Player Agency Vs. Table Rules

[Waterdeep Merch]

After unintentionally derailing the XGtE thread, I figured we could use a different one to continue a discussion I think is actually rather interesting, if an ill-fit to a preview thread.

The two basic sides in the argument are drawn around the question of how much control a player should have over building their character versus how much say a DM should have in telling their players what is and isn't permissible in their games. There's a bunch of sub opinions in this as well, like-

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

[PhoenixPhyre]

After unintentionally derailing the XGtE thread, I figured we could use a different one to continue a discussion I think is actually rather interesting, if an ill-fit to a preview thread.

The two basic sides in the argument are drawn around the question of how much control a player should have over building their character versus how much say a DM should have in telling their players what is and isn't permissible in their games. There's a bunch of sub opinions in this as well, like-

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

General note: my big concern is getting informed player buy-in up front. If that's done, I have very few objections.

1) Depends, but probably yes. If they're too restrictive, I'd rather not play or will stay single-classed.
2) Yes, but flexibility is essential from both sides. Ground rules should be a conversation, not fiat. Especially not surprise fiat.
3) Absolutely. Setting, tone, theme, etc can all impose restrictions.
4) If they want. Make sure it fits with the world, and is well described in advance.
5) Rarely IMO. That's something quite subjective and comes across as controlling to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

To answer your questions briefly:
1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?Yes, multiclass needs to fit into both the character's "fit" in the world and the story of the character.
2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table? Of course, why wouldn't it be? That said, I'd rather try to find a way to reach a compromise, meet on a middle ground, if a bit of collaborative discussion can determine were common ground is. Give and take.
3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
Always. In my first 5e campaign, the DM simply said "no feats at character creation" though later he took a different tact, in a different campaign setting, and let the V human fit in as a default 1st level creation.
4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
This question is unclear, too broad and nebulous, so my only answer is : it depends on the situation.
5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?
Yes. If most of the table is into RP and backstory, and one person simply isn't, it can over time create some at table issues ... but it won't necessarily do so ... that really depends on the person to person relationships of a given social group.

As an aside, as a DM when I ask you to give me a back story (and I'm all about back stories being a collaborative and interactive process between player and DM to try and get the player to fit into the campaign world) and the player won't put any effort into it, I have to ask myself: if you won't put that little bit of effort into this, why am I putting my efforts into running this game for you? We all contribute to the building the game world; we all lose a little bit if someone won't.

[mgshamster]

General note: my big concern is getting informed player buy-in up front. If that's done, I have very few objections.

This is the correct answer to all of this.

D&D is a social game, and therefore requires us to actually socialize and speak to one another before the game starts.

So based on that, you need to talk with your group and lay down the campaign ideas before you design a campaign. Figure out what everyone (including the DM) wants to play. Once you all agree, then you can design the campaign (or buy the book, or whatever).

If the game you want to run doesn't mesh with the game the players want to play, then have someone else DM. You're not required to be the DM. Negotiate at your table and play the ideas that allows everyone to have fun.

It's as simple as that.

100% of the problems that arise in D&D can be solved by simple talking to each other as emotionally mature adults.

[Aett_Thorn]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

Here are my completely subjective responses:

1) Yes. However, restrictions like this should be discussed at Session 0, and both players and the DM need to have an open mind about it. If the DM wants it, but the players don't, then it might be a bad idea for the table. At my table, I don't think that anyone would have a problem with this.

2) Yes, but again, this should be done at Session 0. Once the campaign is going, major changes should wait for the time between campaigns.

3) Absolutely. Let's say that the DM is creating a world where the gods have gone silent, and their influence is almost completely diminished. Setting up a world in which a Cleric would have almost no spells, this should absolutely be communicated to the players up-front, and a ban of this class would make sense. Or a world in which Elves are an evil race and are all NPCs. But again, this is a Session 0 conversation.

4) CAN they? Sure. SHOULD they? No. It's up to the table, really. Some tables won't care, and others will. At the ones that do, these types of things should be done.

5) Never as a demand. However, at Session 0, the DM should describe what he is looking for. The players and DM should engage in a dialogue to make sure that everyone will either be happy, or players that won't be can bow out beforehand.


Basically, HAVE A SESSION 0! Describe the flavor of the world, what rules/changes the DM wants to make, and see what the players are looking for.

[Waterdeep Merch]

This is the correct answer to all of this.

D&D is a social game, and therefore requires us to actually socialize and speak to one another before the game starts.

So based on that, you need to talk with your group and lay down the campaign ideas before you design a campaign. Figure out what everyone (including the DM) wants to play. Once you all agree, then you can design the campaign (or buy the book, or whatever).

If the game you want to run doesn't mesh with the game the players want to play, then have someone else DM. You're not required to be the DM. Negotiate at your table and play the ideas that allows everyone to have fun.

It's as simple as that.

100% of the problems that arise in D&D can be solved by simple talking to each other as emotionally mature adults.
This reminds me of a time long ago, when I finally got my hands on the d20 Modern book. I was so excited to make a game for it. I went to my friends, and-

Me: Guys, look! d20 Modern! I was thinking of a game where you're basically yourselves, but you find out the world's actually-
Friends: No.
Me: Huh. Okay, maybe a different story, where it's present day but magic has always-
Friends: Nah. Not feeling it.
Me: ... Can I convince any of you to play d20 Modern?
Friends: Why don't you just run another fantasy game? We like those. You've got all those Eberron books you've never used, right? Let's go to Eberron.
Me: ... Okay.

And so we played my first Eberron campaign instead. I never did get to play d20 Modern. A bummer, but what could I do? My friends didn't want to play it, so we didn't.

[smcmike]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

This may be a cop-out, but there is no “should.” The answer to all of these questions, and the underlying tension, is table-specific, which is to say that they only have any meaning in context.

[EvilAnagram]

I think most people are in agreement that the answer is basically, "Discuss this during Season 0!"

However, multiple people were making the argument that the DM has absolutely no business setting table rules, placing restrictions on multiclassing or character creation, or asking people to leave. I've been accused of being tyrannical, childish, and petty (never at my table) for saying that I feel comfortable doing any of that and discuss it during Session 0.

We should probably just assume Session 0 as a given at this point.

[Dudewithknives]

After unintentionally derailing the XGtE thread, I figured we could use a different one to continue a discussion I think is actually rather interesting, if an ill-fit to a preview thread.

The two basic sides in the argument are drawn around the question of how much control a player should have over building their character versus how much say a DM should have in telling their players what is and isn't permissible in their games. There's a bunch of sub opinions in this as well, like-

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

1. I have never been in a game that made people justify it, but I would be fine if it did. A sub note though, some classes are much easier to MC into. It does not really take much effort to take a level of fighter, but if you have spent the last level in a dungeon crawl as a fighter and suddenly decide to take a level of wizard, that might be kind of odd.

2. Sure, do you want to play a game with someone who does not really want to be there?

3. Absolutely, not every storyline will have every race/class available. If you are playing a game that is set in certain regions or in certain homemade realms there might not be any of certain races.
Ex. If you are running a game in the Dragonlance setting there will not be any Dragonborn or if you are running a game in the Scarred Lands and it is all a holy mission from the church of Hedrada you are not going to be playing a druid.

4. Not sure what you mean by this one, can I get an example.

5. Sure, if they want, and it is all explained in game 0, and the PCs all agree with it.

[Tanarii]

Player Agency has nothing to do with available mechanical options, or required/forbidden backstory elements or alignment/personality, for building a character for a table. It's entirely about choices made during game-play.

Edit: To answer your questions as a whole as opposed to individually:

If the DM is creating the game and then soliciting players, she sets whatever character creation and other campaign table rules she wants in advance and communicates them to potential players. Players decide if they find them acceptable or not.

If the DM is agreeing to run a game for a group of friends, the group needs to work out what's acceptable for character creation and other campaign table rules. Like, y'know, a bunch of adults.

If the DM is running an official play game, she needs to follow the official play guidelines, where they exist.

[Keral]

5) Rarely IMO. That's something quite subjective and comes across as controlling to me.



Really? To me it seems that that's the least a player should do. Now, roleplaying might not be everyone's forte, but at least putting forth some honest effort to do it should be expected.

As for the backstory it doesn't seem like asking too much. Unless the DM is asking pages upon pages, that is. My group and I are somewhat new to d&d but I did require they create some backstory. At least half a page of it. It's not like it has taken them hours of their time [even if it did, compared to the time I'm putting into Dm'ing they could have done it anyway].

[Easy_Lee]

The most popular kid on the playground is the one playing the game everyone else wants to play. If you're a DM who wants your players to like you and have fun, don't place arbitrary restrictions on what they can and can't do. They know what they want far better than you do.

[Finieous]

Yes to all, except #4 which I'm not sure I'm tracking. And more to the point, none of them are issues with a good group that communicates effectively. Therefore, the best advice is to play with good groups that communicate effectively.

[Daphne]

Player Agency has nothing to do with available mechanical options, or required/forbidden backstory elements or alignment/personality, for building a character for a table. It's entirely about choices made during game-play.

If the DM is creating the game and then soliciting players, she sets whatever character creation and other campaign table rules she wants in advance and communicates them to potential players. Players decide if they find them acceptable or not.

If the DM is agreeing to run a game for a group of friends, the group needs to work out what's acceptable for character creation and other campaign table rules. Like, y'know, a bunch of adults.

If the DM is running an official play game, she needs to follow the official play guidelines, where they exist.

I agree with everything Tanarii said.


If you're a DM who wants your players to like you and have fun, don't place arbitrary restrictions on what they can and can't do.

Or you could play with like minded individuals. And the DM is also allowed to have fun the way he wants too.

[mgshamster]

So I've got a situation where I feel it absolutely acceptable for the DM to lay down the law and kick any players who don't agree from the table:

Open Recruitment.

This is most common for online and PBP games, where a DM sets up a game and asks a community of players to apply for the game. Presumably, everyone who applies is agreeing to the rules set by the DM. When there are more applications than seats in the game, the DM is free to pick which players to accept based on some requirement.

The DM can then require players to have some backstory, or to explain in-universe why they're multiclassing, etc. Players who don't want to adhere to these requirements are free to simply not apply for the game.

[Honest Tiefling]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?

Yes. If the DM doesn't understand the character, how is the DM going to engage the character? I do suggest being a little open-minded with this, for the Wizard/Cleric might not want to RP as a guy who quit priest training but rather a holy arcanist or the like.


2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?

Comprimise is wonderful. Comprimise doesn't work in all sitations. Before turning away a player, a DM should always think hard on if a rule is really necessary. If it is, then yes because allowing an exception to them is unfair. Others at the table might like where the game is going and get frustrated at someone not playing along.


3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?

The DM HAS to set up rules so that characters work within a setting. For a setting like Greyhawk or Eberron, elves are very particular things. The PC can be a defector from these groups of elves, but they probably shouldn't be making up new elves without DM permission.

The DM should be aware that people have had different experiences with balance and what has worked at one table won't work with a different player. Some house rules will deter players.


4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?

Yes and no. This sorta encompasses the entire game so going to need some examples here.


5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

If a DM needs it, then yes, they CAN. Should they? No, some people just make up a backstory as they go along. Nothing wrong with that if the DM can work with it and the two are on the same page in regards to the setting.

[Easy_Lee]

Or you could play with like minded individuals. And the DM is also allowed to have fun the way he wants too.

Like-minded individuals don't exist. You're weird and unique, just like everyone else. You're going to have to compromise sooner or later if you want to have friends at all. And expecting others to compromise first is not a good policy in any endeavor.

[EvilAnagram]

The most popular kid on the playground is the one playing the game everyone else wants to play. If you're a DM who wants your players to like you and have fun, don't place arbitrary restrictions on what they can and can't do. They know what they want far better than you do.
I actually run one of the most popular public games at the local shop, and I ban multiclassing outright in that campaign, and I vet any UA material people want to bring.

People who come to my table agree to my rules, and if they don't wish to play by these rules I will ask them to leave, just like I would ask them to leave if they were making other characters uncomfortable. The shop owner trusts me to maintain a positive, welcoming environment, and I try to maintain a consistent balance between optimized combat and roleplaying.

And people react strongly to my style.

[Potato_Priest]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

First off, thanks for providing a thread for everyone to discuss these things merch. Hopefully all the old derailment discussion moves over here.

1. Yes, I would say so. I can see the arguments on both sides, but I think that this is an OK way to play as long as you're at a relatively RP-heavy table.
2. Yeah. I've done it before (over the issue of phones at the table) and I'd do it again.
3. Absolutely, especially when it relates to worldbuilding. In fact, the campaign of mine that my players and myself historically enjoyed the most was the one with the most limited character creation.
4. I'd say that the answer to this depends heavily on the nature of the thing. If from the beginning you want to re-fluff a paladin in a way that A) doesn't mis-match with the setting and B) makes you something other than your classical ideal knight in shining armor, then I think the DM should let you do it. On the other hand, if an NPC hag offers you a pact in game, than actually carrying out the pact for your new warlock powers is a reasonable expectation.
5. Depends on the campaign and table.

[Easy_Lee]

I actually run one of the most popular public games at the local shop, and I ban multiclassing outright in that campaign, and I vet any UA material people want to bring.

People who come to my table agree to my rules, and if they don't wish to play by these rules I will ask them to leave, just like I would ask them to leave if they were making other characters uncomfortable. The shop owner trusts me to maintain a positive, welcoming environment, and I try to maintain a consistent balance between optimized combat and roleplaying.

And people react strongly to my style.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. D&D players are so used to controlling DMs that one who's at least up front about his demands and weird rules seems like Gandhi by comparison.

[EvilAnagram]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

So I rule you?

I kid, but it's more that a public table is open to many players, so I have to enforce rules that are widely applicable and reinforce an open environment. There's no reason it has to be democratic, especially when a shop owner needs to maintain an atmosphere conducive towards retaining customers. My tables are fun, so people are happy enough to endure my restricting rules that, after all, are optional.

And is it really that weird to disallow an optional rule? Or should I let each individual player decide which way they'll be rolling initiative each combat?

[smcmike]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. D&D players are so used to controlling DMs that one who's at least up front about his demands and weird rules seems like Gandhi by comparison.

I have only had DMs who are 100% open to pretty much anything the player brings to the table, and there isn’t anything weird about banning multiclassing. To be clear, it’s not my preferred rule, but if the game is fun it really doesn’t matter one bit.

[Socratov]

After unintentionally derailing the XGtE thread, I figured we could use a different one to continue a discussion I think is actually rather interesting, if an ill-fit to a preview thread.

The two basic sides in the argument are drawn around the question of how much control a player should have over building their character versus how much say a DM should have in telling their players what is and isn't permissible in their games. There's a bunch of sub opinions in this as well, like-

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?

Unless specifically stated and agreed upon in advance during session 0, no.

2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?

Yes, as long as you don't move the goalposts during play, i.e. when reasonableness has failed.

3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?

If it does not concern an AL game, yes. That is exactly the DM's prerogative

4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?

Unless significant to the story, not at all. that stuff can be perfectly handled off-panel.

5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

Unless very specifically agreed upon and only for a very specific playstyle. I'd consider it unwise.

my answers in Brick red above

As for my thoughts on the subject, I earlier today posted this in a thread down at the general roleplaying section:


As a player I consider player agency sacred. As a player it is my right to affect the world around me as I see fit.

What this means is:


I make my own in character decisions
Once I use a feature or use an action, I expect the feature or action, when used again, to have a consistent and similar effect (or in short: magic A = magic A)
metagaming will happen considering in universe logical knowledge. Example: myths about monsters do exist: vampires suck blood, werewolves change on a full moon, witches be bitches.


As a player, player agency is what separates a TTRPG from a live reading from a novel, and IMO the very core of playing a game. It. Is. ESSENTIAL!

However,

none of the above rules are absolutes (only a Sith deals in absolutes)
For instance, if my character is being mind controlled, I should be expected to follow the DM's guidelines
the fact that I am not limited in my actions to take, does not excuse me from its consequences
I expect logic to be followed. this is best expressed in the subject of verisimilitude. Realism has no place whatsoever in a game with flying giant fire breathing lizards and frail robe wearing squishies throwing balls of fire around.


As a DM, however, my chief goal is to tell a story. This story is told in a collaborating fashion, but with me controlling not the tiny speck of dust that is a PeeCee, but all of those motes of dust that make up the entire game world I expect my players to at the very least work with me.

This means:


Thou shalt not break the story so that it cannot be told anymore. Thou shalt act reasonable.
What is fair and what is not is my domain
ANYTHING used or done by the players is fair game to be used by me. Turnabout IS fair play.


Player agency, according to my inner DM, is the player's illusion that they are laying the railroad you are leading them on. When you DM right your players shouldn't notice the tracks at all, even if they are only following the script.

with the following caveats:

[list]
I will share details on the story in advance. This will not only allow you the player to see what s/he can expect form me, but also make clear (as much as possible) what I will be expecting from him/her
if I will adjust things to make them more fair, please trust me on doing so with caution and after talking to you.
If you as a player feel you are being treated unfairly by me, tell me and we will work it out. Act like a grown-up and don't go whining on some forum looking for a build to wreck my **** to 'show me what is what'

The above views may seem highly paradoxical, but imo, when done right by both sides, make for a great game.

And to top it off: please remember that classes and levels are a mechanical construct of playing an RPG and, besides filling your toolbox with specific actions you can take and barring some exceptions, these classes and levels have no forced bearing whatsoever on the roleplay side of your character. it's not impossible, but beyond the restriction as given in the druid class, a paladin's oath, a sorcerer's bloodline and a warlock's patron there are no aspects that really affect your character beyond altering your 'toolbox', and even those exceptions are debatable.

[EvilAnagram]

Personally, I don't see a conflict between players having agency to act and the DM setting down table rules (hopefully with player input) in Session 0. Agency refers to the players ability to use game mechanics to affect events in the world, not their ability to affect how the world works. Arbitrating the underlying rules and mechanics of the world is the DM's job.

My players, at both tables, routinely muck up my story plans and make choices I hadn't even considered, especially at my home game. Traps rendered pointless, long-term villains killed at the first meeting, encounters bypassed... you name it they do it. At one point my home game was at .25 Hendersons.

They do this even though I am apparently a capricious tyrant who squashes any imagination because I restrict multiclassing and let them know it upfront.

[Erit]

The two basic sides in the argument are drawn around the question of how much control a player should have over building their character versus how much say a DM should have in telling their players what is and isn't permissible in their games.

These two things need not be sides of a coin. Think of them more... like two bags, one of nuts and the other of chocolates. "The Game" is a big bowl into which you pour amounts of these two bags, to find a ratio that suits the table. Sometimes people do indeed want to be assigned a character and told a synopsis of who they are, to basically become actors on a stage with a lot of leeway in the script. Some DMs want to run tables where they facilitate the telling of whatever hair-brained story the players design to follow on. Those two types tables exist, and there is nothing wrong with them existing if everyone concerned has good fun. But most commonly you want a mix of both the nuts and the chocolates, and that's where things get messy; some people are allergic to one or other, most people have preferences between the two, and there's usually at least one person asking why you got this kind of nut as opposed to that kind of nut, et cetera.

I, personally, prefer having more player freedom over DM control, but with the caveat that the players not reduce the engagement or value of another member of the party. If in the above analogy, chocolate is DM control and nuts are player freedom, I run things with mostly nuts, and you need to root around to find any chocolates.


There's a bunch of sub opinions in this as well, like-


1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?

Well, yes, of course it is. Multiclassing implies characters developing new skillsets and attaining new abilities that previously were not in the hand they were dealt—usually, at least. Fighter-Barbarian is a pretty obvious exception to that logic. The justification doesn't always need to be some multi-hour epic, mind; even something as simple as "this was my character concept, I just couldn't reflect it at 1st level" is, in my opinion, sufficient for most cases. Then again I don't DM for people prone to munchkinry.


2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?

Naturally. One aspect of player agency that no DM can ever abridge is the player's right to not show up. Similarly, no player has the right to demand a table be changed to suit their needs; to ask, persuade, and advocate for, sure, but they have no method of forcing the issue if the DM is adamant.


3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?

Yes. In fact, I welcome and encourage such things; setting ground rules for chargen helps to avoid "the Paladin falls" from coming back to infest the new edition. It's when you don't explicitly set rules, allow players to do things you'd prefer they not do, and then start punishing them for doing those things, that you cross the line. In my opinion, obviously.


4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?

"Should"? Yes. "Must"? Not really; again, nuts-to-chocolates ratio. Sometimes, throwing class-based fluff aside and treating classes less as "models for character development" and more as "packages of character abilities" can result in more interesting character development. Sometimes, the class itself is reflective of the character's story arc. I encourage flexing the creative muscles and making fluff surrounding mechanics where it can have merit, but at some point one will find themselves trying to rationalize magic; at that point, you've strayed from "fun" and entered "obsessive buzzkill" territory.


5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

Mu. To answer with something other than a reference to a koan; this question is invalid, because this isn't really something the DM decides on. Either the table he assembles will be of people who will just do that on their own, and any newcomers will be made to follow the herd or else be exiled; or not, and not. Certainly a DM can say to the table what they want, but either everyone will comply in which case asking was irrelevant, or no-one will in which case asking was irrelevant.

Really, it doesn't come down to "player agency vs table rules" because player agency is determined by the table rules. Without one the other has no definition, and therefore is not a meaningful existence. Player Agency only has one opponent; a malicious DM. And those are a sour grape that doesn't need continued discussion.

[Tanarii]

The most popular kid on the playground is the one playing the game everyone else wants to play. If you're a DM who wants your players to like you and have fun, don't place arbitrary restrictions on what they can and can't do. They know what they want far better than you do.
Yeah about that ... every time I see anyone offer a FLGS alternative to the unlimited options of official play, they outperform it, to the capacity of individual DMs involved. This includes mine, which is PHB-only, no multiclassing, no Feats. And this isn't in just in small time stores, these several stores in a major metropolitan area adjacent to colleges. From what I've seen of various online options where people solicit players, this holds true as well. Intentionally limiting options to match your theme/concept is always a bigger draw.

In short, your opinion seems to be based on your opinion, not in reality.

[Ganymede]

Yes to all of that.

DMs are allowed to have fun the way they want, too.

[Finieous]

Yeah about that ... every time I see anyone offer a FLGS alternative to the unlimited options of official play, they outperform it, to the capacity of individual DMs involved.

Even AL has a ton of restrictions on character creation: point buy, PHB+1, no UA, etc. I know that when I've looked for a game on Roll20 as a player, any game advertising liberal acceptance of UA, homebrew, etc., is a hard pass.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I didn't want to muck up the opening post with my opinion, though I'm not sure my specific line of questioning was neutral enough. Sorry for any dissenting viewpoints.

My personal opinion, now that we're down this far, aligns with most everyone else- set the expectations and understanding for the table at the beginning, before anyone even touches a dice or writes a name on a character sheet. Yes, you should be somewhat mutable and listen to your players' wants and desires. No, you shouldn't be arbitrary in enforcing your rules or make up new ones mid-session unless there's really no helping it (such as unintentionally breaking the plot or overpowering a specific character to an unreasonable degree), and then you should basically have an impromptu 'new session zero' to discuss the changes and make sure your players are still having fun. No, your players don't get to dictate the entire game world and tell you what to do. It's a give and take.

In their game, a DM is god. What else do you call a being that creates everything in a world, controls nearly every aspect of it, and can warp any part of reality to their liking? But the story they tell is not about them- it's the story of the players.

A good DM is a benevolent god that listens to their players and adapts accordingly. A good player doesn't attempt to play god.

Unless the game is literally about becoming a god. Then, whelp.

[Erit]

Unless the game is literally about becoming a god. Then, whelp.

Those can be their own kind of fun, though, let's be honest.

[Elric VIII]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
Demand? No. You may be the DM, but you're also one of the players of D&D. Work with your players, don't dictate to them.


2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
It depends on your relationship and the degree of the issue. If you're running a table at a convention or working for a game store, rules are rules. If you're with a social group, compromise. I see way too many people become tyrants when they DM as if it makes them the leader of the social group.


3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
Of course, but it must be done with the understanding that different playstyles and preferences exist. For example, I once ran a 3.5 game where I designed a special ability for each player that gave them some way to both move and full attack (Rogue could move as an immediate action when an enemy attacked someone else, monk could move his bonus speed between attacks, etc). I typed them up and gave everyone a card with their ability. No one used them. I always love interesting, fiddly mechanics; my players did not. So I talked tot hem and just let them all use move+full attack.


4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
Only if the players are also on-board with this.


5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?
No. Imagine this: would you kick an autistic person out of your game because he's not good at roleplaying? If the answer is "no," then it is disingenuous to require roleplaying. If the answer is "yes," then you're a d**k. Additionally, not every person is deep or complex. Some of the most compelling stories come from completely mundane people being put in extraordinary situations.

Personally, I'm tired of seeing half-dragon, half-demon, half-cat magic chosen ones that are the reincarnation of blah blah. I make it a rule to never write more than a page of backstory (usually bullet points describing looks and personality) because I like my character to grow with the campaign. I especially like to improvise background events that relate to the story.

[Sigreid]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing? This is OK if it's what the table wants. I'd caution about pushing it too far as the ultimate goal is for everyone, including the DM to have fun.

2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table? Yes, but I would phrase it differently. More of "You don't seem happy with the way we like to play. Maybe we're not the right group for you." I also think you should at least give their concerns a fair hearing. Maybe the differences aren't as big as they first appear.

3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation? Yep. There's nothing wrong with this. You probably shouldn't be too restrictive, but telling the players what makes sense for the game he's prepared to run. The last two parties I've DM'd from the start I told them I wanted them to all know each other and have lived in a particular town for at least two years, for example.

4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements? This is a table decision. I think the fluff in the book is mainly to give players a starting point, and I don't find it important to stick with. In my job I have to pull teams together to think things through all the time and have learned even a flat out dumb idea is better than a blank slide to get the conversation going.

5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game? Depends on the DM's patience I think. Some of the best and most fun players, deep into role playing that I've seen started out feeling really awkward about it and it would have been a shame if they got chased away. A solid backstory can help a DM, particularly in a sandbox campaign but honestly I'm happy enough if they can give me a general background, the means they use to sustain themselves prior to adventuring, and some ideas for their goals and what's important to them I can work from.


Edited to respond to the post directly above me: It would depend on the level of autism. Most of the autistic people I have known focus on weird things but are basically ok. I've met some that it's a trial to deal with at all. It may make me a %&**, but I play the game for fun and to relax and not as a charity event. If someone is going to ruin the fun and relaxation of the game, I'm not staying at the same table as them. Even if it's a mental condition they don't have any control over.

[furby076]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

For me, the answer comes down to 2 main points
A. Sort this out in session 0. And realize rules can be changed to make improvements. If a change needs to happen, the table should discuss it through and make a group decision. It doesn't put the DM in an uncomfortable position to use top down authority. It may refine everyone opinion (dm included). The person who loses the discussion may not get so bent if its group consensus vs just DM decision. And maybe a compromise can be found, so its not all or none
B. The game is about everyone having fun. If you cant agree on the campaign, then maybe a different group is in order.

Nothing is wrong about discussing rules, setting, etc as adults

To your questions.
1. Sure it is. Especially if it will help get clarity as to how something works.myou better know in advance what you are allowing in your game. That way, if you really dont like it, then you can let the player know that you dont want it, or it can be put in place on trial
2. Sure. If you formed the group, your house, etc. It could also be that the DM needs to leave. Better yet, see if there is room for compromise. Typically its a specific rule that is an issue, not an entire campaign (though thats possible)
3. Yes a DM can set ground rules for creation. And i repeat, its also ok to ask players what they want. For example, if players want high stat array, and dm wants low...consider what is the real harm in compromising or even giving in.
4. Refluffing rp mechanics is fine. Heck, call a dragon a floompf if you want. Let the players know, if appropriate.
5. Demand is a harsh word. This is a game. Request yes. Encourage yes. Bribe HECK yes. But demand....it will fail. In the long run, people will do what they are comfortable doing. If you are willing to search for "true" rpers, and can find it.....awesome. goodluck too :)

Too often we inadvertently get caught up in guarding our positions or territory (power). Sometimes we gotta let our ego go.

[Kane0]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
Nobody playing a game for fun should demand anything of another, encouragement is much preferred. That said there has to be some minimum where the line in the sand is drawn and the DM, as the person running a roleplaying game, requires some input from the players. Where this line is drawn is different for every DM, every table and every adventure or campaign. This is best discussed prior to play and a major part of Session 0.

2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
Yes it's alright, but many are simply not comfortable with doing so. It is rarely so cut and dry.

3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
Definitely, they run the game after all. This is also an important part of Session 0, to discuss and exchange rather than 'lay down the law'.

4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
Common practice is to disconnect mechanics from fluff where possible, but there's nothing inherently wrong about linking them. Just linking them badly.

5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?
See answer #1.

[Pex]

It's a matter of DM attitude.

Yes to all questions work if the DM is sincere in trying to run an interesting fun campaign working with their players to achieve it. The DM listens to player feedback. Sometime he'll change his mind to what the player wants sometimes he won't, but what he never does is dismiss the player's opinion on the matter.

No to all questions is the answer if the DM is a donkey cavity. If he gets off on the power trip, believes in "my way or the highway", or otherwise acts like Lord and Master the players are lucky to be at his table, then he doesn't deserve the DM chair. The DM has authority as necessary to run the game, but the players are not his Royal Subjects.

It is the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game.

[mgshamster]

It's a matter of DM attitude.

Yes to all questions work if the DM is sincere in trying to run an interesting fun campaign working with their players to achieve it. The DM listens to player feedback. Sometime he'll change his mind to what the player wants sometimes he won't, but what he never does is dismiss the player's opinion on the matter.

No to all questions is the answer if the DM is a donkey cavity. If he gets off on the power trip, believes in "my way or the highway", or otherwise acts like Lord and Master the players are lucky to be at his table, then he doesn't deserve the DM chair. The DM has authority as necessary to run the game, but the players are not his Royal Subjects.

It is the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game.

Another excellent answer.

[2D8HP]

...Is a DM even allowed to...


Given the difference between willing DM's and want-to-play-players that I asked about in the

Is there a DM shortage? What can or should be done? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500951-Is-there-a-DM-shortage-What-can-or-should-be-done)

thread, from what I see, I'd say that if a DM has a place and time to play that is accessible to enough people (after work hours in a major metropolitan area or on-line), and there is at least a nominal effort to run a WotC 5e Dungeons & Dragons game, a DM has a lot of room before they no longer have willing players.

If the DM is more isolated I presume that they have to more closely follow the wishes of willing players, but I don't have much experience with that since I live near a major University in the San Francisco bay area.

The main compromise that a DM has to make has typically already been done by them being a DM in the first place. En.masse players have leverage, but unless a player is the one arranging for a desirable location (or brings delicious snacks), individual players just don't have that much leverage, so most everything on @Waterdeep Merch's list is "allowed" even at the same time.


The most popular kid on the playground is...


I already have quite enough demands on my time, and I feel little need to be "popular" so that I may have more people to fill my time., maybe after my kids are grown and I'm collecting a pension


...You're going to have to compromise sooner or later if you want to have friends at all....


That's a big "If", as I'm already ignoring invitations to both "hang out", and to work more overtime.

A more articulate man than me put it thus:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B5javs0euqc

[Glorthindel]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
Absolutely. To me, classes are not toolboxes to be picked through for the best toys. If you just want to be a man with a sword and some cool abilities, the Ranger, Rogue and Fighter can accommodate that type of character - but if you want to play a Paladin, you sure as hell will have to explain and uphold your oath. Likewise, a Sorcerer aptly covers the base of someone who just "knows" magic, but if you want to play a Warlock, then your pact is a real and tangible thing

2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
Yep - just as a player is allowed to walk away from a game that doesn't suit his needs, so can a DM "walk away" from one of his players if he is unwilling to work within the limits of his game.

3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
Again, absolutely. The standard character creation options are exactly that, options. If one race or class does not suit the setting, then the DM is perfectly in his rights to remove them. Hell, I am currently playing in two different campaigns both restricted to 'humans only', and that is fine if that is how the DMs world works.

4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
Definitely. As I said in question 1, a Paladins Oath and Warlocks Pact are real things (as are a Clerics diety), not just irrelevant fluff to be ignored after choosing your specialisation, and any player selecting those classes should expect a DM to hold them to the requirements of their class.

5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?
Yes and no - it is perfectly reasonable for the DM to request a certain degree of backstory in order to know how and where the character fits in the world, even if it is just "I lived in a village, was bored of farming, left home in search of adventure". Minimum word or page counts is unreasonable however.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Absolutely. To me, classes are not toolboxes to be picked through for the best toys. If you just want to be a man with a sword and some cool abilities, the Ranger, Rogue and Fighter can accommodate that type of character - but if you want to play a Paladin, you sure as hell will have to explain and uphold your oath. Likewise, a Sorcerer aptly covers the base of someone who just "knows" magic, but if you want to play a Warlock, then your pact is a real and tangible thing


My issue with this is that it puts way more weight on certain classes than others. It's the shades of the "And the Paladin Falls" issue from 3e and before. Yes, warlocks should care about their pact. But not all pacts are intentional contracts--especially for GOO locks. That's canon in-text.

I prefer to look at classes as giving a source of supernatural ability (all classes break the bounds of what is possible for a commoner) and a general mindset and approach to problems. That does impose bounds--a cleric will probably approach a problem with a different attitude than a wizard or a barbarian, for example--but doesn't tie things to one person's subjective determination of "the right way" to represent an oath, or a pact, or whatever.

[Keral]

My issue with this is that it puts way more weight on certain classes than others. It's the shades of the "And the Paladin Falls" issue from 3e and before. Yes, warlocks should care about their pact. But not all pacts are intentional contracts--especially for GOO locks. That's canon in-text.



Well, yes, but that's when it comes down to talking about it between DM and player. If the DM is a douche he's going to be a douche either way, if he's reasonable I don't really see a downside to fleshing out things like paladin oatsh/pacts etc.

It's not like it has to be set in stone. If I start out as a cleric of Pelor but then I decide to create my personal army of undead the DM should have Pelor be upset with me, maybe even have him take away my powers. As long as he allows me to get in contact with, say, Doresain and have him become my new deity.

The 'not all pacts are intentional' is easily fixed by spending little time coming up with a bit of background. If the player is wary about the possibility of it being an unintentional pact he just has to decide that it wasn't. Unless the DM is a douche, but then again he'll found other ways to be problematic.


In my opinion it all comes down to the flexibility of both player and DM, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to work that way. The DM should be allowed to determine his settings as he wishes. If he wants for warlock patrons to be relevant in the story then so be it. Otherwise he could as easily say 'no warlocks in this setting'. And that is something that the books explicitly say he can do.
I'd rather play a cleric who has been chosen and sort of pushed into doing stuff for his god than not playing cleric at all. If that's what I want to play. And more often than not I'm sure I could work with the DM to make sure the experience is enjoyable.


I think the problem is not the fact that a DM sort of demands that stuff to have meaning in the campaign. The problem is an unreasonable and unbending DM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, yes, but that's when it comes down to talking about it between DM and player. If the DM is a douche he's going to be a douche either way, if he's reasonable I don't really see a downside to fleshing out things like paladin oatsh/pacts etc.

It's not like it has to be set in stone. If I start out as a cleric of Pelor but then I decide to create my personal army of undead the DM should have Pelor be upset with me, maybe even have him take away my powers. As long as he allows me to get in contact with, say, Doresain and have him become my new deity.

The 'not all pacts are intentional' is easily fixed by spending little time coming up with a bit of background. If the player is wary about the possibility of it being an unintentional pact he just has to decide that it wasn't. Unless the DM is a douche, but then again he'll found other ways to be problematic.


In my opinion it all comes down to the flexibility of both player and DM, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to work that way. The DM should be allowed to determine his settings as he wishes. If he wants for warlock patrons to be relevant in the story then so be it. Otherwise he could as easily say 'no warlocks in this setting'. And that is something that the books explicitly say he can do.
I'd rather play a cleric who has been chosen and sort of pushed into doing stuff for his god than not playing cleric at all. If that's what I want to play. And more often than not I'm sure I could work with the DM to make sure the experience is enjoyable.


I think the problem is not the fact that a DM sort of demands that stuff to have meaning in the campaign. The problem is an unreasonable and unbending DM.

This is all very true--trust between player and DM is essential. But my concern is that it unfairly burdens a few classes and can lead to imposition of heavy-handed "default" roleplaying--all druids must be nature-loving hippies (for example) or all warlocks must be power-hungry schemers working for malign powers.

DMs certainly have the right to forbid certain elements entirely--I'd rather that than having hidden "you must play it this way" agendas. It's all a caution, not an absolute bar. Everyone should be flexible.

I have a warlock who (in-universe) we aren't sure whether he's just insane from brushing a GOO in his sleep or whether he's actually the incarnation of a GOO whose patron is his (star-faring nautiloid) wife. The second was his proposed backstory--I (with his permission) added the line "Or so he thinks." He's been roleplaying it admirably without the patron actually taking a hand. We're pretty sure that the patron exists, but we're not sure if she knows the character exists.

[Glorthindel]

My issue with this is that it puts way more weight on certain classes than others. It's the shades of the "And the Paladin Falls" issue from 3e and before. Yes, warlocks should care about their pact. But not all pacts are intentional contracts--especially for GOO locks. That's canon in-text.


Yes, it does put more weight on certain classes, and I am perfectly fine with that. Don't want the strings of playing one of those classes, roll a fighter.

And I am not saying the character has to play their oath, pact, diety, etc one specific way, but it needs to be considered as part of the characters background. And it needs to be borne in mind as the character develops, even if the patron isn't going to be making guest appearances to manipulate the player during the sessions (in fact, I expressly wouldn't be doing that with characters beginning play as a warlock - although a character who makes a pact with a demon in-game is entirely another matter).

All your examples for a GOO warlock are perfectly fine with me, because the patron exists (in some form) and your interactions (or not) with him follow an established pattern that you have designed, and will be informing your characters attitude and behavoir. All good. Where a problem starts to occur is when the Oath of Devotion Paladin decides he needs to multiclass as a Fiend-Pact Warlock for min-max purposes and expects there not to be a massive conflict of interest. Sorry, that has got to be explained (and roleplayed) to my satisfaction, or I'm not going to let it fly.

[Tanarii]

It's a matter of DM attitude.

(Snip some Good Stuff)

It is the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game.


Another excellent answer.
Agreed, it's an excellent answer.

And I'm going to agree this is still the case even when the DM has put together a game and is soliciting players. It's still the case even in an open table campaign where the DM has put the campaign together, with many different players spread across multiple sessions a week, who rarely interact in the same session due to personal schedules.

Even in that case we need to listen to players. We don't need to change our campaign as a result. Sometimes the reason we won't is because we can't change the campaign for one or a few players at the cost of the many others, sometimes it's that changing it will destroy what the campaign is. But sometimes not changing the campaign will cause it to fall apart eventually.

Example:
- several players approach me about playing Volo races. I tell them I can't make a specific exceptions for them at this time because the campaign is open, and whatever applies to one person applies to everyone. But once Xanthar's comes out, I'll strongly consider opening the door to both Volo's and Xanthar's characters, after considering how it will affect existing characters.

Allowing new races is likely to have a huge impact, since the goal is 'feels like old-school D&D'. There will have to be a way to encourage 'traditional' races without banning non-traditional ones from Volo's. But enough players want new material, it's worth paying attention. It might be possible, in theory, try to hold the campaign as PHB-only forever. But the most likely result is eventually bleeding players faster that attracting new ones. Without recruiting at the level of a newly starting campaign again, that's enough of a challenge as is.

[lunaticfringe]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?

Yes. I personally do not care. Oaths and Pacts are to me just fluff explanations of mechanics. If you would like your Sorcadin to be a Sorcerer who trained as a paladin or a Paladin who's sorcerer powers awakened go for it. If you want to be Kragnar the Shaman who is a Sorcadin mechanically but in game is his tribe's Witch Doctor that is fine by me.

2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?

Yes. Though like others I am more than willing to try compromise first.

3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?

Of course.

4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?

Whatever floats their boat. I, in case this is unclear, do not. I want you to use you're imagination as much as possible and will not place limits on how you describe a mechanical feature or effect. As long as don't start adding riders like arguing your Iceball (Fireball that deals Cold Damage) should freeze the river you have to cross.

5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

Demand Role play? Idk, sure as long as they are upfront about it. I Encourage it. I ask players questions about what their character is thinking or feeling occasionally. I encourage the use of "I" and first person language when describing actions. Instead of 'My Character raises His Warhammer' try 'I raise My Warhammer'.

I would be perfectly fine never reading another backstory ever again. Tell me who your character is and give me 2 Character Hooks. You are free to write it out or just answer me verbally when I ask so I can make a note of it. The Adventure is happening Now not when your character was 7.

[Brawndo]

After unintentionally derailing the XGtE thread, I figured we could use a different one to continue a discussion I think is actually rather interesting, if an ill-fit to a preview thread.

The two basic sides in the argument are drawn around the question of how much control a player should have over building their character versus how much say a DM should have in telling their players what is and isn't permissible in their games. There's a bunch of sub opinions in this as well, like-

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?
2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?
3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?
4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?
5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

1.)Yes
2.)Yes
3.)Yes
4.)Yes
5.)Yes

This is an old, old discussion that comes up repeatedly in discussions of role-playing games.

If you're running a game, it's perfectly permissible to set whatever the hell restrictions you want. It's also important to be very clear about any restrictions during the recruiting phase.

On the other hand, not everybody has the luxury of picking and choosing who to play with. If you're running a public table or you're desperately trying to find enough players to fill out a group, you will have to choose between compromising on some of those restrictions and not running a game.

However, a universal ban on DM's imposing their own playstyle preferences and running the game however the players demand does not in any way, shape, or form qualify as a compromise.

[willdaBEAST]

The most popular kid on the playground is the one playing the game everyone else wants to play. If you're a DM who wants your players to like you and have fun, don't place arbitrary restrictions on what they can and can't do. They know what they want far better than you do.

You keep bringing up "the most popular kid" and I can't help but be reminded about arguments about musicians when one fan says, "but artist X sold more albums than artist Y!". That's one metric to evaluate or judge something, but not the only one. Like you say in your own post, "players know what they want far better than you do", why are you telling the entire forum how to run their game? I could see a case being made if you lived in a small community and only had one game to participate in where the DM was a despot, but it's easier now than ever to find a game that's right for you (online or in person).

Personally, I don't want to play in the most popular DnD game. To me that implies that it's accessible and accommodating to pretty much any kind of player. I think it makes sense for every game store to have at least one table with a game that can handle anyone who walks in, but it's hypocritical to criticize DMs for clearly defining the tone of their game and then saying players should dictate everything. I get the most enjoyment out of narratively complex, character driven stories and it's miserable when you force an unwilling participant into that kind of game. I also enjoy exploring morally grey situations or characters, but also recognize that's not for everyone.

Frankly I'm reminded of when I play pick up basketball at the park. I generally play in "the most popular" game and there's a tendency for the one person who has never showed up before to tell the other 7-9 of us how we should be playing or what rules we should use.

[Easy_Lee]

You keep bringing up "the most popular kid" and I can't help but be reminded about arguments about musicians when one fan says, "but artist X sold more albums than artist Y!". That's one metric to evaluate or judge something, but not the only one. Like you say in your own post, "players know what they want far better than you do", why are you telling the entire forum how to run their game? I could see a case being made if you lived in a small community and only had one game to participate in where the DM was a despot, but it's easier now than ever to find a game that's right for you (online or in person).

Personally, I don't want to play in the most popular DnD game. To me that implies that it's accessible and accommodating to pretty much any kind of player. I think it makes sense for every game store to have at least one table with a game that can handle anyone who walks in, but it's hypocritical to criticize DMs for clearly defining the tone of their game and then saying players should dictate everything. I get the most enjoyment out of narratively complex, character driven stories and it's miserable when you force an unwilling participant into that kind of game. I also enjoy exploring morally grey situations or characters, but also recognize that's not for everyone.

Frankly I'm reminded of when I play pick up basketball at the park. I generally play in "the most popular" game and there's a tendency for the one person who has never showed up before to tell the other 7-9 of us how we should be playing or what rules we should use.

I think you've misinterpreted me.

To your point about artists, an artist isn't trying to cater to everyone, but to their fans. Similarly, D&D works best when all of the players at a specific table are trying to work with each other rather than doing things their way. I think that's self-evident.

Your basketball example is what I'm talking about. If I walk up to a basketball court with a ball, and everyone wants to play this way but I'd really prefer that other way, I have a few choices. One is to play the way more people want to play and have what fun I can with it, thinking maybe I'll try to talk them into this other way later. Another is to not play at all.

It's more useful to think of D&D as a social game than as a role-playing game. The game isn't about the characters or the world, it's about the players who control those characters and their actions in the world.

And the DM is a player, too. The biggest difference for the DM is that he's controlling a lot more characters. I don't get it when DMs complain that the game didn't go the way they wanted it to. They have a lot more control than the other players do even at the most lenient tables.

[willdaBEAST]

"5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?"

To key in on that question, I think it's important to remind the players that there are many different approaches to roleplaying. You can speak in a voice to role-play in the first person, speak in your personal voice but through your character's POV, you can describe your character's actions and intentions through the third person, etc. It's imperative to make sure you're consistent though. A classic example is forcing a bard to actually sing when you don't adhere to the same degree of realism for a barbarian jumping over a table or what have you.

In the game I run, I don't outright say you have to role-play or have a backstory, but I reward my players for doing so and heartily encourage it whenever possible. I get no enjoyment as a DM to hear, "I persuade the guard to open the gate, I rolled a 15". I don't need to hear the entire argument and recognize that players can't always articulate the way a character with high charisma would be able to, but I still want to hear some reasoning for how the character might convince the guard. As for the example with the bard singing above, if you want to break into song that's great! If instead you want to describe your intent to sing a sad ballad that creates a more somber mood in the tavern, that's great too!

With backstory in particular, I think you're doing yourself a disservice as a player to not put some effort into that. Not only does it make roleplaying easier as a player, it allows the DM to connect your individual story with the overarching campaign.

[d13]

I'd like to further discuss the first point in particular.

I seem to be pretty alone in the universe regarding this but, personally, I think that any DM that "demands" justification in multiclassing is a bad DM. If a player's character concept involves multiclassing, or if a player just wants to mutliclass because #reasons, I believe the burden of the justification falls on the DM themselves.

If you want it to be story-driven (which is something completely understandable), it's on you, as a DM, to make it happen for your player.

[2D8HP]

...You keep bringing up "the most popular kid"....

...Personally, I don't want to play in the most popular DnD game. To me that implies that it's accessible and accommodating to pretty much any kind of player...


I'm going to chime in and repeat myself, but since is the 5e D&D Sub-Forum and presumably we're talking about DM's who at least nominally run 5e D&D, where exactly are there DM's hurting for players, and have to strive to be popular?

Most DM's are fine with just 3 players who may be depended upon to come to the table, and don't even have the space for six, much less more.

I remember that even as far back as 1980', when you'd pin a note to a game shops wall to get players, no one was hurting for any players unless they lived far from other people, now with the internet it should be easier to get players than it was then.

Until they're more want-to-be-DM's per want-to-be-players it seems to me that it's players who have to compromise more.

What am I not getting?

[Waterdeep Merch]

"5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?"

To key in on that question, I think it's important to remind the players that there are many different approaches to roleplaying. You can speak in a voice to role-play in the first person, speak in your personal voice but through your character's POV, you can describe your character's actions and intentions through the third person, etc. It's imperative to make sure you're consistent though. A classic example is forcing a bard to actually sing when you don't adhere to the same degree of realism for a barbarian jumping over a table or what have you.

In the game I run, I don't outright say you have to role-play or have a backstory, but I reward my players for doing so and heartily encourage it whenever possible. I get no enjoyment as a DM to hear, "I persuade the guard to open the gate, I rolled a 15". I don't need to hear the entire argument and recognize that players can't always articulate the way a character with high charisma would be able to, but I still want to hear some reasoning for how the character might convince the guard. As for the example with the bard singing above, if you want to break into song that's great! If instead you want to describe your intent to sing a sad ballad that creates a more somber mood in the tavern, that's great too!

With backstory in particular, I think you're doing yourself a disservice as a player to not put some effort into that. Not only does it make roleplaying easier as a player, it allows the DM to connect your individual story with the overarching campaign.
I think perhaps 'demand' may have been too harsh of a word to use repeatedly in my opening, due to its heavy connotations of force. 'Request' may have been better.

I do tend to ask my players to give me some semblance of a backstory or a few hooks, because I like to make the game world revolve around them. If they don't bother at all, it's only a little annoying. I instead try to create situations and story beats that will interest the player during the game, something to help blend them in to the overarching story and give them their share of the spotlight. I sometimes dedicate entire sessions to a particular player's subplot to let them play the lead for a moment. If a player specifies the story they want to hear up front, I can do this better. Otherwise it's like "Well, the player's a fighter. Maybe they'd like a quest for a new sword?".

[Easy_Lee]

I'd like to further discuss the first point in particular.

I seem to be pretty alone in the universe regarding this but, personally, I think that any DM that "demands" justification in multiclassing is a bad DM. If a player's character concept involves multiclassing, or if a player just wants to mutliclass because #reasons, I believe the burden of the justification falls on the DM themselves.

If you want it to be story-driven (which is something completely understandable), it's on you, as a DM, to make it happen for your player.

Agreed, but for me it's more general. I think a DM making demands at all is, generally, not a good policy. But I distinguish between a rule and a demand.

[Finieous]

I seem to be pretty alone in the universe regarding this but, personally, I think that any DM that "demands" justification in multiclassing is a bad DM.

I've required it for one campaign, suggested it in another campaign, and run several one-shots and mini-campaigns where I didn't mention it at all. I haven't yet run a game where I chose not to offer the multiclassing option, but I very well might in the future. So I guess I'm sometimes a "good DM" and sometimes a "bad DM," but the key point for me is that my players have been fine with all of the above.

Again, in my opinion, if you have a good group and good communication it's a non-issue.

[smcmike]

Your basketball example is what I'm talking about. If I walk up to a basketball court with a ball, and everyone wants to play this way but I'd really prefer that other way, I have a few choices. One is to play the way more people want to play and have what fun I can with it, thinking maybe I'll try to talk them into this other way later. Another is to not play at all.


The basketball example is a bit misleading. Pick-up basketball has its own informal rules and customs, and on a crowded public court, you are generally gonna have to follow them. This is comparable to an AL game or other comparably open games.

If, on the other hand, I have a basketball court in my back yard, and I want to organize a 3v3 tournament, there’s nothing wrong with setting up the tournament rules and structure, and inviting people over.


Agreed, but for me it's more general. I think a DM making demands at all is, generally, not a good policy. But I distinguish between a rule and a demand.

Can you further articulate the difference you are referencing?

Generally I agree that I don’t like the idea of restricting multiclassing based upon the DM’s preconceived notions of the classes. I prefer to think of classes as an out of game construct, and think it’s best to let players build the character they want.

[2D8HP]

...I think a DM making demands at all is, generally, not a good policy...


Um... "good policy"?

For who?

Unless players unionize, what's going to happen?

Is there a city with anxious DM's who lack players?

Given how many players can't find a table, I have a hard time imagining a DM exercising any of the options on Waterdeep Merch's list not having players, if they can still call it 5e (or Pathfinder).

If however they try to get someone to play a less popular game, like Traveller or The Fantasy Trip, then I could see them having a problem, but with PHB's still at every Barnes & Noble, DM's are free to demand.

Or is this about "should" rather than "what"?

[willdaBEAST]

Your basketball example is what I'm talking about. If I walk up to a basketball court with a ball, and everyone wants to play this way but I'd really prefer that other way, I have a few choices. One is to play the way more people want to play and have what fun I can with it, thinking maybe I'll try to talk them into this other way later. Another is to not play at all.

I don't want to drag this into semantics, but I think we can both agree within this example there is different etiquette for: someone bringing the only ball to play with (they have a bit more agency in setting some ground rules), someone owning the entire court and inviting others to play on it (how I'd define a DM), or showing up to a court without a ball and joining an existing game (must be more accommodating to the group).

What I've done personally with pick up basketball is both of your examples, but also to create a separate game with people who share similar ideals. I don't enjoy overly physical street ball, the risk of injury is significant, so I primarily play with people that I know and who share that same understanding. There's room for both, I don't think you have to be mutually exclusive.

Much like in AL games at the local store, you have to accommodate all sorts of different personalities and walks of life. However, there is a point where that stops making sense. In the context of pick up basketball, I've been playing with a group where the average age is around 30 and an 8 year old asks if he can play the next game. Part of me wants to encourage the kid to join us, like at a game store you want to foster a positive environment and get a new generation excited about the game. That said, it makes no sense for 7 or 9 adults to fundamentally change how they play to create a play space for an 8 year old, unless all of them are on board for that. Similarly, if I want to play in a game where everyone role-plays or no one takes phone calls at the table (you're free to excuse yourself and step away), what's wrong with setting those expectations for that specific game?


To your point about artists, an artist isn't trying to cater to everyone, but to their fans. Similarly, D&D works best when all of the players at a specific table are trying to work with each other rather than doing things their way. I think that's self-evident.

I think this ties into what I wrote above, you seem to be assuming the DM is aggressively laying down ground rules and there's no room for debate (that's true in some cases, but not the norm). Couldn't session 0 involve all the players and the DM going through what limitations the DM wants to place on the campaign, discussing why they are in place and allowing for exceptions to be made? This is also a matter of taste, some players are going to enjoy a conniving, back-stab fest where the party is it's own BBEG; other groups want a more traditional us vs evil game.

I agree that there's a risk for a tyrannical DM, much like how playing basketball on a court one player owns could cause problem, but I don't think we should be making sweeping decisions based on an outlier. Especially when the player is joining the game out of their own volition and plenty of alternatives exist.

I apologize for all of the basketball analogies, but I see a lot of similarities in etiquette and the situations that arise with DnD.

[EvilAnagram]

If you want it to be story-driven (which is something completely understandable), it's on you, as a DM, to make it happen for your player.

I fundamentally disagree with you on this point in particular. Because of the collaborative nature of a tabletop RPG, a story should not spring from the DM. The course of a story is a joint venture that requires input from both the DM and PCs, and that means that the actions of the players should contain genuine character motivations as decided by the players.

I had a brief stint as an educator before my current career, and I tend to think of how I run my table in the same terms teachers use when planning classroom management. When I'm running a story-heavy campaign, I design the rules and place limits on character options based on the story and setting, and I have a sit down with my players. I explain what's expected of them, ask them what they expect from me, and I put rules in place to promote roleplay. The structure of my game encourages the collaborative storytelling (hi Tenarii!) that my players and I both want, without stepping too much on the toes of optimizers.

Now, you clearly like multiclassing. Maybe you even regard it as essential. However, it's an optional rule, and I see nothing wrong with restricting it.

[FaithfulCenturi]

Again, in my opinion, if you have a good group and good communication it's a non-issue.

This, to me, seems to be the main point. If everyone is working for everyone else having fun (DM to players, players to DM, players to players) and communicating with each other as to what that fun entails, everything else should be fair game. DMs run the game that their players will have fun in, but they should also run the game in such a way that they have fun as well. This is, first and foremost, a game. People are supposed to enjoy playing games. If you're not enjoying it, if it's not fun, then why play at all?

[Easy_Lee]

Um... "good policy"?

For who?

Unless players unionize, what's going to happen?

Is there a city with anxious DM's who lack players?

Given how many players can't find a table, I have a hard time imagining a DM exercising any of the options on Waterdeep Merch's list not having players, if they can still call it 5e (or Pathfinder).

If however they try to get someone to play a less popular game, like Traveller or The Fantasy Trip, then I could see them having a problem, but with PHB's still at every Barnes & Noble, DM's are free to demand.

Or is this about "should" rather than "what"?

Good for the players - the DM included. Games run better when people agree on the rules rather than make demands.

A rule is something you follow, and generally limits behavior. You can question a rule, and possibly find exceptions. For example, "no multiclassing - unless your background and story significantly justify it."

A demand is something you're forced to do, prescribed behavior. "Everyone must role-play at all times and I'm deducting experience points for OOC comments." That's a demand. I've seen demands like this, and they're not pretty.

A lot of the players looking for tables have found them, and left. There are plenty of tables out there, but there are not nearly as many enjoyable ones. This is my experience at my game shop and from my time with TRPGs, in general. DMs need good advice as much as players need DMs. This is more true than ever now that 5e has made DMing so much easier.

[Waterdeep Merch]

A bit of full disclosure on why I find this line of questioning interesting right now-

I've been preparing for a campaign that I hope to begin next year. I'm doing several highly unusual things as part of it- namely, that I've written a lot of the backstory for each of the players myself, and will be building most of their characters. There will be very strict limitations on what anyone can do via leveling or class selections, with some of these limitations being lift-able via specific actions taken during gameplay. Part of this is the understanding that the players will not be equal from the very start when it comes to mechanical choices and roleplaying status.

The idea is to tell a story that is more story-heavy and character driven than usual. After getting the idea, I went to each of the people I hoped would be interested in the game. Each character I created was based on the player I was hoping would play them. I explained the premises, the limitations, who else they'd be playing with, and the general theme and tone of the game. I asked what they thought of it, and the ideas behind their character, and asked if they liked the character I was offering to them and the mechanics I was thinking of granting them. Where questionable, I offered a different approach and asked again until they seemed to like the idea.

My players are now on board with it and have been asking if they think I can run things any earlier than planned. In this regard, it would appear that despite having some of the most strict limitations and requirements I have ever imposed on any game to date, I have managed to build up some of the highest hype I have in a very long time for this game. There are two additional players that are begging for a chance into it, loving the theme and the idea of being given a strict role to play.

Am I somehow a tyrant for planning a game like this? Are my players suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Is their anything wrong with my approach here?

I don't believe so, but I'm at least willing to listen to dissenting viewpoints. I want this experience to be fun for everyone involved. Ignoring the possibility that I am imposing upon my players is an imposition in itself.

[smcmike]

If the players are on board, you don’t need approval from the Internet.

Personally, I would be reluctant to join such a game unless I knew and trusted the DM a great deal.

[Honest Tiefling]

Am I somehow a tyrant for planning a game like this? Are my players suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Is their anything wrong with my approach here?

Just because something is a bad idea in general, doesn't mean that it can't work when done right. When someone wants to do something that usually limits character options, I think it's best to give the players a carrot in a different form and really sell the idea. If I am reading your post right, you put in a lot of care and attention to detail into this setting, and adapted your characters to the players and gave them lots of role playing opportunities. Getting an in-depth setting is rare, and I hope they appreciate your hard work.

Since 'next year' is not too far off, would you be interested in putting up a campaign log? I love reading those, and I'm curious how it'll go.

Also, I'd like to point out that YOU cheated! You seemed to have approached people who would be up for such a game. You sly villain, you.

[Easy_Lee]

Also, I'd like to point out that YOU cheated! You seemed to have approached people who would be up for such a game. You sly villain, you.

To this point, D&D is a game. If everyone is okay with the DM's plan, then it's a fine plan. People argue a lot, but I don't think many would argue with that.

[2D8HP]

A bit of full disclosure on why...


If the PC you hand me is one I want to play, cool (frankly I now find the character creation "mini-game" tedious).

If the world/setting we are to explore is interesting, GREAT!

Otherwise, just get me to the part where you say "What do you do?" ASAP, and please spare me from doing homework.

[Honest Tiefling]

If the PC you hand me is one I want to play, cool (frankly I now find the character creation "mini-game" tedious).

Some people like variety. Some are going to always go with a single race/class combo...*cough*

I think I'm a bit on the fence of the character creation. I like picking out spells, but I hate picking up inventory and figuring out if I have enough gold. I don't know why I hate that part.

[2D8HP]

...I like picking out spells, but I hate picking up inventory and figuring out if I have enough gold. I don't know why I hate that part.


Man you wouldn't like old D&D then, as that was the biggest part of character creation.

As much as I whine 'bout newfangledality, I admit that 5e's Standard Equipment rocks!

[Honest Tiefling]

Man you wouldn't like old D&D then, as that was the biggest part of character creation.

Thank you. You made me never want to play older systems of DnD. I think I'll just stick to Baldur's Gate...

[d13]

I've required it for one campaign, suggested it in another campaign, and run several one-shots and mini-campaigns where I didn't mention it at all. I haven't yet run a game where I chose not to offer the multiclassing option, but I very well might in the future. So I guess I'm sometimes a "good DM" and sometimes a "bad DM," but the key point for me is that my players have been fine with all of the above.

Again, in my opinion, if you have a good group and good communication it's a non-issue.


Now, you clearly like multiclassing. Maybe you even regard it as essential. However, it's an optional rule, and I see nothing wrong with restricting it.

Work makes making in-depth posts difficult, but yes, I agree with all this.

I guess what I was trying to say is that if you allow your players to multiclass the ball is in your side of the field, as the DM, to give them the opportunity to do so if they desire.

Fortunately, I've never been a player in such a game, but I've seen DMs require "training with a Wizard" or something like that for the ability to take Wizard levels... And never put a Wizard NPC in play.

(...) if you have a good group and good communication it's a non-issue.
Everything boils down to this.

---


(...) I've written a lot of the backstory for each of the players myself, and will be building most of their characters. There will be very strict limitations on what anyone can do via leveling or class selections, with some of these limitations being lift-able via specific actions taken during gameplay.(...)

So... Where do your players come in? If they can only do what you tell them to do, it's no different than you writing a book.
Personally, I wouldn't find any part of that "game" fun. If your players are on board, go for it, but I can't see that working out. At least not with the players I know of.


Am I somehow a tyrant for planning a game like this? (1) Are my players suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? (2) Is their anything wrong with my approach here? (3)

(1) No, you're not.
(2) Probably.
(3) The fact that you're trying to use a game to write a novel.

There are some people who enjoy being the characters of a story that's already written; there are some others that don't like that. You'll find out only by trying.

[Hrugner]

A bit of full disclosure on why I find this line of questioning interesting right now-

--disclosure---

Am I somehow a tyrant for planning a game like this? Are my players suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Is their anything wrong with my approach here?

I don't believe so, but I'm at least willing to listen to dissenting viewpoints. I want this experience to be fun for everyone involved. Ignoring the possibility that I am imposing upon my players is an imposition in itself.

It's a game I wouldn't play. I'd leave my regular table till this game was done if it took up our usual slot. But your players want to play it, so it's all good. I could tell you what I think will go wrong with the game and all that, but in the end I think it's best that you give it a go and tell us what you thought. Of course it's alright to "tell someone to find a different table", but really you're telling them what game you are running and they are opting in or out. Answering questions like "how important is fluff" is part of the DM's job. Maintaining the world is also their job, so providing some reasoning behind a player's new abilities is also up to them. This includes multiclassing.

I run and prefer to play in games that are the exact opposite of your approach except that I want them to be roleplay heavy, which my players don't fail to provide and I don't need to ask for. But I am running a game at the moment where the players are missing a chunk of their memory that I get to fill in for them as they go. They have a background skill that they can roll when they aren't proficient in the right knowledge/profession/tool what have you, and when they do so I get to fill in a bit of their background in order to make the check result work.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Just because something is a bad idea in general, doesn't mean that it can't work when done right. When someone wants to do something that usually limits character options, I think it's best to give the players a carrot in a different form and really sell the idea. If I am reading your post right, you put in a lot of care and attention to detail into this setting, and adapted your characters to the players and gave them lots of role playing opportunities. Getting an in-depth setting is rare, and I hope they appreciate your hard work.

Since 'next year' is not too far off, would you be interested in putting up a campaign log? I love reading those, and I'm curious how it'll go.

Also, I'd like to point out that YOU cheated! You seemed to have approached people who would be up for such a game. You sly villain, you.
To make matters even worse, I approached a bunch of actors that I've written scripts for in the past. I basically offered them an unpaid job!

A campaign log sounds like a great idea. I have a lot of faith in my players to carve an interesting story out of what I'll be handing them. They always manage to surprise me.

[Honest Tiefling]

A campaign log sounds like a great idea. I have a lot of faith in my players to carve an interesting story out of what I'll be handing them. They always manage to surprise me.

I had the idea that the story itself was set up, but what happened next was up to the players. Either way, a campaign log would be interesting, if only to see how it can be done and what sort of players would be a good fit for this approach.

[Finieous]

To make matters even worse, I approached a bunch of actors that I've written scripts for in the past. I basically offered them an unpaid job!


Actually, that's kinda what it sounded like so I'm not entirely surprised. Approached this way, it could be fun...but most of it hangs on the script. I've played with several DMs who thought they were good scriptwriters, but none that actually were. ;)

[Vaz]

Given that this dicussion stemmed from 'DM's suck if they don't allow multiclassing'" turn it round to see how stupid a comment it is. 'DM' s suck if they don't allow Singleclassing'.

How does having a single classed character affect your enjoyment more than a multiclassed character? Is it because certain classes do certain things and yoi prefer to do what people tell you is okay? Is a straihht classed hexblade pact blade more acceptable than a Paladin/Fiend Warlock?

Oh, ya, this Weapon and stuff, it gives him power, and, er, stuff. No, no, he's never heard of it, let alone held it. But he can curse people with it. Ye, ye and, it's a holy avenger, he uses his holy avenger to curse people. He's called a Hexblade.

Or, dispossed of his lands following a coup, this noble rode into battle in order to raise money to fund an army along his faithful steed. Whenever he fought, he let the righteous anger flow through him, empowering his blows, invigorating him with each bloodied ruin of an enemy he left behind.

One is straight classed referencing class directly, and another references no class whatsoever.

Also, gonna leave this here

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

[Tanarii]

I've been preparing for a campaign that I hope to begin next year. I'm doing several highly unusual things as part of it- namely, that I've written a lot of the backstory for each of the players myself, and will be building most of their characters. There will be very strict limitations on what anyone can do via leveling or class selections, with some of these limitations being lift-able via specific actions taken during gameplay. Part of this is the understanding that the players will not be equal from the very start when it comes to mechanical choices and roleplaying status.Played in a game like this once, I was assigned a Dark Elf Assassin (I got to pick the name) who had been 'cursed' to LG alignment. I had the least detailed backstory tbh, probably because the other characters were written for close personal friends of the DM, whereas I was more of a friend of his friends and he didn't know me as well. The other characters were less ridiculously edge lord.

The DM's friends carefully explained to me how he was heavily story & plot oriented, so I needed to be prepared to go along with whatever happened. Effectively, to accept railroading. Despite my general dislike of that kind of story play now, I bought into the concept wholly at the time.

It was actually a lot of fun. Right up til he had an enemy priest undo the curse, and bribe me to betray the party. Which I did. TPK, end campaign. After only a few games. Not sure what his 'story' intent was there. I recall thinking it hadn't been his intent for how it was to go down.

I mean, even that was fun, especially the looks on the other players faces. :smallamused: We were just expecting to get more than like 3-4 sessions out of it.


Am I somehow a tyrant for planning a game like this? Are my players suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Is their anything wrong with my approach here?No, that's utterly ridiculous, and no.

I'd think a bit before wanting to join such a game, since now I much prefer high player agency, and this sounds to me like a low player agency game. Otoh per my story above I've done it before, and could do it again. Especially if someone that knew me approached me to try it out.

Edit:


(3) The fact that you're trying to use a game to write a novel.This seems accurate. The DM from my story was a novel writer. That's what he was effectively trying to do with the game.

I don't feel this is the best way to approach DMing, just because most players don't really want it. Which makes it unfortunate for all the people out there that want to play, that it's so common for DMs to use this approach. But if DMs like this can find players okay with it, there's nothing wrong with it.

----------

Last thought:
Generally speaking, DMs are in demand, and players aren't. That gives DMs a lot more power to set the kind of game they want, and makes players decide if they are willing to compromise or not. That's generally fine by me. But at the same time, I'm willing to figure out what players as a whole generally want, because I like GMing for happy players.

That's why I used to run AL, and that's why I like open tables. Running my own I can steer it in the general direction I when I have a wild hair like 'use 5e make a CaW dungeon crawl / west marches wilderness multi-party campaign that feels like BECMI did'. But that's still wildly successful, because in general players LOVE THAT STUFF. They eat it up, just like they eat up more CaS-oriented official play stuff. Much fewer players eat up super-story-oriented play, and they almost always do it online or with small groups of similarly oriented players.

[Waterdeep Merch]

-snip-
I was planning on more handing the players a jumping off point and then letting them sort out what to do from there. While I'm identifying their parentage and important background information (with a side order of opening session motivation), I'm leaving a lot of other relevant information in the air for the players to explore if they'd like.

Example- one of the players was born common to a professor, who used his position in the kingdom to ensure that his son was squired and would one day win a minor noble title for himself. He followed his master to this world's version of the crusades, where he inevitably lost his master but gained knighthood for his deeds. Upon returning home, he learned that his father had been mysteriously murdered. Given the nature of his death- a single stab under the arm to the heart via a misericorde- he concludes that his father was likely targeted by a member of the nobility, someone familiar with delivering death strokes.

At the start of the game, he is fresh from the crusades and has only recently learned of these things. No one seems to be looking into his father's death, which is incredibly suspicious. He has known the crown prince since childhood, his father having been the prince's tutor and both of them being of similar age. He will begin in the castle, his opening reasoning to be speaking with the prince and seeing if he might either know something or be willing to help. The 'prince' (in reality a princess) is another player.

He's a knight, so I'd like him to build his character in a way that matches this. I've allowed any and all subclasses and feats that meet these requirements with restrictions regarding magic use at the start of the game, as it's incredibly rare here. He'll be level 5 with a 32 point buy (yes, 32, not 27). The player has opted to build this himself.

All other information regarding alignment, faith, other bits of backstory, and even his feelings regarding each story beat are up to him. After the opening scenario, I plan on doing no hand holding whatsoever. The kingdom is rife with fractious politics, schemers, and treachery. Their enemies outside are even worse, some otherworldly and terrifying. There are three separate possible doomsday scenarios of which the players will be unaware yet will progress whether the players intervene or not. The kingdom itself could fall apart to any number of problems, including the players if that's how they want to play it.

This all came about because these specific players expressed great interest in the mystery and political intrigue aspects of our last few games. I asked if they'd mind the idea that I wove stories for them deliberately into the backstory of the game without explaining all of it to them, and they liked the idea. Hence this game came into being.

Knowing where others have tried and stumbled is incredibly helpful. I'll be sure to allow the players plenty of freedom after the beginning to make up for what I'm taking from them at the start.

[Tanarii]

Okay, so you're not significantly reducing player agency, during the actual game.

I think your biggest problem in a mystery and intrigue campaign is going to be balancing adventuring days / combat encounters, and making sure you effectively utilize the ability checks system.

You going to use the Gritty Realism rest variant? I certainly would if I were building a campaign like that, especially if I was going day-by-day instead of scene by scene.

For ability checks, you're going to have to think carefully about how often social-type and lore-type checks are needed, and what they can accomplish. It sounds like it has the potential for all Int and Cha skills to be very useful if done right.

I know you're doing this is 5e, but in not sure it's the best system for it, without some heavy tailoring. Regardless, good luck and I hope you have a great time!

[Waterdeep Merch]

Okay, so you're not significantly reducing player agency, during the actual game.

I think your biggest problem in a mystery and intrigue campaign is going to be balancing adventuring days / combat encounters, and making sure you effectively utilize the ability checks system.

You going to use the Gritty Realism rest variant? I certainly would if I were building a campaign like that, especially if I was going day-by-day instead of scene by scene.

I was seriously considering it. Especially so dangerous wounds might have a lasting impact on both the players and their foes, and when/if the party ever does gain the ability to take cleric or druid levels, divine healing will feel extra impactful.

One of the players will have the knowledge necessary to craft healing potions, but it will require extraordinary ingredients that are an undertaking to acquire. I was thinking of specifying that they can heal any wound, thus making them plot useful for reviving NPC's that have been mortally struck.

For ability checks, you're going to have to think carefully about how often social-type and lore-type checks are needed, and what they can accomplish. It sounds like it has the potential for all Int and Cha skills to be very useful if done right.

I know you're doing this is 5e, but in not sure it's the best system for it, without some heavy tailoring. Regardless, good luck and I hope you have a great time!
5e is certainly a bit of an ill-fit for the intrigue part, and not particularly great for the traveling adventure portions I want to include either. One of the biggest obstacles keeping me from starting the game early is figuring out and balancing a system I've designed to use for these pillars. Part of it is utilizing different tiers of skill check results, what other TTRPG systems might call degrees of success. So a persuasion result of 15 is rather persuasive to almost anyone, a 10 isn't particularly persuasive but can make the target waver or agree if it seems harmless enough, and a 5 makes them more against your position than they started or obstinate about it.

I also want to give the players the ability to roll with the punches of unlucky results. Sort of like social reaction abilities to cover for their friends, or dex checks to save friends that are walking into a hazard. I'm hoping XGtE's trap section will help give me some further ideas on doing this, since a lot of my ideas basically came from the trap UA.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game.
1. Make that t-shirt in substantial numbers
2. Take to the next con you attend
3. Sell the t-shirts
4. Profit.

:smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

Part of it is utilizing different tiers of skill check results, what other TTRPG systems might call degrees of success. So a persuasion result of 15 is rather persuasive to almost anyone, a 10 isn't particularly persuasive but can make the target waver or agree if it seems harmless enough, and a 5 makes them more against your position than they started or obstinate about it..
I'd recommend checking out the DMG social charts first. They go in 10 pt DC steps, not 5.

[LeonBH]

1.) Is it alright to demand justification for mechanical choices such as (and especially) multiclassing?

Yes. But the classes themselves can be reskinned, so it isn't a hurdle. For example, a Fiend Warlock/Devotion Paladin could be a man plagued by the devil (instead of seeking a Pact with it), but who draws power not from a god but from his own strength of character. Or, the Evil and the Good are literally fighting for his soul.

In my games, which are heavily focused on narrative, when a player makes a character build choice that doesn't fit their backstory, I point it out, but I tell them I don't mind and they can explain away the discrepancy. They usually change their mechanical choices to fit their backstory, though, not the other way around.


2.) Is it alright to tell a player that isn't on board with your rules to go find a different table?

Yes. If the player isn't willing to play your game, they will be miserable in your game, and you will be miserable DMing for that player. A bad game is worse than no game.

If you're an unreasonable DM, no one will play at your table. My answer here depends on the fact that you are a reasonable DM, and you have an unreasonable player.


3.) Is a DM even allowed to set ground rules for character creation?

Yes. If the setting has no magic, then all the characters cannot have magic. If in the setting, Elves don't exist, then their characters cannot be Elves. If the players wanted to play an Elven caster, they are free to not join the campaign. The DM may end up with an empty table if nobody wants to play in their setting.

Mechanically, the DM can impose point buy or roll for stats. If they impose roll for stats, they can do 3d6, 4d6 drop 1, 5d6 drop 2, and they can impose re-rolls if your stats are too low.


4.) Should a DM create or use specific fluff surrounding the mechanics that have roleplaying requirements?

The DM doesn't have to if they don't want to. If they do so, they might want to check with the players if that fluff is good with them, if the DM created this fluff on the fly.


5.) Should a DM ever demand a degree of roleplaying or backstory as an obligation to playing their game?

The DM may, at the start of the campaign, secure the consent of all the players before the campaign starts to ensure there will be a certain amount of RPing expected.

If the players consent, the DM may enforce this prior agreement.

If the players do not consent, they may leave the table. The DM may end up with no game if he pushes it.