing in his game world. He was proud of the high lethality in his game. The other DMs didn't call him on it.

That was a symptom of a particular game style, the dictatorial DM. Players are given authority over a game and go on a power trip with it. They're the Boss. Players must do what they say or get kicked out with the player being made to feel bad for not accepting the DM's rules, the little munchkin. Not every DM out there was like this, nor every DM I played with, but it was prevalent thought and hardly anyone knew any better. The 2E DMG encouraged this behavior by actively telling DMs not to let players play certain classes because they didn't roll the right stats and want to adjust. Porting characters among campaigns was the norm back then and discussed in the DMG where the rules also encouraged the DM to strip the character down because it was automatically assumed the player was bringing in a too powerful character. The player was always in the wrong.

Then came the internet. Players (I'm including DMs) were able to speak with other players not in their local gaming area. People were exposed to new and different ideas. Issues with the game, rules and meta, were able to be discussed to get impartial opinions. While I wasn't the only one, I started to push back against dictatorial DMs. I had my own Stormwind Fallacy before the term was named. In the 2E era I was advocating that a character having high stats does not mean the player is a bad roleplayer. On the internet many dictatorial DMs were furious and complaining about characters having an 18 at first level. They were "rollplayers". I fought against that attitude. I fought against a DM always saying no to any player idea. When a player wanted his character to do something the rules didn't quite cover, even if the DM would allow it the player had to roll with a huge penalty it became a why bother. I advocated against it all. I wasn't alone.

Then came 3E. After that edition war died down, players relished the new system. For the first time, in D&D, players had real choice in their character. 2E did have the Player's Options Series, but it was too late in 2E to take hold. Free multiclassing. Full decision making on skill point allocation. Feats to customize further such that even two characters of the same class could be significantly different from each other. Players had interesting decisions to make. Once given the ability to choose, they did not want it taken away. With the internet allowing for impartial opinions, complaints against dictatorial DMs became more frequent. It was fine for a DM to have limits to customize the campaign, but players no longer tolerated being treated like peasants. Vote with your feet. No game is a better than a bad game. Players were no longer kicked out ashamed. Instead, players quit and the DM was shamed because his power trip was ruining their fun. Dictatorial DMing was no longer acceptable behavior, only existing in playing groups who did not have any regular contact with those not in their group if it existed in such a group. DMs could still ban things from the game. Campaigns could be low magic, low point buy, E6, or whatever, but such things were for everyone's enjoyment, not the DM denying players having powerful characters because they'd be munchkins. 4E did not change this. Different rules. Different tastes. Had its own edition war with 3E. It was all about the game, not DM rules players drool. The rules told DMs to say yes.

Now comes 5E, and I'm finding the dictatorial DMs are making a comeback. It's only based on comments on the internet, not personal experience. I've long since learned I don't have to take it when a DM is on a power trip and will refuse to play without any shame at all. However, while no one is proudly boasting there's no healing in their campaign, it's just as bad in my opinion. No magic items! No feats! No multiclassing! No platemail! No treasure! No this! No that! Ban! Ban! Ban! They're taking away player choice. They decide what characters players may use and how. They can use the rules to justify it because everything is an optional rule module. Bounded Accuracy means balance, so any +1 will ruin it they'll claim. You can't really say they're having BadWrongFun. It's a play style, but it bugs me. We can still say "vote with your feet" "no game is better than a bad game", but such words don't seem to be as strong anymore.

[themaque]

I can agree to "Say Yes" for almost any edition, and It IS good to worry about the Dictator GM, but they are a rarity, I had them in 3.P as well. They just used different tactics. They changed rules but didn't tell you until it smacked you in the face. They limited or banned classes for arbitrary reasons.

But D20 also gave rise to the GM-Player. There was always the Brian, the Rules lawyer telling people and even the GM how to play the game. This game style was re-enforced even more in 3.P as the universal rules system was applied to Players, Monsters, and PC's. They assumed that if it was in a printed WotC book they could make their +36 stealth at level one, because it's in the rules! They didn't care if it fit the story that guy could never get away with doing X at Y because of the rule on page 234 UA. Now any change to the system, even if it's for the betterment of the campaign, was scrutinized, criticized, and judged by both GM and player.

Moving power more in favor of the GM is a risk, if you have a bad GM. But a bad GM is a bad GM in ANY system.

We are all here to have fun. Respect your players. Respect your GM. Talk to each other with dignity and have an open discourse on your expectations and I think we will ALL enjoy yourselves.

[Battlebooze]

I can agree to "Say Yes" for almost any edition, and It IS good to worry about the Dictator GM, but they are a rarity, I had them in 3.P as well. They just used different tactics. They changed rules but didn't tell you until it smacked you in the face. They limited or banned classes for arbitrary reasons.

But D20 also gave rise to the GM-Player. There was always the Brian, the Rules lawyer telling people and even the GM how to play the game. This game style was re-enforced even more in 3.P as the universal rules system was applied to Players, Monsters, and PC's. They assumed that if it was in a printed WotC book they could make their +36 stealth at level one, because it's in the rules! They didn't care if it fit the story that guy could never get away with doing X at Y because of the rule on page 234 UA. Now any change to the system, even if it's for the betterment of the campaign, was scrutinized, criticized, and judged by both GM and player.

Moving power more in favor of the GM is a risk, if you have a bad GM. But a bad GM is a bad GM in ANY system.

We are all here to have fun. Respect your players. Respect your GM. Talk to each other with dignity and have an open discourse on your expectations and I think we will ALL enjoy yourselves.


:smile:

I've seen both extremes and they both stink. I wholeheartedly agree with the above post.

[Naanomi]

Players need to be ready to say 'yes' as well; if the GM has a story he'd like to have your help telling and wants to set setting restrictions... Not as a power trip, not to ruin your fun; but as an integral part of what they think will be fun for everyone... As a player give it a chance.

[Forum Explorer]

I'll fully admit that I wasn't around in the 2E period, so I didn't get the dictatorial DM as you described it.

But from what I saw (also from comments on the internet because I had to be the DM in my group), there were still plenty of dictatorial DMs. They didn't go anywhere, they didn't really change. What changed was the players, and I'd put that down to the internet more then any change in rules. The ability to ask an impartial audience about what happened and for advice certainly gives people the confidence and knowledge to 'vote with their feet' as you put it.


And I don't think that's going away. If someone feels that their DM made a bad call in their games they can talk on the internet about it and get the opinions of everyone to figure things out.


Also while 5e does give a lot of power back to the DM, what it means to be a DM seems to have changed (going by your post.) For example here's an excerpt from the Introduction of the DMG in 5e


KNOW YOUR PLAYERS

The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breath life into them, and help steer the campaign through their character's actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you've created, and to let their characters do awesome things.

Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players' preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.

The whole attitude suggested is that it's the DMs job to make things fun. And that if he isn't making things fun he's doing a bad job. It outright suggests catering to your players desires. The section then goes on to tell about common player desires and how you might make things fun for that type of player. And yes, players who like optimization are on that list.

[jaydubs]

Now comes 5E, and I'm finding the dictatorial DMs are making a comeback. It's only based on comments on the internet, not personal experience. I've long since learned I don't have to take it when a DM is on a power trip and will refuse to play without any shame at all. However, while no one is proudly boasting there's no healing in their campaign, it's just as bad in my opinion. No magic items! No feats! No multiclassing! No platemail! No treasure! No this! No that! Ban! Ban! Ban! They're taking away player choice. They decide what characters players may use and how. They can use the rules to justify it because everything is an optional rule module. Bounded Accuracy means balance, so any +1 will ruin it they'll claim. You can't really say they're having BadWrongFun. It's a play style, but it bugs me. We can still say "vote with your feet" "no game is better than a bad game", but such words don't seem to be as strong anymore.

I'd point out two things. First, if the survey on this forum (and my personal experience as well) is any indication, the vast majority of games use feats and multiclassing. So I don't think we're on the verge of any shift towards no player choices.

Second, I don't really see limited magic items and bounded accuracy as a threat to player choice either. It's not like 3.x where the DM is going to totally screw you if he denied you enough money, since the system assumes you'll have a certain amount of gold in magic items at every level. You can legitimately create and run an effective character with just the normal, mundane items. If anything, I think a system that lets you run an effective character without special shiny items (something that was always in the DMs control anyway) puts more power in the hands of the player. Heck, I actually love the idea of a campaign with little to no magic items, because then I know that all my effectiveness can come from my build (something I have control over) rather than what the DM puts into the game.

But overall, I guess I just don't see it ever swinging the other way. Maybe it's because I wasn't around playing tabletops in the old dictatorial DM days, as you call them. When I think about myself (both as a DM and as a player) and the people that I play with on a regular basis (both DMs and players), the vast majority just would not stand for it. I mean, I've run into all of 1 dictatorial DM, and it was in a PF campaign. The players (we did not now each other at that point) basically started talking about it. And after a few more sessions where it became more apparent that's what we were dealing with, we just banded together and started a new game.

[Gritmonger]

Wow...

I end up DM'ng because I've got a relatively quick wit, and players don't often know if I'm winging it or not, unless I tell them afterward. I'd love to play, but more often than not I end up in the DM's chair. I learned playing Nobilis, where one of the first rules is not to say "no." You can say "yes, but..." and the like, but the primary purpose was one of player agency.

The players are primarily my friends, and secondarily players, so I know to go asking if somebody isn't having fun.

5th has been nice because a lot of it can be made up on the spot, without as much poring through rulebooks. I'll admit I was waiting for the 5th edition rulebook to clear up a number of questions I had about some things in the PHB - but when I got it, it wasn't like the other DMG's I'd been used to. Not an endless tome of rules errata - more a guide on how to tailor a game to several different playstyles at once, how to manage a group having fun, how to keep it going and continue having fun.

I gave up trying to DM 4th for that reason - too much nudge-push-tweak-another-plus and endless cards to be reprinted each level as well as tracked with tickmarks, so that there was no time left for players to, well, play. Role was secondary to slot, and it became more like the grind of the MMO than a fantasy roleplaying game.

I had no idea there was so much revulsion for the DM chair, or the person who sits in it.

[Giant2005]

What you are talking about is the bi-product of a rules-light system.
If a system is rules-heavy, there isn't really a lot of leeway for DM discretion and the players and DM have the same, significantly reduced power at the table as everything is governed by the books. In a rules-light system, the books offer far less and the job of adjudicating falls upon the DM. With the DM having that extra responsibility, the players and DM cannot be on the same level.
It basically falls down to opportunity cost. What do you prefer? A clunky system with rules for every possible contingency that both the players and DM need to memorize and for the designers to futilely try to balance (Which is impossible with so many variables at play), or a system that empowers the DM to make those decisions dynamically for easier and more balanced play?
Neither option is perfect but imo the latter comes with a whole lot less negative qualities.
The rules-light system may be imperfect but it can be perfected at the table and that can only be accomplished by the players. The DM doesn't need to say no to anything if the players stop trying to push the boundries and say no to themselves. I think the perfect game for a "player bootcamp" is Rifts. Rifts doesn't care the slightest bit about balance (You could play in a game where one player is a Street Rat which is a class designed around being a mundane homeless kid; and the guy next to him is a Hundred Handed which is a being physically superior to the Gods). Balancing in Rifts is left solely to the discretion of the game table and I emphasize game table rather than the DM. When the game is so unbalanced, the players don't find it any more enjoyable than the DM does - everyone sits there miserably and quickly the players will learn to not be so moronic and only choose characters that are roughly on par with their peers. Self-Governing players sound exactly like what you are after and it isn't something that can be coded into a system. The players simply need a bit of retraining.

[jaydubs]

I had no idea there was so much revulsion for the DM chair, or the person who sits in it.

There isn't as a general principle. But I think there is a common distaste for DMs who use the position as a way to bully and/or play out control fantasies. Like I said, in my experience it's rare and both players and most other DMs find that sort of thing distasteful. But hey, it certainly happens. Just look through some of the "worst DM" threads if you want examples.

[Gritmonger]

There isn't as a general principle. But I think there is a common distaste for DMs who use the position as a way to bully and/or play out control fantasies. Like I said, in my experience it's rare and both players and most other DMs find that sort of thing distasteful. But hey, it certainly happens. Just look through some of the "worst DM" threads if you want examples.

I understood that to be a rote of poor examples, not a manifesto for collective punishment.

[Knaight]

Now comes 5E, and I'm finding the dictatorial DMs are making a comeback. It's only based on comments on the internet, not personal experience. I've long since learned I don't have to take it when a DM is on a power trip and will refuse to play without any shame at all. However, while no one is proudly boasting there's no healing in their campaign, it's just as bad in my opinion. No magic items! No feats! No multiclassing! No platemail! No treasure! No this! No that! Ban! Ban! Ban! They're taking away player choice. They decide what characters players may use and how. They can use the rules to justify it because everything is an optional rule module. Bounded Accuracy means balance, so any +1 will ruin it they'll claim. You can't really say they're having BadWrongFun. It's a play style, but it bugs me. We can still say "vote with your feet" "no game is better than a bad game", but such words don't seem to be as strong anymore.

So, the issue here is the GMs are pushing a setting that isn't just the standard fantasy kitchen sink. That's not even remotely the same thing as a dictatorial DM. I mean, just look at your examples:

No magic items - By this logic, any modern gaming system is dictatorial. This is a setting element, and it's not one that reduces player influence at all. If only the villains had magic items, then a case could be made for this.
No feats - So, the game can also be run in a simplified fashion. The horror. A lot of this was for players who prefer not to deal with stuff like that. It's not like feats somehow decrease DM influence, they can use them too.
No multiclassing - See my previous point.
No platemail - Because post-1350 Pseudoeurope is just better than pre-1350 pseudoeurope. There are also no kevlar vests. Some things are appropriate for some settings and not for others.
No treasure - Putting aside how nobody is suggesting no treasure, just character that aren't richer than nations as a side effect of adventuring, this is again a playstyle thing. Treasure is one thing a game can focus on, it's irrelevant to other games.
Character Availability Restrictions - All settings have characters which are appropriate and characters which aren't. No edition of D&D features space marines by default.


Basically, what you're opposing here isn't "dictatorial DMing". It's the use of a system for anything other than D&D fantasy at its most generic, or use of a system at less than maximal complexity. It's just assumed that players will want super generic settings with a wider range of available characters, and that players will be guaranteed to want to use all of the complexity of a system. Both of those are ludicrous claims. Speaking as a player, I'd be much more interesting in a campaign pitch like "a dwarven queen in exile and her retinue attempt to regain her queendom" than "there's a bunch of dungeons that need exploring", even though the first has a significantly smaller range of included characters. Speaking as a GM, I'm consistently the person at the table who is most willing to have detailed rules, and most willing to spend time going through rulebooks; it's my players who don't want to do that.

[themaque]

Neither option is perfect but imo the latter comes with a whole lot less negative qualities.

Depends on the players and the situation as well. I'm ex-military thus obviously moved around a lot. With a new GM and a new set of players a static game system where I had a firm grasp of the rules was highly appealing to me. It takes a lot of trust to work well in a rules light system and that takes time.

As far as telling people to play Rifts goes. Wow, that's just epic level trolling. :-) Combine the unreliability of a rules light system with the constant tinkering and fiddly bits of a rules heavy system but have neither work.

Cool world however.

[Battlebooze]

Maybe it's legit for a DM to restrict the game down to just soldiers and swordsmen, but then it's also perfectly legit for potential players to give that GM the stink eye for not offering them what they want. A lot of people expect a decent slice of fantasy to be served up with any realism.

It's not that uncommon for a GM to advertise one thing, then deliver something else after you get started. When among friends, there is a real level of peer pressure to keep playing even if the game is annoying. Quitting a crappy game can be difficult. I really think that is where a lot of this intense distrust comes from and I've been there myself.

[calebrus]

It takes a lot of trust to work well in a rules light system and that takes time.

I've never understood this sentiment.
You're collectively telling a story. The GM has the outline and basic storyline. He describes the scene. The players tell the GM what they'd like to do. The GM responds, and tells them what happens. Sometimes dice are rolled. The players react to the changing circumstances and tell the GM what they'd like to do next. Lather, rinse, repeat.
What part of this requires any trust?

If anything, the GM needs to trust that his players are on the up-and-up, not constantly trying to abuse mechanics. But the players needing to trust the GM? That's a lot less necessary.
Even if you do indeed have a dictatorial GM like stated above, there's very little trust needed. You just need to trust that he's being square with you and playing fairly (for the most part, sometimes not being square is required by the story).
I wouldn't call that "a lot of trust" being needed. Maybe a tiny bit, but no more.

The GM needs to trust the players a lot more than the players need to trust the GM. When the GM doesn't trust his players is when the dictatorial problems start.

[coredump]

Let me see if I understand...

The OP came across some DMs that wanted the game to be played a certain way, which he says is really bad... so he makes a long post, saying that everyone needs to play the game *his* way.

Um..... wut?

[goto124]

So I've seen the "don't say no, say yes but" rule. Which makes me think: wouldn't that lead to so many restrictions on the 'yes' that you might as well say 'no'? I read the thread about a player who wanted to control a succubus. Considering the number of ways it could go wrong (including the DM intentionally messing things up), IMHO it's better to just disallow it for everyone's sanity.

[Knaight]

Maybe it's legit for a DM to restrict the game down to just soldiers and swordsmen, but then it's also perfectly legit for potential players to give that GM the stink eye for not offering them what they want. A lot of people expect a decent slice of fantasy to be served up with any realism.
Sure, and a lot of people want the fantasy kept lower. This is why I'm a proponent of starting games with multiple people tossing ideas forward for what they might want to GM, or what other people might want to GM. In general though, I've found that the ideas that the group as a whole finds intriguing are generally not the fantasy kitchen sink ones. The game I'm currently GMing (which isn't 5e) is a low tech game with fairly limited magic, but where the magic is widely used. The core concept was of a the PCs being people involved in the defense of a primitive island against a technologically superior force with unknown hostile plans - where reverse engineering their technologies and magic to use against them is a main point. Everyone knew going in that the characters would be restricted (humans, driftwood golems, one human with driftwood golem parts replacing half their body), everyone knew going in what magic looked like and what little was available.

It's just that the core aesthetic worked pretty well to sell people on the game, and that it wasn't just imposed from on high. The driftwood golem PCs are only there because the players wanted a non human option, I presented it as something that would work pretty well, and they liked the mental image of a weathered golem with tattoo like burns used to weave enchanted protections around them and half the group went for it (and the group had an odd number of people, which is where that half-golem deal game in).

This is hardly the only example. There's often a lot more punch to a narrower campaign and setting premise, where the players buy in to the setting and campaign, and the GM alters the setting and campaign around the players. Sometimes this gets to outright collaborative world building and campaign construction, more often I've seen pitches get thrown around until something sits. In my experience, people are generally bored with extreme kitchen sinks, and not playing in them is absolutely not some sort of DM tyranny.


It's not that uncommon for a GM to advertise one thing, then deliver something else after you get started. When among friends, there is a real level of peer pressure to keep playing even if the game is annoying. Quitting a crappy game can be difficult. I really think that is where a lot of this intense distrust comes from and I've been there myself.
This has nothing to do with a dictatorial GM though, this is just being a jerk.

[themaque]

I've never understood this sentiment.
You're collectively telling a story. The GM has the outline and basic storyline. He describes the scene. The players tell the GM what they'd like to do. The GM responds, and tells them what happens. Sometimes dice are rolled. The players react to the changing circumstances and tell the GM what they'd like to do next. Lather, rinse, repeat.
What part of this requires any trust?

If anything, the GM needs to trust that his players are on the up-and-up, not constantly trying to abuse mechanics. But the players needing to trust the GM? That's a lot less necessary.
Even if you do indeed have a dictatorial GM like stated above, there's very little trust needed. You just need to trust that he's being square with you and playing fairly (for the most part, sometimes not being square is required by the story).
I wouldn't call that "a lot of trust" being needed. Maybe a tiny bit, but no more.

The GM needs to trust the players a lot more than the players need to trust the GM. When the GM doesn't trust his players is when the dictatorial problems start.


I need to trust a GM won't randomly throw road blocks in my way just because I'm not going down the pre-determined path he had in mind. Railroad me into encounters I didn't want to have only to have the villain miraculously run away. If the players come up with something he or the villain didn't expect, let us reap the rewards because of it. If I can think around a problem, I shouldn't still be forced to open the door he expected me to. I'm expected to go along with a story, but I should have control over MY destiny.

I've had GM's that have changed mechanics on me. I need to trust a GM to make consistent and reliable judgment calls. If all the variables are the same, a certain power should work the same way every time. Oh, suddenly this bad guy is immune to sleep? no reason, this guy is.

I don't need to put a lot of trust into a GM? I'm flabbergasted at the coment. I'm giving you the reins of the entire story. Of being the judge and jury to all rules calls. There is definitely a level of Trust bestowed upon the GM, especially in a lighter rules enviroment where his ruling is called upon to interpret rules and situations even more.

[Battlebooze]

Trust absolutely has to go both ways. I've been plot railroaded by awful GM's many a time and have seen others suffer the "choice" of following the GM's set up or get out. I've also seen good GM's suckered into allowing crazily abusive power combinations. (3.0, I'm looking at you!)

A GM holds all the strings and power. The onus of being trustworthy really should be higher on them. A bad player can be awful, but they can also be removed/fixed. A bad GM is bad for all the players.

That said, While a GM should be fair and even, NPC's run by the GM can be evil dirty lying cheating bastards. The GM should be fair. The bad guys, not so much.

For example, if the players come up with a great plan to defeat your favorite bad guy and his plot, is it legit for you to just give that bad guy a way to counter the plan out of thin air?

[Knaight]

Trust absolutely has to go both ways. I've been plot railroaded by awful GM's many a time and have seen others suffer the "choice" of following the GM's set up or get out. I've also seen good GM's suckered into allowing crazily abusive power combinations. (3.0, I'm looking at you!)

A GM holds all the strings and power. The onus of being trustworthy really should be higher on them. A bad player can be awful, but they can also be removed/fixed. A bad GM is bad for all the players.

One player trying to wreck the game can do it. With that said, there is a pretty big difference in influence with a typical game. If nobody is actively trying to wreck it, you generally have each player with their one character, and then the GM with their entire setting. It's way easier for a GM to infringe on some player's character too much than vice versa, and they also are generally the person who spends the most time on the game even at the table.

Basically, I agree with you that the GM has the most power and that most of the trust is needed there. It's just that some level of trust is needed for everyone at the table, towards everyone else at the table. It might be the amount given to perfect strangers, in that you assume they're approaching the game with the intent of playing it and not to be a douchebag, but it's there.

[Gritmonger]

I'm seeing a thread of "guilty until proven innocent" with regards to GMs/DMs.

Personally, it's never been a power trip. Ever. I don't enjoy it, frankly, unless players are happy playing. And I often even then don't enjoy it because it is so much responsibility. Being even a half-decent GM takes a lot of effort, and that's not just your content, but consulting all of the other players on their choices, actions, and satisfaction with the game-mastering, the setting, and their own and other's characters. Even then, a missed communication and it's all on you, because you're the one who's organizing things, not the responsibility of the players to look at the place you always post your notices...

And now, to hear that it doesn't matter, I'm a "DM" and therefore painted with the same brush as a tyrant to be put down or hemmed in for fear of going power mad... therefore, any system with any leeway is unacceptable...

Yeah, I think I might skip the chair until things change.

[Battlebooze]

Sure, and a lot of people want the fantasy kept lower. This is why I'm a proponent of starting games with multiple people tossing ideas forward for what they might want to GM, or what other people might want to GM. In general though, I've found that the ideas that the group as a whole finds intriguing are generally not the fantasy kitchen sink ones. The game I'm currently GMing (which isn't 5e) is a low tech game with fairly limited magic, but where the magic is widely used. The core concept was of a the PCs being people involved in the defense of a primitive island against a technologically superior force with unknown hostile plans - where reverse engineering their technologies and magic to use against them is a main point. Everyone knew going in that the characters would be restricted (humans, driftwood golems, one human with driftwood golem parts replacing half their body), everyone knew going in what magic looked like and what little was available.

It's just that the core aesthetic worked pretty well to sell people on the game, and that it wasn't just imposed from on high. The driftwood golem PCs are only there because the players wanted a non human option, I presented it as something that would work pretty well, and they liked the mental image of a weathered golem with tattoo like burns used to weave enchanted protections around them and half the group went for it (and the group had an odd number of people, which is where that half-golem deal game in).

This is hardly the only example. There's often a lot more punch to a narrower campaign and setting premise, where the players buy in to the setting and campaign, and the GM alters the setting and campaign around the players. Sometimes this gets to outright collaborative world building and campaign construction, more often I've seen pitches get thrown around until something sits. In my experience, people are generally bored with extreme kitchen sinks, and not playing in them is absolutely not some sort of DM tyranny.

Different strokes for different folks. Obviously your players like your style of game, so more power to you. You don't sound like the kind of GM to let someone start playing a Wizard and then tell them at fith level that there are no spells more powerful than second in the campaign.


This has nothing to do with a dictatorial GM though, this is just being a jerk.

I don't know, these two things can easily go hand in hand.

[Gwendol]

In general, when it comes to player choices (race, class, etc) I'm usually saying "yes". Players should be allowed to put forth their ideas for characters, and not be shoehorned into a class "because we already have a fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric". However, when it comes to the game and the world it is played in, I want to have the final call. This means that some classes are unsuited, or unavailable. Maybe the players are required to adhere to code of conduct, or swere allegiance, or whatever.

[Forum Explorer]

For example, if the players come up with a great plan to defeat your favorite bad guy and his plot, is it legit for you to just give that bad guy a way to counter the plan out of thin air?

No, but it is legit for things to go wrong in the plan (either by bad luck or bad information), or for the bad guy to use already established resources to survive/mitigate the plan by the players.

[Knaight]

Different strokes for different folks. Obviously your players like your style of game, so more power to you. You don't sound like the kind of GM to let someone start playing a Wizard and then tell them at fith level that there are no spells more powerful than second in the campaign.
See my previous point on being a jerk.



I don't know, these two things can easily go hand in hand.
I'd agree with that. It's just that it's by no means necessary to be dictatorial. You can present a bog standard game, DM said bog standard game, and then be extremely dictatorial about the whole thing, maybe with a healthy dose of railroading thrown in for good measure. You can lie through your teeth about the game because you want to present a twist, and not be even slightly dictatorial. The only reason they go hand in hand at all is that they're both terrible GMing, and while good GMs do have off days and present mediocre or even terrible material (trying a twist involving changing the campaign premise is generally something that ends up here), bad GMs frequently end up bad in a lot of ways all at once.


In general, when it comes to player choices (race, class, etc) I'm usually saying "yes". Players should be allowed to put forth their ideas for characters, and not be shoehorned into a class "because we already have a fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric". However, when it comes to the game and the world it is played in, I want to have the final call. This means that some classes are unsuited, or unavailable. Maybe the players are required to adhere to code of conduct, or swere allegiance, or whatever.
There's also often a great deal of leeway even within more restrictive concepts. For instance, I had a game in which the core conceit was a meeting of cultures. Every PC either had to have an affiliation with a particular wizard's conclave, or a particular crashed spaceship, skills known reflected this (only one of those groups had magic access, only one of them was going to have astrophysics), so on and so forth.

The party still ended up with a magic-immune, totally nonmagical illusionist of the stage magician sort who conned their way into the wizard's conclave and thought everyone else had as well, a young child from said conclave, and an adult dragon that was affiliated with the nonmagical illusionist and in on faking their magic. There wasn't necessarily a plan to have dragons in the setting at all, child characters weren't specifically delineated, and magic immunity wasn't established as a thing. But hey, it's not like they conflicted with the setting, and it's what the players wanted to play. It worked. It also ended up being a lot more memorable than it otherwise would have been, including a fun character arc involving the communications officer of the ship (a PC introduced later) befriending the illusionist and learning real magic, while said illusionist picked up on the technology available and came to the conclusion that magic totally wasn't a thing.

That kind of gets into the difference between being dictatorial, and not including everything that there are rules for. Presenting a particular setting with restriction would be in the latter category. Cracking down on the group of characters above because they weren't at all what was predicted veers towards the former.

[Battlebooze]

I'm seeing a thread of "guilty until proven innocent" with regards to GMs/DMs.

Personally, it's never been a power trip. Ever. I don't enjoy it, frankly, unless players are happy playing. And I often even then don't enjoy it because it is so much responsibility. Being even a half-decent GM takes a lot of effort, and that's not just your content, but consulting all of the other players on their choices, actions, and satisfaction with the game-mastering, the setting, and their own and other's characters. Even then, a missed communication and it's all on you, because you're the one who's organizing things, not the responsibility of the players to look at the place you always post your notices...

And now, to hear that it doesn't matter, I'm a "DM" and therefore painted with the same brush as a tyrant to be put down or hemmed in for fear of going power mad... therefore, any system with any leeway is unacceptable...

Yeah, I think I might skip the chair until things change.


I agree, being a GM is a pain in the ass. You have my sympathy.
I certainly don't assume every GM is a bad one.

Out of all the people I've seen run, here are my personal numbers.

Monstrous GM's who's face I would like to see on a milk carton. Just one.
Awful GM's that I would never ever play with again, or invite to my own games. 2
Bad GM's that disappointed me enough to leave and not come back. 2

Average GM's. You know, good in some ways, bad in others. An untold number, but I'd put it around 10 or so. I've been playing since the mid seventies, so there really have been a lot.

Good or better GM's, the kind that you miss when the game ends, or you hope don't move away. Maybe 4?

My current GM is good. In the past he has ran games that I didn't enjoy 100%, but I think he's mellowed out and gotten better over time.
I'd put myself as a "Average GM", but I'm biased.

[Battlebooze]

No, but it is legit for things to go wrong in the plan (either by bad luck or bad information), or for the bad guy to use already established resources to survive/mitigate the plan by the players.

True, true. Dice are dice sometimes, and players are notorious for screwing the best laid plans up. Still, if they pull it off, crushing their moment of earned glory because it's inconvenient is pretty lame.

As for surviving to be a threat again... That is fine as long as it doesn't happen every time.

[themaque]

No, but it is legit for things to go wrong in the plan (either by bad luck or bad information), or for the bad guy to use already established resources to survive/mitigate the plan by the players.

If i'm out maneuvered or make a mistake or had bad info, that's one fair and that's the game.

If i'm about to win, and the GM gets a wicked grin on his face and pulls out something I didn't expect, that's him running a good villain.

If the GM starts looking shifty and goes "Oh.. uh... he pulls ANOTHER rare wand out of his pocket and dispels the effect!" that's him just being a villain.

but like I said at the beginning

We are all here to have fun. Respect your players. Respect your GM. Talk to each other with dignity and have an open discourse on your expectations and I think we will ALL enjoy ourselves.

[Forum Explorer]

True, true. Dice are dice sometimes, and players are notorious for screwing the best laid plans up. Still, if they pull it off, crushing their moment of earned glory because it's inconvenient is pretty lame.

As for surviving to be a threat again... That is fine as long as it doesn't happen every time.


If i'm out maneuvered or make a mistake or had bad info, that's one fair and that's the game.

If i'm about to win, and the GM gets a wicked grin on his face and pulls out something I didn't expect, that's him running a good villain.

If the GM starts looking shifty and goes "Oh.. uh... he pulls ANOTHER rare wand out of his pocket and dispels the effect!" that's him just being a villain.

but like I said at the beginning

We are all here to have fun. Respect your players. Respect your GM. Talk to each other with dignity and have an open discourse on your expectations and I think we will ALL enjoy ourselves.

Yup, yup. It's important to be fair and it's important to be fans of the PCs. Generally I'll let them get away with cool things and tricks, more often then not. If they come up with a legit cool strategy to pull things off, then I'm happy for it and like to see it. Sometimes though I think of cool (well I think they're cool) ideas on how the villain can survive, defeat, or subvert the PCs plans and I don't have a problem with using those ideas.

Other times there is an easy way to solve the challenge that I thought was obvious and the team will do things in the most insane way almost TPKing themselves.


But I try not to Deus Ex Machina anything to the best of my ability.

[Gwendol]

That kind of gets into the difference between being dictatorial, and not including everything that there are rules for. Presenting a particular setting with restriction would be in the latter category. Cracking down on the group of characters above because they weren't at all what was predicted veers towards the former.

Agreed in full. And this is what I mean about creating restrictions, but balancing that with nearly full player control over PC creation/choices etc (at least within the given bounds).

[Battlebooze]

So I've seen the "don't say no, say yes but" rule. Which makes me think: wouldn't that lead to so many restrictions on the 'yes' that you might as well say 'no'? I read the thread about a player who wanted to control a succubus. Considering the number of ways it could go wrong (including the DM intentionally messing things up), IMHO it's better to just disallow it for everyone's sanity.

Who wouldn't want a Succubus as a... Erm. Servant.

"I don't know what killed him, but his body was shriveled up like a raisin. The worst part was the stupid grin on his face."

[Person_Man]

I play mostly with veteran gamers, and I'm a "say yes" DM.

However, I would observe that roleplaying games are very complex/difficult to play compared to other games, and D&D (including 5E) is and always has been one of the most complex roleplaying games.

So I have no problem with DMs who do not include magic items, feats, certain classes, whatever, if it allows them to run a game that is simpler and more fun for their players.

[SliceandDiceKid]

I need to trust a GM won't randomly throw road blocks in my way just because I'm not going down the pre-determined path he had in mind. Railroad me into encounters I didn't want to have only to have the villain miraculously run away. If the players come up with something he or the villain didn't expect, let us reap the rewards because of it. If I can think around a problem, I shouldn't still be forced to open the door he expected me to. I'm expected to go along with a story, but I should have control over MY destiny.

I've had GM's that have changed mechanics on me. I need to trust a GM to make consistent and reliable judgment calls. If all the variables are the same, a certain power should work the same way every time. Oh, suddenly this bad guy is immune to sleep? no reason, this guy is.

I don't need to put a lot of trust into a GM? I'm flabbergasted at the coment. I'm giving you the reins of the entire story. Of being the judge and jury to all rules calls. There is definitely a level of Trust bestowed upon the GM, especially in a lighter rules enviroment where his ruling is called upon to interpret rules and situations even more.

You don't know what destiny means...

Also, the DM shouldn't be allowed to change the rules. Don't ever play with that individual, again. That's foolish of you and has nothing to do with the rules of the game. It is merely a poor choice.

The DM controls the ultimate nature of reality within the game. If you can't handle that, this game isn't for you. He isn't just a 3rd person omniscient narrator, he is 3rd person omnipotent. That said, it is a game. A DM who doesn't seek satisfaction for his players is sitting in the wrong seat. And bending the rules for theatrics in favor of the players is one of my favorite things to do as a DM.

[goto124]

...houseruling does have a purpose beyond theatrics right...

[MustacheFart]

My first experience in 5th ed, beyond one shots, wasn't a good one. I spent hours coming up with a cool character concept that involved being a monk and a barbarian.

Then on the first session, not beforehand (even though the DM already knew I was planning to play a monk/barbarian), the DM tells me that I can't play a monk at 1st level if I ever plan to go barbarian. His only justification was "a monk isn't going to go off to practice at getting angry."

I never got to offer my backstory, my justification, nothing. No defense; that was simply that. I felt horrible. I felt like my character that I'd spent hours on was wasted. That apparently my ideas were ****.

Since I was put on the spot in front of everyone, I didn't want to hold up the game. I had a backup character rolled and could've played that but I made the poor decision to stick with my original "character". I was told that I could start off with barbarian and then after a few levels I'd meet a monk npc who could start training me. Then after a couple weeks of training I could take monk.

No other class makes this requirement. This was purely pulled out by the DM. I'm sure he felt it was a cool idea but he never checked with me first. My fun should've mattered.

I took the DM up on his offer pretty much to not hold up everyone else. However I told the DM it was under one condition: "I don't want to be labeled as the dumb barbarian." I had a freaking 12 int and 17 wis. He agreed. The party all heard this.

Here's what happened:

1) I was labeled as the party's dumb barbarian.

2) I was subjected to all the ridicule that typically befalls the barbarian despite having better mental stats than most. Also despite being a smarter player than most.

3) The build I wanted wouldn't pan out due to the order I was forced to take class levels.

So I gave up on monk and have been playing a barbarian. I'm now going into rogue which btw hasn't required any "special training". I am playing a shell of my former character, not the character I wanted to play.

These games are about being creative. To have a dictatorial dm prevent that, just because, is like a painter being told he can't use a certain color.

I wish I had more options for playing 5th ed Dnd but sadly I do not so I put up with it.

My original character was going to be a way of the elements monk for this cool shaman-esque vibe. I'd have magical tricks up my sleeves to allow me to not feel so outmatched by the casters in the party. Instead I've been feeling outmatched for many sessions now.

[pwykersotz]

I don't think your argument holds much water, Pex. You may rankle when presented with demons from the past, but you can't take this forum wholecloth as a table style, and you haven't played at most of these tables to see what areas of agency ARE encouraged.

I, for example, give out very little in the way of gold and jewels so far. I'm middling on magic items. My players are about level 6 and they haven't been able to acquire full plate yet (it'll happen soon with what they're doing). I've given out 0 +1 weapons and armor. I've restricted variant human, I've restricted Aarakocra, and I'm enforcing the full normal restrictions for multiclassing in this edition. By your argument, I'm falling into several 'problem' areas.

But my players have plenty of agency to shape the story, and while there is an overarching storyline that the world is going through, they decide how they're going to interact with it. They have plenty of pieces to play the game with, and I have not gotten a single complaint of being a dictator, or even heavy handed. In fact, every time I claim such, I am met with eye rolls and the line "Oh totally, you're so mean. You never let us get away with anything or let us try anything unique or interesting". (Although, if any of my players read this, they're likely to come to me with "Can I get a Maul of World Sundering if I say you're a dictator?") :smalltongue:

[jaydubs]

I'm seeing a thread of "guilty until proven innocent" with regards to GMs/DMs.

Personally, it's never been a power trip. Ever. I don't enjoy it, frankly, unless players are happy playing. And I often even then don't enjoy it because it is so much responsibility. Being even a half-decent GM takes a lot of effort, and that's not just your content, but consulting all of the other players on their choices, actions, and satisfaction with the game-mastering, the setting, and their own and other's characters. Even then, a missed communication and it's all on you, because you're the one who's organizing things, not the responsibility of the players to look at the place you always post your notices...

And now, to hear that it doesn't matter, I'm a "DM" and therefore painted with the same brush as a tyrant to be put down or hemmed in for fear of going power mad... therefore, any system with any leeway is unacceptable...

Yeah, I think I might skip the chair until things change.

First of all, I'm a DM as well. I am DMing 2 campaigns at the moment. So let's just smother any accusations of "you wouldn't understand" before they arise.

But in all honesty, it sounds like you're burned out. You should start looking for another DM, or one to alternate weeks with. I've seen it happen several times, when the DM has burned out, and one of the players steps up to take over (or they find an outside party). Really though, try being a player for awhile. Both sides of the table can and should be fun.

[kaoskonfety]

Rail roading or unfair DM's is not an edition issue. Its not a 5th edition issue and it wasn't a 2nd edition issue.

It was exactly as possible in 3rd - they just moved the goal posts. They didn't move them far though.

It's not a D&D issue or rules light or rules heavy issue.

In the lighter rules games the DM can just announce the action cannot be done - its too hard/doesn't work that way *hand wave*. In heavier rules settings the DM assigns challenges that are numerically unattainable/not worth the attempt *points at the rules*.

In the default arrangement the DM controls the game world entire. If they decide they are adversarial with the PC's, the PC's will lose or they will stop playing.

If you find yourself with such a DM try explaining your concerns. Outline that being stomped on is not as much fun as having a sporting chance, that being railroaded is not interesting and try to find a work around. If the DM refuses your advice on any variant of the grounds "you are just a player" find something else to do - or DM a game yourself - you may have just found several other interested players, or maybe they are masochists.

I might suggest scaring up the old White Wolf Game ADVENTURE! for tables where people might want to examine the power balance between player and DM and what changing this means - the core bell and whistle the game has is direct player controls over the scenes.
You spend your limited resource and can announce added details, changes or outright re-writes of the DM's descriptions.
The scene is set for the final confrontation, the players are doomed, bound hand and foot at gun point in the villains mountain fortress, the villain laughing, about to destroy... lets say Spain with his MOON LAZER! - BUT WAIT! one of the guards is in reality our old ally who infiltrated the facility and draw attention at a critical moment (neat?)! Your bonds are loose (oh of course, your friend tied them). The villains super weapon has a self destruct (well ya, its a super-weapon)! Your ally brought a helicopter (makes sense, I guess he's a helicopter pilot now?) for your final escape as the volcano (the DM didn't *say* the mountain *wasn't* a volcano...) explodes in the background (volcanoes erupt, its cool!)!


I like the game mostly as a DM as it LETS me place the players in *literally* unwinnable situations - and it stays 'fair' as they pulp fiction, 2 fisted hero their way out of practically (Literally!) anything but taking the story I planned and directly changing it, breaking the rules and laughing all the way.


As for restricting options in D&D, I do it all the time - that's not a power trip, it's world building - I generally do it with the first group or 2 to play in the setting and then use and develop the settings over years. My core setting saw play start in 2nd and has grandfathered ALOT all the way along with occasional concessions (no sorcerers native to the plane, all wizards are specialists, no "half" whatever sept. elves, Bards were rebuilt as memorization casters using the wizard list in 3rd - I've had to cave on this one since 5th launched, but they can still get fireball so its all good. It goes on. One of these days I really need to sit down and re-codify it all.)

Classes, feats, magic item creation, races, not all of them are going to be in every game or game world. Its fair because everyone at the table has the same restrictions and rules (I generally hope).

No one has plate mail (ok the dwarves do but they treat it like a military-industrial secret so it never sees the light of day- literally), is medium armour sword and board numerically better now? Which means that's ALSO awful and you need to go light armor dex fighter... and now might as well go rogue? Ok... and? I didn't make the change to hose YOU, I made the change because it was established the setting doesn't have plate mail. Or maybe it doesn't have metal. Or fire... campaign building in brains to steal fire from the gods... all with the end goal of sweet sweet platemail.

I'm NOT going to sit down and examine every impact of every tiny change I may make - it is not worth the time 99% of the time and the last 1% the player that finds it can bring me their concern.

If I want to run "no feats, no multi classing" I check the table for interest, hear out any reasonable objections, discuss them and go or no go based on if I still HAVE a game.

If you come to a table that has hyper rare/no magic items, no multiclassing and no feats you can seek out another game, attempt to get them added in some form or another ("have you tried them? they are fun" may be all you need to say to get a few people saying "yes we will try it") or try something out of your comfort zone for a few sessions (seriously, the game works fine plain old vanilla, we don't play this way all the time, but it is refreshing and man do your stats get good FAST).

[Magic Myrmidon]

With the thing about no platemail or other items, no wizards or other classes, and stuff like that, how open are people to reflavoring?

So that setting doesn't have platemail. Can I use the stats of the platemail, but SAY it's scale mail? Or no sorcerers, because magic requires study. Can I use the sorcerer mechanics, but SAY I'm a wizard who studied under a dragon (for the dragonblooded sorcerer)?

I feel like people really underutilize refluffing because the book says "this is the stats for a suit of platemail". Who cares if it says that? We're already changing aspects of the game, why not white out that little "full plate" label for the stats, and write "Banded Armor" instead? That way, I'm sure a lot of players will be happy with having the option of using the stats they want, but everyone is happy because the setting keeps its unique flavor.

[mephnick]

I feel like people really underutilize refluffing because the book says "this is the stats for a suit of platemail". Who cares if it says that?

I've "discovered" refluffing relatively recently and I use it all.the.time. Need a quick CR 6 spellsword? Pick that CR 6 demon that flings firebolts, say it has a sword instead of claws and call it a spellsword. Want a lightning based wizard NPC for an plane of air campaign? That fireball is now a lightning ball. It saves me a bunch of time, rarely effects any mechanics and lets me flavour anything to easily fit my setting.

[Knaight]

With the thing about no platemail or other items, no wizards or other classes, and stuff like that, how open are people to reflavoring?

So that setting doesn't have platemail. Can I use the stats of the platemail, but SAY it's scale mail? Or no sorcerers, because magic requires study. Can I use the sorcerer mechanics, but SAY I'm a wizard who studied under a dragon (for the dragonblooded sorcerer)?

I'd assume that much happened, honestly. The classes are balanced around the AC provided by plate at high levels. If I were toning the technology of the setting down so it's well into the age of mail, then you're going to have the existing mail stats be used for somewhat low grade mail, and plate probably be used for some variety of well made heavy mail.

Heck, I was actually pushing for the removal of the explicit armor types in favor of just having Light/Medium/Heavy of various qualities, with a blurb for each describing what that means in the context of different technological standards, cultures, etc.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I love that sort of thing. No need for such intimate, detailed ties of these sorts of things with particular dice. Same with weapons. I'd prefer it if there wasn't "quarterstaff, 1d6" and more "light double weapon, 1d6" and "heavy two handed weapon, 2d6". Cuts down on the need for stat charts, while preserving and unique feeling the balance of two weapon fighting, etc.

[Myzz]

Heck, I was actually pushing for the removal of the explicit armor types in favor of just having Light/Medium/Heavy of various qualities, with a blurb for each describing what that means in the context of different technological standards, cultures, etc.

I like that idea...




I disagree with several premises put forward in this thread... I believe the world does belong to the DM, who is inviting players to enter it in accordance with the rules that he has put forward within that realm. IF a player has an AWESOME and extremely fun sounding character concept he wants to play... well it DOES need to fit the theme of the established world. IT is incumbent upon both the player and DM to establish characters that are appropriate for the setting... AND if a players idea doesn't fit, the DM has NO responsibility to find some way to fit that concept in...

Of course, I game with friends for the most part and we have typically come up with ideas for settings together on many occasion. BUT sometimes, someone just has an idea they think would be awesome for a story concept and want to run with it. Their world - Their Rules...

I do believe that consistency should be observed. Between PC's and NPC's, and between all NPC's. The rules should be fairly universal and known, especially as it pertains to the characters... AND as a character, don't try to be sly and create an amazing combo of abilities and expect the DM to just let em fly... IF you think its an awesome idea, troll it past the DM and see what he thinks first <I'm looking at you Shadow Monk grappling vertical shadowstep pile driver>

In MOST of the groups I've played, I've also DM'd. AND it seems I end up as DM more often than not. I'd rather DM than NOT play. If you'd rather not play AND NOT DM... I'm guessing those people you spend hours around the table with, aren't really your friends...

Some DM's just need constructive feedback, AND experience. NOT everyone is a born storyteller, with the managerial ability to pull off running GOOD D&D sessions.

[MustacheFart]

IF a player has an AWESOME and extremely fun sounding character concept he wants to play... well it DOES need to fit the theme of the established world. IT is incumbent upon both the player and DM to establish characters that are appropriate for the setting... AND if a players idea doesn't fit, the DM has NO responsibility to find some way to fit that concept in...

I agree with this under the context that said DM not wait until the first session to say no, assuming he knew the concept beforehand. Also that he provide a reason and hear the player out. To do otherwise is just disrespectful and douchy.

[Myzz]

I agree with this under the context that said DM not wait until the first session to say no, assuming he knew the concept beforehand. Also that he provide a reason and hear the player out. To do otherwise is just disrespectful and douchy.

agreed...

and the concept in question would be challenging to fit into my world (for instance), but not impossible... There are Barbarian Tribes that live on a chain of islands off my main continent that frequently raid along the coast line. So a Monk could... feasibly go there to learn their ways... Or could have come from there (would require the Outlander background for instance) and then somehow made his way to the Mainland where he was taken in by one of the VERY FEW monasteries where he learned his monk levels. Could have been a barbarian First... but got amnesia during a raid, and as levels his memory starts coming back giving him his barbarian levels...

The point is, I'd be willing to work with someone on this idea, vice just shooting it down... BUT the concept MUST conform to the societies that exist within the game world (which may or may NOT reflect any from our world). Barbarian AND Monk are quite specific Classes that may or may NOT find homes in many campaign settings... AND I could easily see the combo NOT fitting into a game world... BUT a decent DM should have at least attempted to work with you...

[MustacheFart]

agreed...

and the concept in question would be challenging to fit into my world (for instance), but not impossible... There are Barbarian Tribes that live on a chain of islands off my main continent that frequently raid along the coast line. So a Monk could... feasibly go there to learn their ways... Or could have come from there (would require the Outlander background for instance) and then somehow made his way to the Mainland where he was taken in by one of the VERY FEW monasteries where he learned his monk levels. Could have been a barbarian First... but got amnesia during a raid, and as levels his memory starts coming back giving him his barbarian levels...

The point is, I'd be willing to work with someone on this idea, vice just shooting it down... BUT the concept MUST conform to the societies that exist within the game world (which may or may NOT reflect any from our world). Barbarian AND Monk are quite specific Classes that may or may NOT find homes in many campaign settings... AND I could easily see the combo NOT fitting into a game world... BUT a decent DM should have at least attempted to work with you...

Sure, I agree with all that. My group was/is playing horde of the dragon queen. I received nothing more than a "monk wouldn't train at getting angry" the day of our first session. Barbarians can be placed pretty much anywhere and even refluffed quite easily. The monk on the other hand is a bit more unique, sure.

Nevertheless I had a pretty cool story for his combo. Never got to air it to anyone other than my wife though.


So I think my example of bad dictatorial dming stands.

[kaoskonfety]

With the thing about no platemail or other items, no wizards or other classes, and stuff like that, how open are people to reflavoring?

So that setting doesn't have platemail. Can I use the stats of the platemail, but SAY it's scale mail? Or no sorcerers, because magic requires study. Can I use the sorcerer mechanics, but SAY I'm a wizard who studied under a dragon (for the dragonblooded sorcerer)?

I feel like people really underutilize refluffing because the book says "this is the stats for a suit of platemail". Who cares if it says that? We're already changing aspects of the game, why not white out that little "full plate" label for the stats, and write "Banded Armor" instead? That way, I'm sure a lot of players will be happy with having the option of using the stats they want, but everyone is happy because the setting keeps its unique flavor.

Regarding re-skinning - it varies?
The no sorc setting was aiming for 2nd edition "feel" and we implemented dozens of changes, some deliberate with the edition change, some emergent from play.
No sorcerers was to limit access to the class to me using the occasional bad guy until I got a handle on it and was comfortable (I've since run a game where magic cannot be learned and banned wizard, you know for symmetry)
Bard using wizard prep and lists was because bard having fireball is hilarious and bards were not healers before - it was to maintain setting continuity.

In neither of these cases was a re-skin "fitting" as it would defeat the purpose.

I have since allowed Sorcerors/standard bards on specific cases as the setting matured
- a tiefling (also banned) bard on the run from his heritage found himself in the backwater no-where prime matierial where they didn't even recognize him as a person - he was a demon with spell like abilities as far as the local wizards were concerned (the parties 1st level paladin kicked in the door and broke him out of "containment" because he had not in fact done anything wrong... cool scene, acadamy wizards can't disintgate a PALADIN, people hear about that kind of thing, and then bigger paladins show up asking questions about your research... /sigh)
- a Mustaval (foot tall mouse shaped good outsider) leveling into Sorceror on this backwater plane as part of a search team for the scattered Epic Regalia of Evil, every prime is being searched, mostly by actually powerful angels, this place gets Reepicheep with 2 levels sorceror.

Both worked with the group in question, both pitches were exellent and the players knew they were getting the short end of the stick setting wise (hunted and functionally "banished" here respectively). And they both worked great. Note these 2 cases are from close to a decade of the setting? Most people hear "no sorcerors, heres why" and respond with "hmm, ok... I'll do..." or "thats neat, I'm playing a monk!"

Rules however, are made to be broken. If sorc had been banned "just" due to "magic cannot be inate, it must be learned' I'd be inclined to re-skin it to a Warlock Pack idea rather than study, a gift from a patron, be it dragon or... slaadi for wild magic? Seems neat.

The absence of platemail being a point of contention makes me scratch my head - closest thing I've seen to like it in real play is the bizzare and frequent requests for guns, always on dwarves and almost never for any thing I'd call a good reason. When I allow it generally I hand them the crossbow stats, call it a gun and they walk away smiling...

X tech is not avaliable, adjust accordingly. I've personally never outright banned plate mail - its presence or absence setting wise is not interesting enough in most cases to warrent calling it out expressly (though the idea of the dwarves hording as a military secret does tickle me) or its lack of avaliabity is a core given (Darksun). It is however quite often funtionally unavailiable - you need to commission it, it costs alot, you need to be a noble or have their permission to commision it, a few months game time passes before its ready etc. In short getting platemail IS an adventure, or your character is an armorsmith.

For those who do ban platemail (or whatever), some back up: Anyone telling me there character doesn't work for lack of a point of AC is getting a raised eyebrow and a "why?", for the same reason anyone tossing standard array back in my face gets a "why?" or asking to play a wizard when I've said "no wizards, here is why" not 5 minutes prior. Do you actually have a reason? I'd love to hear it and may change what I'm doing... "I'm not powerful enough" is not a reason. "My idea will be more fun than adherance to and emersion in your setting" might be.

In my experiance relative power has very little bearing on the amount of fun the player or group will have - often it's inverse (Elan appeared to be having a blast from sucking at day 1 "its relaxing", my Ars Magica players are never happier than when they are playing expendable and doomed unwashed ax wielders instead of their near immortal High wizards).

[MadBear]

Sure, I agree with all that. My group was/is playing horde of the dragon queen. I received nothing more than a "monk wouldn't train at getting angry" the day of our first session. Barbarians can be placed pretty much anywhere and even refluffed quite easily. The monk on the other hand is a bit more unique, sure.

Nevertheless I had a pretty cool story for his combo. Never got to air it to anyone other than my wife though.


So I think my example of bad dictatorial dming stands.

I actually remember when you first posted about this. It sounded like terrible DMing then and it still sounds like terrible DMing.

With that said, I'm all for restrictions as a DM when appropriate.

For instance, I run a session for new players who've never played before. I don't allow evil alignments, and characters must share the loot they get evenly. I do this because nothing chases away a new player like getting back stabbed in the name of "that's just what my character would do" arguments. So even though there aren't explicit rules preventing this situation, I out right ban it.

I also let them know that when they've go more experience under their belt, their welcome to change this rule, but not until the whole group agrees to this condition. No one wants to play the 3.X lawful good paladin in a group where everyone else is out to stab you in the back (and call you lawful stupid while doing it).

[Magic Myrmidon]

Regarding re-skinning - it varies?
For those who do ban platemail (or whatever), some back up: Anyone telling me there character doesn't work for lack of a point of AC is getting a raised eyebrow and a "why?", for the same reason anyone tossing standard array back in my face gets a "why?" or asking to play a wizard when I've said "no wizards, here is why" not 5 minutes prior. Do you actually have a reason? I'd love to hear it and may change what I'm doing... "I'm not powerful enough" is not a reason. "My idea will be more fun than adherance to and emersion in your setting" might be.

In my experiance relative power has very little bearing on the amount of fun the player or group will have - often it's inverse (Elan appeared to be having a blast from sucking at day 1 "its relaxing", my Ars Magica players are never happier than when they are playing expendable and doomed unwashed ax weilders instead of their near immortal High wizards).

(Removed most of the rest of the quote just to avoid lengthening the page unnecessarily)

Fair enough, sounds like you're a flexible, reasonable guy about the restrictions and such, and sounds like your players enjoy it.

About the question of why a lack of AC is a real problem, you're sort of right. Thinking objectively, it shouldn't mess anything up. That being said, if the best option for an armor class is banned, but the other armor classes are left intact, I would personally be very inclined to make a character that could reach his full potential in the system, while avoiding the houserule ban. In other words, using the example, I would probably never make a heavy armor character, because I would feel like I'd be forgoing making my character better for little reason.

I may not be explaining it very well, but I think it's just a psychological aspect. Really, that point of AC is unlikely to completely ruin my character concept, but the existence of the option as a core rule makes me feel like I should be able to have it. If that option never existed in the first place, I'd be fine with it. It's weird, and maybe just a personal thing (I'm a hopeless optimizer, which isn't to say I haven't made sacrifices for flavor), but banning the best option of one category would just push me to make a different character.

[TrexPushups]

(Removed most of the rest of the quote just to avoid lengthening the page unnecessarily)

Fair enough, sounds like you're a flexible, reasonable guy about the restrictions and such, and sounds like your players enjoy it.

About the question of why a lack of AC is a real problem, you're sort of right. Thinking objectively, it shouldn't mess anything up. That being said, if the best option for an armor class is banned, but the other armor classes are left intact, I would personally be very inclined to make a character that could reach his full potential in the system, while avoiding the houserule ban. In other words, using the example, I would probably never make a heavy armor character, because I would feel like I'd be forgoing making my character better for little reason.

I may not be explaining it very well, but I think it's just a psychological aspect. Really, that point of AC is unlikely to completely ruin my character concept, but the existence of the option as a core rule makes me feel like I should be able to have it. If that option never existed in the first place, I'd be fine with it. It's weird, and maybe just a personal thing (I'm a hopeless optimizer, which isn't to say I haven't made sacrifices for flavor), but banning the best option of one category would just push me to make a different character.

A perfect example of the human tendency to Loss Aversion.

You are either human... or a very clever machine...I am watching you robot.

[Magic Myrmidon]

It's something like that, definitely.

beep boop

[kaoskonfety]

(Removed most of the rest of the quote just to avoid lengthening the page unnecessarily)

Fair enough, sounds like you're a flexible, reasonable guy about the restrictions and such, and sounds like your players enjoy it.

About the question of why a lack of AC is a real problem, you're sort of right. Thinking objectively, it shouldn't mess anything up. That being said, if the best option for an armor class is banned, but the other armor classes are left intact, I would personally be very inclined to make a character that could reach his full potential in the system, while avoiding the houserule ban. In other words, using the example, I would probably never make a heavy armor character, because I would feel like I'd be forgoing making my character better for little reason.

I may not be explaining it very well, but I think it's just a psychological aspect. Really, that point of AC is unlikely to completely ruin my character concept, but the existence of the option as a core rule makes me feel like I should be able to have it. If that option never existed in the first place, I'd be fine with it. It's weird, and maybe just a personal thing (I'm a hopeless optimizer, which isn't to say I haven't made sacrifices for flavor), but banning the best option of one category would just push me to make a different character.

A fair point, many players find themselves looking for some flavour of optimization and if X is obviously worse: take Y or Z. I'd be hesitant to take out platemail for that reason, and generally wouldn't at all at a more public table - at least not til I had a core group established at said venue ***and can therefore peer pressure any new players into following my crazed homebrew madness, BWAHAHAHA***

[Easy_Lee]

No magic items - By this logic, any modern gaming system is dictatorial. This is a setting element, and it's not one that reduces player influence at all. If only the villains had magic items, then a case could be made for this.
No feats - So, the game can also be run in a simplified fashion. The horror. A lot of this was for players who prefer not to deal with stuff like that. It's not like feats somehow decrease DM influence, they can use them too.
No multiclassing - See my previous point.
No platemail - Because post-1350 Pseudoeurope is just better than pre-1350 pseudoeurope. There are also no kevlar vests. Some things are appropriate for some settings and not for others.
No treasure - Putting aside how nobody is suggesting no treasure, just character that aren't richer than nations as a side effect of adventuring, this is again a playstyle thing. Treasure is one thing a game can focus on, it's irrelevant to other games.
Character Availability Restrictions - All settings have characters which are appropriate and characters which aren't. No edition of D&D features space marines by default.


Wanted to address this post because I didn't see any replies to it. I think these things can be related to dictatorial DMs, but would fall under the heading of player choice.

Specifically, for each one of these conditions, except for treasure, if that condition is true of a 5e game, then the players have fewer choices to make.

By restricting feats, magic items, class choice, armor availability, multiclassing, and so on, you take choice away from the players. That doesn't necessarily mean the DM has more control over their actions, it just means that players have fewer options to differentiate and customize their characters. Imagine taking knights out of a game of chess, or specializations out of world of warcraft. That is what kind of change these would be. It simplifies the game, but takes away player opportunity for customization.

That's not an opinion either, but an observable fact. If players may not take feats, may not wear certain armors, may not pick certain classes, may not multiclass, and / or can never acquire magic items, then players have less choice over how to build and customize their character.

This is fine for some groups. I have certainly been in games with players who feel that they have too many choices to make. Some people would rather just be handed a simple character sheet and never have to think about the math or making any complex choices. These tend to be "roleplayers", and not "roleplayers", as OP might say. Such players are happier with fewer choices.

But other players, like myself, enjoy having plenty of character customization options. I'm one of the people who doesn't like the fact that I have to give up attributes to get a feat. Some may say "Just play a caster if you want to make lots of choices," but that kind of thinking doesn't really work for me.

With all of that in mind, I think WotC has done a good job with 5e. Someone who doesn't optimize at all can still do fine and contribute in a party of fully optimized characters. Bounded accuracy and low power levels, compared to previous editions, further make 5e a more balanced playing field than any other edition that I've played.

As the DMG says, I think the best advice is to know your players. Unless there is a compelling story reason, I don't think a DM should ever prevent players from taking feats or multiclassing the way they want to. Excluding a particular feat or spell due to balance reasons, such as lucky or wish, is one thing. But just saying "no feats" or "no multiclassing" is very limiting to those players who want to, particularly given how much those players have to give up for either. And for players who just want to roleplay and don't want all the fancy options, just help them build a basic and effective character and help fill out their character sheet. Suggest classes like fighter and monk over playing a wizard or ranger.

Armor and magic are more tricky, but I don't think that the PHB or MM are truly balanced with no magic or heavy armor in mind. Strength builds suffer greatly in a world with no plate, and several classes and archetypes (champion fighter, assassin Rogue, etc) suffer much more than others (EKs, blade pact warlocks) in a magic-item-less game. So definitely bear these things in mind when building your worlds. Think about these things for your players, and warn them ahead of time so that your players don't find out too late.

In short, be excellent to each other. Don't tell your player he can't play the game he wants to play.

Similarly don't tell your DM that he can't run the campaign he wants to run. As everyone knows, DMing is a lot of work. Nothing is worse, as a DM, than when your players show little or no interest in the world you build. Help them by working things out before you sit down at the table, asking any questions that you need to, so that you know what to expect and are ready to play.

[Pex]

It's not the restricting of stuff that bothers me. It's the why the restricting takes place. It's not no magic items because it's a gritty, urban campaign taking place just in this one city. It's no magic items because "Yay! I don't have to give my players magic items anymore!" That's not a direct quote but was something I read a while ago. It's not no feats because everyone wants a simpler game and likes increasing ability scores. It's no feats because the DM hates players getting an extra attack or extra hit points or becoming proficient in a saving throw giving them more POWER the rollplaying munchkins.

Dictatorial DMs never completely went away. They do exist in 3E, Pathfinder, and 4E. The problem is because of everything being optional in 5E these DMs now have an excuse to fall back on.

Edit to add:

What concerns me is that if a player then says, "I want to play with feats. I like magic items. I want to multiclass", etc., the DM just needs to point to the rulebook to say it's all optional. "If you don't like it then don't play." We'd be back to DMs kicking out players for being "rollplayers" and made to feel ashamed.

[themaque]

You don't know what destiny means...

Also, the DM shouldn't be allowed to change the rules. Don't ever play with that individual, again. That's foolish of you and has nothing to do with the rules of the game. It is merely a poor choice.

The DM controls the ultimate nature of reality within the game. If you can't handle that, this game isn't for you. He isn't just a 3rd person omniscient narrator, he is 3rd person omnipotent. That said, it is a game. A DM who doesn't seek satisfaction for his players is sitting in the wrong seat. And bending the rules for theatrics in favor of the players is one of my favorite things to do as a DM.

Please don't be pedantic. I know the actual definition of destiny and I was using a common phrase to emphasis my point of player control over their character. If I was actually confusing in my comment, than I apologize to you.

And I did not play under that GM again. I was using him as a point that it does require a level of trust from player to a GM just as it does from GM to players. I did not know him very well, as I had not been on that base very long.

I am however getting mixed singles with some of your other points. You mentioned a GM shouldn't change rules and implied i was foolish to play under him. Then you mention that the GM controls the nature of reality and the game, and if I can't handle that I should play something else. Would you clarify?

I agree that fudging the rules is very often a necessary and integral part of being a GM, I am both a player and a GM.

[Knaight]

It's not the restricting of stuff that bothers me. It's the why the restricting takes place. It's not no magic items because it's a gritty, urban campaign taking place just in this one city. It's no magic items because "Yay! I don't have to give my players magic items anymore!" That's not a direct quote but was something I read a while ago. It's not no feats because everyone wants a simpler game and likes increasing ability scores. It's no feats because the DM hates players getting an extra attack or extra hit points or becoming proficient in a saving throw giving them more POWER the rollplaying munchkins.
At least with the magic items category, that sounds like avoiding the treadmill more than anything, and the magic item treadmill is just tedious for everyone. They're no longer mandatory, which is the first step in making them special. The feats case is a bit sketchier, but even there it comes down to whether it's about a low powered setting or just keeping the PCs down. I'm just not seeing the dictatorial approach in any of these examples, and I've seen the occasional dictatorial DM (though I don't have any horror stories).

[Easy_Lee]

I agree that fudging the rules is very often a necessary and integral part of being a GM, I am both a player and a GM.

Yep. I've fudged rolls to keep someone from dying immediately on the character he spent hours fleshing out. It's just something you gotta do sometimes.

[Knaight]

Yep. I've fudged rolls to keep someone from dying immediately on the character he spent hours fleshing out. It's just something you gotta do sometimes.

It can generally be avoided if you have some sort of mechanic to handle it. A handful of hero/fate/destiny/whatever points per player that can be used to cheat death or proactively bring things in can add quite a bit to a game, though I'm not fond of complex economies of those tokens.

[Easy_Lee]

though I'm not fond of complex economies of those tokens.

Me either. My players at the time had more options than they knew what to do with (the player in question could have saved himself with Lucky, but he forgot he had it). Generally speaking, I like the idea that a real hero could cheat death a given number of times, particularly if that's a reward that can be earned (similar to inspiration).

[Battlebooze]

Yep. I've fudged rolls to keep someone from dying immediately on the character he spent hours fleshing out. It's just something you gotta do sometimes.

I'm very happy with the new 3rd level cleric spell Revivify. It really helps a GM out if he over scales a fight a little. As long as the cleric isn't an idiot...

Overall, I think death is much more reasonable in 5th. I so hated the old exp penalty in all it's forms.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Well, revivify was already in 3.5, so that's not really something 5th has over it. Admittedly, revivify is in the spell compendium, and my group's players never look outside core for some reason. :/

[Battlebooze]

Well, revivify was already in 3.5, so that's not really something 5th has over it. Admittedly, revivify is in the spell compendium, and my group's players never look outside core for some reason. :/

If we played with every spell available... We played 3.5 mostly with the basic set of books and if the GM approved, the class handbooks. I don't think revivify ever made it into play, unfortunately.

[Ralanr]

After read/skimming through this thread, I've come to realization that I should loosen my grip on the rulebook and be less adamant to things I fear my friends will homebrew that are broken (Which they tend to be sometimes. Like my buddy's slime alchemist who kept hiding in the cracks in the ground when he rolled for stealth in pathfinder. But I'm not the DM so I shouldn't fully discourage it.).

If anything I'm just projecting the image of stifling creativity since I can't always find good reasons or examples of why something might be broken (The best I could give for 5e is "No because it's an ability that only monsters have" when a friend wanted to make a race with inborn magic resistance cause it fit with their backstory. Mechanically it felt broken as holy hell, but "because a monster has it" doesn't really feel like a good excuse cause of variant familiars).

Half the time I forget that we can color outside of the lines.

[Forum Explorer]

It's not the restricting of stuff that bothers me. It's the why the restricting takes place. It's not no magic items because it's a gritty, urban campaign taking place just in this one city. It's no magic items because "Yay! I don't have to give my players magic items anymore!" That's not a direct quote but was something I read a while ago. It's not no feats because everyone wants a simpler game and likes increasing ability scores. It's no feats because the DM hates players getting an extra attack or extra hit points or becoming proficient in a saving throw giving them more POWER the rollplaying munchkins.

Dictatorial DMs never completely went away. They do exist in 3E, Pathfinder, and 4E. The problem is because of everything being optional in 5E these DMs now have an excuse to fall back on.

Edit to add:

What concerns me is that if a player then says, "I want to play with feats. I like magic items. I want to multiclass", etc., the DM just needs to point to the rulebook to say it's all optional. "If you don't like it then don't play." We'd be back to DMs kicking out players for being "rollplayers" and made to feel ashamed.


The DM never needed an excuse, or rather the system always gave him one in rule 0. Again nothing has changed and how you should react shouldn't change either.

[EvanescentHero]

Dictatorial DMs will be so in any system. 5e makes it more obvious that the DM is always in control, but that has been the case in every single edition of D&D. The DM decides what goes and what's not okay, and that's how it's always been. I don't see this edition giving rise to any more "dictators" than any other edition; any DM that goes mad with power would have done so in 3.P too.

[Randomthom]

I've always been a fan of the RAI approach and my own personal approach of "say no... sparingly". My players know this and (generally) don't take the piss. They know that RAW means little to me so if they turn up with a character that is brutally powerful because of some exploit of RAW then I'll find something just as nasty to throw back at them. They also know that if they can justify something in-game then I'll rule it on-the-fly.

E.g. I want to jump off the balcony onto the chandelier then attack the archer on the balcony when I swing within range. Ok, roll athletics for the jump and acrobatics for the hold/swing. Good on both rolls, you make the jump and manage to place your feet and your free hand grabs the chandelier, your momentum swings you close to the balcony.

I have a very varied group of players. One powergamer, one who likes to understand my plans then ruin them (I design a world with zero railroading because of this guy), one who is happy so long as things are described well & looks cool and another who seems to just like hitting things & stealing things!

Being a GM is about managing your players' expectations. They turn up to play a game but what that game looks like varies from player to player. If you only let them play your game then you're only doing half the job of a GM.

[Easy_Lee]

Dictatorial DMs will be so in any system. 5e makes it more obvious that the DM is always in control, but that has been the case in every single edition of D&D. The DM decides what goes and what's not okay, and that's how it's always been. I don't see this edition giving rise to any more "dictators" than any other edition; any DM that goes mad with power would have done so in 3.P too.

I think the idea of the thread is that being a dictatorial DM is harder to justify when you have to actively change the rules or limit player choice. When these things are done for you, via feats and multiclassing being optional and many rules being vague and open to interpretation, then it's much easier to get away with being a control freak. I think there's merit to that thought.

One could say that dictatorial DMs are going to be that way regardless of the system, but I don't think that's the whole truth. After all, real life criminals become more common when the punishment is less severe. The more the system encourages or facilitates a behavior, the more likely that behavior becomes.

Some say there are two sides to this coin, though. I'm told that players who won't listen to the DM and think that they, the player, have full say in what they can and cannot do, are problematic. I'm told that munchkins who care for nothing but maxing out their characters at the expense of RP are awful to play with. That said, I've never met a player like that. The person who I knew who came closest to being a munchkin was a half dragon sorceress. Her character was strong, but not as strong as she could have made it. She just wanted to play a dragon, and found a really good way to play one.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[Mr.Moron]

I really have no interest in being a part of broad-focus kitchen sink games right now. I wouldn't play in one and I certainly wouldn't run one. Wanna fight about it?

[EvanescentHero]

-snipped for brevity-

I suppose I do see where you're coming from in that it's easier to justify from a DM perspective, but I think it takes the right (or wrong) sort of mindset to go as far as Pex seems to be afraid of, and I tend to believe that anyone with that mindset will find ways to enforce their control freak tendencies regardless of what game they play. However, it's been my experience that problem players tend to be much, much more common that problematic DMs. Perhaps it's more disastrous if the DM has these problems than if a player has their own suite of un-fun tendencies, but I'm honestly not convinced that's true either. I've been blessed to get players who are all pretty much on the same page in what they expect from the game and knowing how to act at the table in the games I run, but I acknowledge that's not everyone's experience.

Back to the main topic, I do still feel like this issue is going to be a much smaller one than it used to be, since we're in the age of the internet and will hopefully have learned from the mistakes of past editions. I'm also of the opinion that 5e giving more power back to the DM is an explicitly good thing, especially since it's not coming at much expense to players' power. I feel that the fear here may be overblown, especially since the edition is still quite going, and I hope I'm right, because I don't think anyone should have a bad time in a game of D&D.

[SliceandDiceKid]

On phone, missed quote

•shouldn't change obvious mechanics for the detriment of players (from your table's gaming precedent)
•should occasionally allow outrageous (sometimes impossible) feats for the benefit of the story/delight of the players. (Even ignoring the mechanics, at times)

Glad you aren't still playing with the terrible DM example. I think few are fortunate enough to have not dealt with learning or bad DMs.

[themaque]

I really have no interest in being a part of broad-focus kitchen sink games right now. I wouldn't play in one and I certainly wouldn't run one. Wanna fight about it?

You sir, have offended me! I challenge!! Select your weapon and meet me at the field of honor!!! Exclamation!!!!!


I have left things wide open to start, and then narrow the choices latter on as the party is created and the story starts. I've gone the opposite way, start the game with very narrow scope and open things up as they are discovered in game. There is no right or wrong answer as long as everyone is having fun.

[coredump]

If you don't trust your DM, then don't play with your DM.
If you don't trust any DMs, then play Diablo instead.

Bad DMs are bad.... if their goal is to screw over the party, they can do that in any system. If your design philosophy is based on 'fixing' the bad DMs.... it ain't agonna work.

[Pex]

I think the idea of the thread is that being a dictatorial DM is harder to justify when you have to actively change the rules or limit player choice. When these things are done for you, via feats and multiclassing being optional and many rules being vague and open to interpretation, then it's much easier to get away with being a control freak. I think there's merit to that thought.


Yes, this.

Someone understands me. :smallbiggrin:

[Gritmonger]

Yes, this.

Someone understands me. :smallbiggrin:

So, "Let's punish everybody preemptively?"

Edited to add: this just seems like preferring the controlfreakery on one side of the table to another. Really, if you expect to control a DM by limiting what they can do by preadjudicated rules ad nauseum, aren't you just seeking control yourself? At what point does it end? The game bogs down as the seventeeth table and cross-reference is looked up just to grapple an opponent, and inevitably somebody is still not satisfied with a lack of granularity or a gray area for their particular fetish, so yet more supplements and tables are added, just to make sure they feel like they won't have things turn out how they don't want.

I think you call this "fun."

[Pex]

So, "Let's punish everybody preemptively?"

Edited to add: this just seems like preferring the controlfreakery on one side of the table to another. Really, if you expect to control a DM by limiting what they can do by preadjudicated rules ad nauseum, aren't you just seeking control yourself? At what point does it end? The game bogs down as the seventeeth table and cross-reference is looked up just to grapple an opponent, and inevitably somebody is still not satisfied with a lack of granularity or a gray area for their particular fetish, so yet more supplements and tables are added, just to make sure they feel like they won't have things turn out how they don't want.

I think you call this "fun."

Did you miss the part where I said it's not the restrictions but the why the restrictions exist? There is a difference between thinking a DM is a control freak and just not preferring the campaign he wants to run.

Perhaps I hit too close to home? :smallyuk:

[Psikerlord]

Let me see if I understand...

The OP came across some DMs that wanted the game to be played a certain way, which he says is really bad... so he makes a long post, saying that everyone needs to play the game *his* way.

Um..... wut?

Yep. This^.

[Gritmonger]

Did you miss the part where I said it's not the restrictions but the why the restrictions exist? There is a difference between thinking a DM is a control freak and just not preferring the campaign he wants to run.

Perhaps I hit too close to home? :smallyuk:

You can't claim sharpshooting when you use a sawed-off shotgun with birdshot at twenty yards.

[wayfare]

It's not the restricting of stuff that bothers me. It's the why the restricting takes place. It's not no magic items because it's a gritty, urban campaign taking place just in this one city. It's no magic items because "Yay! I don't have to give my players magic items anymore!" That's not a direct quote but was something I read a while ago. It's not no feats because everyone wants a simpler game and likes increasing ability scores. It's no feats because the DM hates players getting an extra attack or extra hit points or becoming proficient in a saving throw giving them more POWER the rollplaying munchkins.

Dictatorial DMs never completely went away. They do exist in 3E, Pathfinder, and 4E. The problem is because of everything being optional in 5E these DMs now have an excuse to fall back on.

Edit to add:

What concerns me is that if a player then says, "I want to play with feats. I like magic items. I want to multiclass", etc., the DM just needs to point to the rulebook to say it's all optional. "If you don't like it then don't play." We'd be back to DMs kicking out players for being "rollplayers" and made to feel ashamed.

Dictatorial DMs are a problem, but a lot of running a game well comes with experience.

A newbie DM is well within his/her rights to say "I need to keep this simple". So is a vet who just doesn't want to have to worry about the bookeeping. It makes for a less complex game, for certain, but it is still acceptable way to play.

If you are playing with a person who is trying to kill your character for no reason so he can "win" you are in an unhealthy game. But lets not paint with too broad a brush, especially if you are a savvy player -- we all have rules we disagree with and would like to see amended. 5e has some fallacies built in, just like every edition of D&D and probably every RPG ever. The math gets wonks at times, there are class balance issues, the whole shebang. Not every GM is gonna see that, or even agree that there is a problem. That doesn't make them bad GMs, it means their philosophy differs from yours.

I am 100% pro brewing. My GM is pretty anti brewing, especially with this new edition. I like creativity. He wants to test the game and see how it runs before adding the 20 inch rims and fuzzy dice. He isn't a tyrant for not letting me brew. He isn't a tyrant for using the optional flanking rules that are currently biting me in the butt.

We differ, but at the end of the day, it is our mutual responsibility to make the game fun.

I was recently in a session where I was kind of an ass -- I've run a bit of 5e but I have not played a lot and i kind of felt like my character was being used like a punching bag. The party is doing great, but I'm not standing out, and I got all sulky because of it.

After, I realized that I was in a different mindset than this game required. I wasn't going to be a juggernaut striding across the field here like i might have been in other editions. But I was a good tank, I took my hits, I set up sneak attack for the rogue, and I kept the warlock alive. I did a job, and I was pretty good at it. I'm in a more tactical game, a more lethal game, and once I started accepting that I also began to see how it could be fun and rewarding to play that game.

I think that is one thing that often goes unstated in these discussions. RPGs are collaborative by nature. Figure out what the players want, figure out what kind of story the GM wants to tell. Those may be at odds, but your story will be 100% better for that knowledge.

[Psikerlord]

I've "discovered" refluffing relatively recently and I use it all.the.time. Need a quick CR 6 spellsword? Pick that CR 6 demon that flings firebolts, say it has a sword instead of claws and call it a spellsword. Want a lightning based wizard NPC for an plane of air campaign? That fireball is now a lightning ball. It saves me a bunch of time, rarely effects any mechanics and lets me flavour anything to easily fit my setting.

Yes definitely - I dont know if I've used any monster as the normal thing. Actually that's a lie: cultists were cultists when I used them. Everything else has been refluffed somehow. Works incredibly well. Tweaking monsters is one of the best bits of 5e.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Yes definitely - I dont know if I've used any monster as the normal thing. Actually that's a lie: cultists were cultists when I used them. Everything else has been refluffed somehow. Works incredibly well. Tweaking monsters is one of the best bits of 5e.

That's, uh, not really a 5e thing, either. I've done that in virtually every system I've DMd for. Still, I love to hear about people refluffing stuff in their games.

[themaque]

That's, uh, not really a 5e thing, either. I've done that in virtually every system I've DMd for. Still, I love to hear about people refluffing stuff in their games.

No but it wasn't actively encouraged in game until 4e, the edition many of the current 5e lovers skipped. (not all just many) So it's still fairly "New" to younger gamers.

[mephnick]

I'd say it was pretty heavily discouraged by 3.5. If not by the system, then the community for sure. The obsession with building every npc and monster as a PC was pretty prevalent. If I wanted a sorceror NPC who used a lightning ball instead of a fireball I better have spent the right amount of energy switching feats or I was cheating.

[Rowan Wolf]

I'd say it was pretty heavily discouraged by 3.5. If not by the system, then the community for sure. The obsession with building every npc and monster as a PC was pretty prevalent. If I wanted a sorceror NPC who used a lightning ball instead of a fireball I better have spent the right amount of energy switching feats or I was cheating.

So I take it your groups didn't use the spell research rules?

[pwykersotz]

So I take it your groups didn't use the spell research rules?

More like these boards don't like them so much. I've had a similar experience in 3.5. Use RAW or git-out (or get little to no useful feedback). I understand the paradigm, but I prefer 5e's.

[Rowan Wolf]

More like these boards don't like them so much. I've had a similar experience in 3.5. Use RAW or git-out (or get little to no useful feedback). I understand the paradigm, but I prefer 5e's.

After some of the imbalance stuff that got through what little playtesting the spell got it shouldn't have been hard to work with that method. But that being the case every group is different and what 'breaks' the game for one could very well be business a usual for another.

[pwykersotz]

After some of the imbalance stuff that got through what little playtesting the spell got it shouldn't have been hard to work with that method. But that being the case every group is different and what 'breaks' the game for one could very well be business a usual for another.

On that we are in firm agreement.

[Pex]

I'd say it was pretty heavily discouraged by 3.5. If not by the system, then the community for sure. The obsession with building every npc and monster as a PC was pretty prevalent. If I wanted a sorceror NPC who used a lightning ball instead of a fireball I better have spent the right amount of energy switching feats or I was cheating.

That's not just refluffing; that's changing a mechanic. In most cases a fireball or lightning ball won't matter, but it does matter when resistance comes into play. Fire and electricity damage are two distinct things. You still have a point, but your opposition isn't wrong either. A refluffing would keep it as a fireball in all ways but you describe it as the sorcerer using a "breath weapon" because he's dragon blooded or the fireball takes the shape of a skull. Of course, the counter to that argument is Forgotten Realms introduced a feat called Spell Thematics, IIRC, that would do just that to increase the Spellcraft DC to identify it such as wanting to counterspell. Your main point is still valid if not 100% correct in the details. :smallbiggrin: