Players having troubles with DMs having control of the world? [Archive]

Unoriginal

2018-01-28, 07:45 AM

Snivlem

2018-01-28, 08:13 AM

Often on this forum I see people treating the DM having control over the Ability checks' DCs or which kind of creature is summoned or other instances of the same register as if it were a bad thing.

About just as often, I see people being pissed at the idea a DM could have an encounter that happens to counter a PC's capacities or at the one that the DM could say the in-game circumstances don't allow the PC to do the plan they wish/make their capacities not that useful, or feel like they need rules or specific builds to make sure the DM can't do that.

Usually, the argument those people advance is something like "we need to be covered in case the DM is a jerk"

Now, I've had bad, unreasonable DMs in the past, and I've certainly been a bad, unreasonable GM once or twice. Some DMs do screw over the PCs, or arbitrarily decide the PCs won't succeed despite the lack of in-story reasons, but I don't really understand that mindset. Why are people playing with someone they can't trust to not be a jerk? Are people assuming the DM having control over the world means they'll abuse it?

Or am I just missing something/taking some persons complaining too seriously?

I am guessing this thread is a response to my comment in the thread on conjure animals, as you are more or less rephrasing some of my arguments there.

If that is the case, I think you are misrepresenting my point. DM controlling what creatures are summoned with that spell is not the DM having control of the world, it is the DM having control of the only thing they are not in control over, namely the player characters and their options. And I think players dislike the DM having control over their player options because their own characters are the only thing they are in control of, while the DM is in control of everything else. Of course the DM is in control of the world, that is the first premise of the game. But the 2nd premise is that players are in control of their own characters...

Also, the context of the argument was the interpretation of a certain rule and someone saying the rules was already clear. Also it was just half my argument.

To answer your qustion. I dont think people have problems with DMs having control of the world, but I think many have problems with the DM having control of their characters because that is the only thing the DM is not in charge of. And no, I wouldnt be playing with **** DM personally, but there are things like AL, and a DM that, for instance, would roll on a random table (including the lower CR options for higher CR or lower summons) to see what animals are summoned with conjuure animals, wouldnt really be a **** if the spell was clear that the player could not choose their own summons, he would just be using the spell as it was written, but that is not how the spell is written. DMs coming up with certain encounters that would nullify or hinder my character wouldnt bother me at all as long as he or she isnt doing that consistently or singeling me out again and again, by the way. That is a different matter all toghether. In fact I would probably get bored if they did not.

For reference, here is the post I am guessing sparked this thread http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549492-How-broken-is-conjure-animals-(if-at-all)

Unoriginal

2018-01-28, 08:28 AM

Dyndrilliac

2018-01-28, 08:39 AM

I think all of those kinds of concerns are the result of either not having a session zero or not having handled session zero correctly. It's the result of having players and/or a DM whose play-styles are diametrically opposed.

What is the DM's goal? What are the players' goals? If the answer to both of those questions is anything other than "to tell an exciting story and have fun" then that's your first red flag that things aren't going to work out. That being said, assuming everyone's goals align, the players need to trust that the DM will act in good faith to run a fun campaign and the DM needs to trust that the players will act in good faith to be respectful of his/her rulings. If that trust isn't there for any participant, that's your second red flag that things aren't going to work out because whoever doesn't feel that trust is going to end up being a disruptive element - not a matter of if, but when.

Part of that trust comes from establishing how abilities work ahead of time. If you know you're going to be making a minion/pet summoner, discuss with your DM how he/she plans to handle how summons work. If you can't come to a reasonable compromise, congratulations! You figured that out before play began. You can either make a character that you and the DM both agree on how it should function mechanically, or you can find another group. Either way, it's a non-problem which is entirely avoidable.

Snivlem

2018-01-28, 08:41 AM

JackPhoenix

2018-01-28, 08:59 AM

If that is the case, I think you are misrepresenting my point. DM controlling what creatures are summoned with that spell is not the DM having control of the world, it is the DM having control of the only thing they are not in control over, namely the player characters and their options. And I think players dislike the DM having control over their player options because their own characters are the only thing they are in control of, while the DM is in control of everything else. Of course the DM is in control of the world, that is the first premise of the game. But the 2nd premise is that players are in control of their own characters...

The bolded part is blatantly false. The GM choosing the summons isn't "GM controlling player characters and their options" any more than the GM rolling monster's save for half damage for Fireball is, or choosing what the DC for a skill check is, or deciding that the village blacksmith doesn't have a plate armor to sell to the fighter. It's how the spell work. The player knows that's how the spell works, and he's still controlling the character when he chooses to learn that spell on level up, cast that spell, and when he chooses the number and CR of creatures conjured. The spell itself is a bit unclear for some people (that's why summoning spells in XGtE were reworded a bit), but the player should know how is it resolved before he uses it, and nobody forces him to use it if he doesn't like it.

If the GM intentionally choose the worst possible creatures, it's the problem with the GM in question, and he'll propably try to screw the players in other ways.

Snivlem

2018-01-28, 10:17 AM

Tiadoppler

2018-01-28, 10:33 AM

Re: OP

Sometimes a player will think of a great plan, or a fancy speech, or a perfect animal to summon, but for whatever reason (the player's PC has -2 CHA, that animal doesn't live within 1000 miles, the great plan involves taking a bath in alchemists acid) that the DM doesn't believe should automatically work.

For the DM, they might think it would break the verisimilitude of their universe to have a violently insane orc grunting out a soliloquy, or a sand scorpion swimming through a swamp to a druid's aid, or they might think that the player is metagaming to get an advantage.

For the player, it can either feel like the player is taking control of their character (of course a sand scorpion would be following my disney princess druid around to help out), or punishing them for having a good idea (orcs can be eloquent).

At some tables, the players might be metagaming and minmaxing for their own advantage. At other tables the DM might be punishing and limiting players who have thought up interesting and out-of-the-box ideas. It's a judgment call at best.

DMs frequently railroad players into solving problems a specific way, and players frequently metagame for their advantage. It's not an easy problem to solve, except by frank, open and polite discussion between DM and players.

JackPhoenix

2018-01-28, 10:34 AM

It is not how the spell works per the PHB (PHB is at best unclear on how it work, and if the intent of that wording really was to let the DM decide what animals are summoned, whoever wrote it should be fired), and those are not good analogies at all. A better analogy would be if the DM were to decide where the fireball would hit or choose how much damage it does. Players wouldnt like that because they want to be in control of their own options and not rely on the good will of the DM when it comes to them, and i think that is perfectly reasonable. I really dont see why anyone can think 1) DM choose the animals being summoned is an intuitiv interpretation from PHB, and 2)making the DM decide what is summoned is a good way to balance the spell (if it is unbalanced).

But the DM does decide how much damage Fireball do, to an extent, by giving the creature resistance, immunity or abilities like evasion. That doesn't control the player's decision to use the spell. Is the DM using an enemy with Counterspell to negate the spell entirely controlling player's options too?

I can't see how anyone could read the text on that spell and think the player choose the what animals appear. The spell says exactly what the player chooses: The number and CR of the creatures. That's it. It doesn't need to have anything to do with balance.

Snivlem

2018-01-28, 10:52 AM

But the DM does decide how much damage Fireball do, to an extent, by giving the creature resistance, immunity or abilities like evasion. That doesn't control the player's decision to use the spell. Is the DM using an enemy with Counterspell to negate the spell entirely controlling player's options too?

I can't see how anyone could read the text on that spell and think the player choose the what animals appear. The spell says exactly what the player chooses: The number and CR of the creatures. That's it. It doesn't need to have anything to do with balance.
No, that is controlling the world again. They can do the same things(ac, resistance, immunity etc.) when the summoned wolves attack. Are you really not seing the difference here? What you suggest is as if fireball said the DM can decide if it does anything from 1d6 to 8d6 in damage. Giving an enemy Counterspell is also controlling the world. Not letting a player summon horses with conjure animals if they need something to ride, is interferring with player options. Having someone kill the horses while the players are in a tavern, is controlling the world.

I have a hard time believing you are serious in your last paragraf. The spell states i can summon 8 beasts of cr 1/4 or lower. I use the spell to summon 8 wolves, who are beasts of cr 1/4 or lower. I now did what the spell say i can do with it. Are you really saying your interpretation is how you and your group understood the spell before you read the developer comment? If so, im truly surprised, and i am sure you are one of a few.

JackPhoenix

2018-01-28, 11:45 AM

No, that is controlling the world again. They can do the same things(ac, resistance, immunity etc.) when the summoned wolves attack. Are you really not seing the difference here? What you suggest is as if fireball said the DM can decide if it does anything from 1d6 to 8d6 in damage. Giving an enemy Counterspell is also controlling the world. Not letting a player summon horses with conjure animals if they need something to ride, is interferring with player options. Having someone kill the horses while the players are in a tavern, is controlling the world.

It's not interfering with player options if the player never had the option in the first place. The Fireball was wrong example, wording on it is clear.

I have a hard time believing you are serious in your last paragraf. The spell states i can summon 8 beasts of cr 1/4 or lower. I use the spell to summon 8 wolves, who are beasts of cr 1/4 or lower. I now did what the spell say i can do with it. Are you really saying your interpretation is how you and your group understood the spell before you read the developer comment? If so, im truly surprised, and i am sure you are one of a few.

Yet you aren't the one who choose what beast to summon. You've added a choice that the spell doesn't offer as written, so no, you haven't done what the spell said. It gives you 4 options, but not more precise control over those options. Nowhere in the spell's description does it tell you to choose what kind of animals will appear, only the number and CR. It's like looking at Command and deciding that "Die!" is a valid option that would cause the creature to die instantly.

MrStabby

2018-01-28, 11:52 AM

I think that there is a need to look at the bigger picture here.

This isn't a player vs DM situation (or not only that). Sometimes the DM exercising their control over the world is letting all players have a chance to shine. Very often the issues that come up here are closely related to thinks like player effectiveness and spotlight time.

A player who wants to summon 8 animals? Well that's going to take quite a lot of table time. Summons with spells? Even worse. There is a difference between a player wanting to play a druid focused on arthropods and basically being told they can't because they never get them from the spell and a druid that wan't to play in a manner that will consume all the spotlight time at the table by choosing to fill the battlefield with masses of summons.

The DM has a duty to ALL the players at the table. Where the behaviour of one player is going to negatively impact others at the table the DM has a duty to the game to guide the game in such away that that impact doesn't happen. This might be through actually following guidance on summoning spells or through not using so many encounters with masses of low HP creatures if the wizard with fireball is dominating encounters, not using low HP enemies if sharpshooter archers are being more effective than two other PCs put together. This isn't to say that the DM is there to stop a PC being effective, but is there to stop PCs being effective from stepping on the toes of other player.

Rhedyn

2018-01-28, 12:01 PM

I personally think it is bad to put the DM in the place of a "rules dev".

In a game like 5e with many rules heavy elements, where the game is rules light, forces the DM to basically write those rules and they need to be fair with the rules heavy elements.

I've personally seen this cause campaigns to fail because the DM isn't a good rules dev. In a truly rules light game, the DM has even more control and only needs to be a good story teller not a good rules dev.

5e strikes an odd balance where it manages to extract the bad parts of both rules heavy and rules light systems. The DM should either control more things or less things.

Snivlem

2018-01-28, 12:50 PM

It's not interfering with player options if the player never had the option in the first place. The Fireball was wrong example

Yet you aren't the one who choose what beast to summon. You've added a choice that the spell doesn't offer as written, so no, you haven't done what the spell said. It gives you 4 options, but not more precise control over those options. Nowhere in the spell's description does it tell you to choose what kind of animals will appear, only the number and CR. It's like looking at Command and deciding that "Die!" is a valid option that would cause the creature to die instantly.

So how is it, as written, decided what animals are summoned? You seem to think the spell states that the DM decides, but it doesn't, nor does it say that it is random. So RAW the spell summons a number of generic beasts that doesn't exist? You are the one arguing that the spell is clear ("it's how the spell works"), when it isn't. My argument is that the intuitive reading is that the player decides, because the spell doesn't specify anthing else and in no way contradicts that they can (If I summon 8 wolves I summon 8 beasts which the spell states that I can). If I just tell you that you have to read 2 books or watch 2 movies this week, you would be very surprised if I later told you that I ment 2 books or movies or 2 movies of my choosing. If I tell my daughter she can go to the shop and by three chocolates, she'd be very surprised if she came to the shop and learned that the shopkeeper would be choosing what chocolates she was buying. It is just intuitive unless there is nothing to contradict it. My main argument backing this up, is that I think pretty much everyone understood it this way when they first read the spell or before they read that developer comment. I've yet to see anyone contradict this. You dodged the question in my previous post, I have also asked in the other thread mentioned above.

My second argument is that the DM chosing what animals are summoned, is as absurd AS IF fireball would let the DM decide how much damage it does (It is equally swingy, equally absurd for the DM to be the one to make that choice). You are very right it doesn't state that, and I think there is a very good reason why. It would be a terrible rule (in the same way that letting the DM choose when the sorcerer rolls on the wild surge table (or what it's called) is a terrible rule. Do you find a lot of praise for that system on this board?). Now if that was the spell the d&d team had actually written, so be it, there wouldnt be much one could do with that except hope for DM-good will in the same way a Wild-sorcerer does, but don't pretend that is what the spell actually say it does. There's nothing there even suggesting the player can't choose themselves, so if that was the real intent of the spell the wording is horrible.

Sigreid

2018-01-28, 01:39 PM

So I just read the Conjure Animals spell. It actually says the DM has the creature's statistics. It doesn't say anything about the DM choosing the creature. It also says the beasts are fey spirits that take the form of the animals so you're not summoning local animals at all.

JackPhoenix

2018-01-28, 02:00 PM

So how is it, as written, decided what animals are summoned? You seem to think the spell states that the DM decides, but it doesn't, nor does it say that it is random. So RAW the spell summons a number of generic beasts that doesn't exist? You are the one arguing that the spell is clear ("it's how the spell works"), when it isn't. My argument is that the intuitive reading is that the player decides, because the spell doesn't specify anthing else and in no way contradicts that they can (If I summon 8 wolves I summon 8 beasts which the spell states that I can).

The player choose one of the options, and the GM decides what beasts fitting those criteria will show up. The spell doesn't state the later, but it doesn't have to: it directly states the former, and the later is the only possible option, unless you want to add more rules not included in the spell's description. It's up to the GM to decide how he determines the kind of beasts... if he chooses depending on the enviroment, asks the player what would he like to summon, use some random roll, or just grants the first thing he finds in the MM doesn't matter.

My main argument backing this up, is that I think pretty much everyone understood it this way when they first read the spell or before they read that developer comment. I've yet to see anyone contradict this. You dodged the question in my previous post, I have also asked in the other thread mentioned above.

I haven't dodged anything, but if you need it spelled clearly: Yes, I am capable of reading and understanding of a reasonably clearly written text even without author's explanaition. As do multiple other people who commented when that SA was first mentioned here on GiantitP.

My second argument is that the DM chosing what animals are summoned, is as absurd AS IF fireball would let the DM decide how much damage it does (It is equally swingy, equally absurd for the DM to be the one to make that choice). You are very right it doesn't state that, and I think there is a very good reason why. It would be a terrible rule (in the same way that letting the DM choose when the sorcerer rolls on the wild surge table (or what it's called) is a terrible rule. Do you find a lot of praise for that system on this board?).

It is no more absurd than the GM deciding how the target of Charm Person or Suggestion acts, besides the fact that it can't attack the caster. The rule isn't terrible just because you personally don't like it. I don't like that D&D has so many playable races, that doesn't make the presence of those races terrible.

Now if that was the spell the d&d team had actually written, so be it, there wouldnt be much one could do with that except hope for DM-good will in the same way a Wild-sorcerer does, but don't pretend that is what the spell actually say it does. There's nothing there even suggesting the player can't choose themselves, so if that was the real intent of the spell the wording is horrible.

I don't have to pretend... I just have to look at what's written in the book. You, however, keep pretending that the spell gives options that aren't mentioned anywhere in its description.

So I just read the Conjure Animals spell. It actually says the DM has the creature's statistics. It doesn't say anything about the DM choosing the creature. It also says the beasts are fey spirits that take the form of the animals so you're not summoning local animals at all.

It does, however, says something about what the player can choose. Spoiler alert: it's not what kind of creatures will show up. And it's entirely irrelevant if the summoned creature is actual beast of fey spirit looking like beast.

Regitnui

2018-01-28, 03:20 PM

It does, however, says something about what the player can choose. Spoiler alert: it's not what kind of creatures will show up. And it's entirely irrelevant if the summoned creature is actual beast of fey spirit looking like beast.

I agree with Jack here, but I'd like to point out that the player, out of game, can request a certain beast/beasts to show up. The fact that they're fey spirits makes it more likely that they could appear as the "dire camels in a swamp", but ultimately the DM decides. If the player said, "hey, I'd like two brown bears to show up when I cast this spell because I have a deal with two fey spirits" or "I'd like to have a mountain theme with the creatures I summon with these spells", I'd be more than happy to accommodate them as a DM, and I'm sure a lot of others would too. It comes down to communication of expectations.

Sigreid

2018-01-28, 03:47 PM

It does, however, says something about what the player can choose. Spoiler alert: it's not what kind of creatures will show up. And it's entirely irrelevant if the summoned creature is actual beast of fey spirit looking like beast.

Where as you see this as meaning DM decides. I see it as the group having the freedom to determine how they want it to work. Nothing more, nothing less. Myself and the DMs I've played with don't actually want to choose. Less work and hassle for me if I let you summon what you want. It's not unbalanced either way unless your DM is intentionally being a jerk about it.

Dyndrilliac

2018-01-28, 03:59 PM

My only problem with JC's ruling that DMs are intended to choose the minions summoned by the spell is that the same logic doesn't seem to apply to any other non-summoning spell. As I mentioned in the other thread, my main counter-argument rests on the description of the Silent Image spell (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22793519&postcount=21).

The spell simply says "You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 15 foot cube." Nothing in the spell's description explicitly indicates that the caster gets to choose what image is produced. And yet, at every table I've ever played at, not one person ever suggested that the image should be chosen by the DM instead of the spell's caster. Just because a spell doesn't explicitly say that the caster gets to choose, doesn't mean that the caster doesn't get to choose.

Rhedyn

2018-01-28, 06:13 PM

Citan

2018-01-28, 07:11 PM

Hey all.
So, since someone reduced the OP to another Conjure Spells thread might as well put my 2 cents and try to circle back to OP at the same time.

So, disclaimer, I'm gonna shock you: imo, the way the spell is written is perfectly fine as it is. Precisely because it doesn't specify whichever "chooses" what exactly comes out of the spell.

And why is that a good thing?
Because imo player and DM should be on the same page for this to really work anyways.

Let's remember that you don't call specific animals, you summon spirits that take the form of an animal.
Since nothing in the spell describes the factors influencing the end result, it's up to the DM on how much freedom he'd like to give to the player.
And that's perfect like this. Because...

If the player is "good", as in "I like to have my glory but I won't metagame nor trying to finish all encounters by myself", any pragmatic DM will hand him full rein soon enough.

If the player is usually playing well in group but tries something that really feels world-immersion breaking, such as summoning elephants on a boat, the fact that DM ultimately has the last word means he can ban it or not depending also on the character background and other factors.

If the player is behaving in an utterly ecogentric manner, then the DM has some control to limit the collateral damage on the other players.
If he's expecting the same one-trick Conjure Feys > Pixies to work in any and every situation, but that trick would be felt as totally illogical or wrongfun by other players, DM can either roleplay the Pixies or make things simpler and use other spirits.

These conjuration spells fall upon the same problem as others like higher level illusions, suggestions or environmental control. They can be as useless as extremely powerful, so for everyone to have fun, they need to be worked in both intelligence by both the player and the DM.
The only true difference is that with illusions, DM's safeguards come after the fact, by choosing how the worlds react to what the player described. Whereas with sumons, DM's safeguards comme before the fact.

The only thing a DM must do is give the golden rules on how he sees those spells working in session 0. Past that...

guachi

2018-01-28, 07:49 PM

It's terrible game design.

No, it's not. The DM is the one best able to determine, by default, what monster could even be summoned in the first place.

"I summon an elephant"

"Those don't exist"

Pex

2018-01-28, 09:51 PM

If this was a response to your post, I would have responded to your post. Not made a new thread with a different subject.

While your post certainly has made me think of this subject again (which I suppose mean saying it "sparked" this thread would be accurate), what I'm talking in my OP is something something I've often noticed.

I take a bow.

Experience. It's all about previous play experience. D&D inherently puts one person in charge, the DM. The authority, as it is, is legit, but it's taken to the extreme. The DM became The Boss and enamored with the power trip. The DM decides when to play. A player can't make it, the game goes on. The DM can't make it, there's no game. The DM decides where to play. Before playing at public places and stores of the current commonality, generally games were played at the DM's house. In addition to authority of the game he had authority over the location of the game. Players came to him. Whenever a player wants to do something with his character he always needs to ask the DM's permission. The DM can say yes or no, and I have no objection to the right of the DM to say no, but it's the fact the player has to ask that strokes the DM's ego. The DM, in the real world, walks around with an air of authority when everyone is socializing before, during, after, and in between game sessions. Anything that hints at a player having a sense of control must be stopped. The 2E DMG encouraged this behavior by telling the DM to have "no" be his default response to any player request.

3E was the player liberator. It gave players lots of choices in creating their character. They choose the feats. They choose the class features. They choose the skills. They can even choose the ability scores. At the same time came the growing of the internet. As players across the country and the world exchanged ideas and gaming philosophy, they saw the DM had no clothes. The extra authority given to him didn't really exist. The players realized it was the DM's campaign, but it was everyone's game. Let the DM control the game world. The players get to control their own character. Everyone gets a voice on where and when a game is played.

The trouble with 5E is players losing some of their control on their characters. The DM is deciding everything again. Not as much as in pre-3E, but a noticeable amount. Not knowing how skills work. not knowing how their spells work, not knowing how their class features work. It's not as bad as in pre-3E because the internet is still here and more importantly the DMG does not teach the DM to be a tyrant as 2E did. It does teach the DM how to play with the players, not against them. It's why I say 5E facilitates tyrannical DMing but not teach or cause it.

mephnick

2018-01-29, 09:52 AM

they saw the DM had no clothes. The extra authority given to him didn't really exist.

Gonna be honest, I was still definitely in charge when I ran 3x. The game was played where and when fit with my schedule because I was putting the work in. I dismissed RAW rules all the time to the despair of rules lawyers. I changed DC's. I banned classes. I banned feats. I banned entire books and sub-systems. Every DM I played under did the same. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Pex's darkest timeline. Turns out "Go form your own group and create your own content" seems to be an option that lazy players (95% of players) aren't actually willing to consider.

Edition has nothing to do with it. The DM was always in charge to rule as they pleased.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-29, 10:03 AM

Edition has nothing to do with it. The DM was always in charge to rule as they pleased.

Exactly. 5e is just a bit more honest about it and tries to provide a good base that allows for modification without major breakage.

Pex

2018-01-29, 01:08 PM

Gonna be honest, I was still definitely in charge when I ran 3x. The game was played where and when fit with my schedule because I was putting the work in. I dismissed RAW rules all the time to the despair of rules lawyers. I changed DC's. I banned classes. I banned feats. I banned entire books and sub-systems. Every DM I played under did the same. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Pex's darkest timeline. Turns out "Go form your own group and create your own content" seems to be an option that lazy players (95% of players) aren't actually willing to consider.

Edition has nothing to do with it. The DM was always in charge to rule as they pleased.

It was 3E that taught players they had walking feet to vote with and no gaming is better than bad gaming. Tyrannical DMing existed in 3E. The difference was that players were finally able to recognize them and deal with it as they please. Personally I learned how to deal with it at the of 2E. I still had trouble dealing with Jerk players in my early 3E years, but I eventually learned having gained the confidence of dealing with tyrannical DMs.

Today I have no problems dealing with tyrannical DMs or Jerk players. I am perfectly fine with leaving the game if that's what has to happen, and I've already done it. Other times, it's the Jerk player who leaves or the DM who finds he has no players.

Mikal

2018-01-29, 01:19 PM

Personally, I think the important question here is not "Whether DMs should have control of the world" but "How much of the world should be catered to the PCs, either positively or negatively?"

Setting DCs for skill challenges and other items is one thing, as is creating a world timeline and communities. You need to have a world which the player's can interact with, both on a micro and macro level. However, one thing that has always been an issue, not just in 5th, is the PC-centric worldview.

The PCs, while important to the game, may not necessarily be important to the game's world. That means that PCs shouldn't get special consideration one way or another when it comes to matters, whether it means letting them go free after razing a town for no reason other than boredom, or tailoring encounters just to specifically nerf/allow PCs to shine.

Encounters for example, should be organic. That means based on the in world game logic, not the DMs out of world game knowledge. This means the only times a PC should be specifically countered on purpose should be if, in game, those capabilities are somehow known and the antagonist wishes to actually put the work in to negate those abilities, and vice versa if the PCs wish to do the same to their antagonists.

This means, the vast majority of the time, most encounters should be actually random, or based on the ecosystems of the areas they're in.

This also means that games should be run "by the book". This is different from RAW, since the book can be modified prior to game start with House Rules and during the game with rulings (two very separate items, though rulings can become House Rules depending on the ruling involved).

So, for summon spells, unless the spell itself says the DM chooses it, then the DM should not choose it, unless it was agreed upon beforehand. Doing so negates the compact that gives the DM the authority to run the game, since that authority, like any social compact, stems from the agreement of all parties to abide by it.

In the end, I don't think most players have a problem with the DM having control of the world, they have a problem with a DM who doesn't use that responsibility properly, making ad hoc, inconsistent, knee jerk rulings that basically pull the rug out from under them.

A consistent, clear, concise worldview from a DM, even on things that may go against the player's, provides confidence that the DM is actually playing fairly, and provides that DM the respect needed to actually exercise their authority as a DM.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-29, 01:26 PM

they saw the DM had no clothes. The extra authority given to him didn't really exist.
Gonna be honest, I was still definitely in charge when I ran 3x.

I said No WAY more often in 3e than I ever have in 5e.
In 3e, if there were a situation that wasn't spelled out completely, no matter what I ruled there would be an argument about how to deal with it, based on Player 1 citing book A page X, countered by Player 2 citing book B page Y, so I often just said No instead of having that argument.
In 5e, I have the tools to make the Ruling that is needed, and no argument will commence.

mephnick

2018-01-29, 01:30 PM

I said No WAY more often in 3e than I ever have in 5e.

Word. It was a necessary survival trait to learn to say No in 3.5. 5e I can allow everything (outside of setting restrictions).

Beelzebubba

2018-01-29, 02:17 PM

Yeah, there is no such thing as a set of rules that prevent jerks from being jerks, on one side of the DM screen or the other.

But, there is such a thing as a set of rules that tries so hard to stop jerks that it becomes un-fun for the people acting in good faith.

The game will not replace social skills or self respect.

Tanarii

2018-01-29, 02:27 PM

It was 3E that taught players they had walking feet to vote with and no gaming is better than bad gaming.Huh. I learned that in AD&D 1e & BECMI, in high school even. So did plenty of other people I played with. Including plenty of players that didn't find my style of running a game enjoyable. I had and have no problem with that, provided they don't try to claim their stylistic preferences for "fun" are superior to mine and the rest of the group.

Now if an entire group wants to walk, I'm going to take a nice hard look at what I'm doing. For that matter, I'm not opposed to listening to what even one player has to say.

The idea that 3e somehow gave players more control just doesn't hold water with me. There were more & more detailed rules. That's it. Some groups, both DMs and players, find that more enjoyable. Others less.

I know as a player I'd much rather my DM make up DCs on the spot based on what's going on in his world, rather than have to consult a table for "DC to pick an reinforced steel lock made by a master dwarven artisan under the dark-light of the new moon".

Actually, I'd prefer the lock already have a DC the DM set during prep-time, however he arrived at it. But that's a little hypocritical considering I'm perfectly willing to call for checks and set DCs on the fly. :smallbiggrin:

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-29, 02:34 PM

Actually, I'd prefer the lock already have a DC the DM set during prep-time, however he arrived at it. But that's a little hypocritical considering I'm perfectly willing to call for checks and set DCs on the fly. :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I have only a small idea what the players are going to try to do at any instant, so I end up making my DC determinations (as well as figuring out what checks are needed) on the fly the majority of the time. Which is one reason I love 5e's loose guidelines and stable math.

Tanarii

2018-01-29, 02:40 PM

Personally, I have only a small idea what the players are going to try to do at any instant, so I end up making my DC determinations (as well as figuring out what checks are needed) on the fly the majority of the time. Which is one reason I love 5e's loose guidelines and stable math.
After 30-ish years of playing and running D&D I've come to realize that "making stuff up on the fly" is by far and large the DMs most important role. :smallbiggrin:

Waterdeep Merch

2018-01-29, 02:44 PM

Meh, player agency isn't the most important thing to a game. It's a good thing, for sure, but only insofar as it lends itself to the most important functions of a game.

Those being, in order of importance-

1.) A game must be fun.

2.) A game must hold the interest of the players.

Every decision regarding the design or running of a game must keep these two things in mind. Player agency is a great asset to both of these points, but there are limits. If the players can do whatever they want and in so doing breaks verisimilitude or trivialize aspects of the game that are (or could be) fun or interesting, it can break both of these points. So sometimes, in reverence of making the game both fun and interesting, rules or rulings must be imposed to prevent the players from having a bad time.

How much and how often is debatable, and should be measured on a case-by-case basis. Some players don't really care about building their characters, or get frustrated by doing any sort of math or having too many options. Greek to most of the people on this forum, I know, but this is a common viewpoint. Giving them fewer decisions, or even no decisions, is preferable to these players. You keep it fun by not letting them do unfun, uninteresting things.

Meanwhile, you get the player that eats statistics for breakfast and can't even wash their hands without doing a cost/loss analysis. They would like more options and decisions than usual.

Then you get the ones that prefer dangerous odds and challenge above all else, and would prefer that easy options weren't on the table. And then there's players that are risk-averse by nature and want to keep things casual, and so would like the opportunity to take more 'overpowered' options. You'll notice, as well, that these types of gamers won't play well together. And as a DM, it's very likely that you aren't going to be good at running particular sorts of games. Likely because you aren't going to be doing it if you 1.) aren't having fun, and 2.) lack interest.

Or to summarize, the disconnect is between the expectations and desires of the DM vs. the players, and not in any particular decision to grant or remove agency. Agency needs purpose greater than simple freedom, as that's a meaningless conceit if you neither cared for nor wanted it (or neither cared for nor wanted the consequences of it).

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-29, 03:11 PM

Or to summarize, the disconnect is between the expectations and desires of the DM vs. the players, and not in any particular decision to grant or remove agency. Agency needs purpose greater than simple freedom, as that's a meaningless conceit if you neither cared for nor wanted it (or neither cared for nor wanted the consequences of it). The key bit of player agency is being presented with choices and decision points. And then getting to play out the consequences of choices and decisions, for good, bad, and in between. Player agency is achieved if I make the choice to take on an adult red dragon with a sword and shield. I (my character) may die, I die while trying mightily. Player agency is fulfilled if I try to climb that cliff, but fall off, regardless of what DC that cliff climb is.

It never hurts to try, as a rough approximation.

Waterdeep Merch

2018-01-29, 03:17 PM

The key bit of player agency is being presented with choices and decision points. And then getting to play out the consequences of choices and decisions, for good, bad, and in between. Player agency is achieved if I make the choice to take on an adult red dragon with a sword and shield. I (my character) may die, I die while trying mightily. Player agency is fulfilled if I try to climb that cliff, but fall off, regardless of what DC that cliff climb is.

Absolutely. If it's told in an interesting or fun manner, even if the only thing you got to do was decide whether or not you stood up to it, that's really the only agency that is required. The rest comes down to taste- do you get to make some decisions during your last stand, is death inevitable or just very likely, are other variables going to come into play? These could be good and fun.

You could also offer too many decisions here and make it miserable. What if the dragon intentionally blocks your escape, and also intentionally toys with you? What if you drag out the fight to the point of boredom and frustration, especially nasty if the outcome is inevitable (or at least extremely likely)? Sometimes, the game is better serviced by narrating your mighty doom, letting your first decision stand as your last. Better to get an excellent five minute epilogue than spend an annoying half hour in an impossible fight.

StoicLeaf

2018-01-29, 03:23 PM

Why are people playing with someone they can't trust to not be a jerk? Are people assuming the DM having control over the world means they'll abuse it?

I think the core of it is twofold:

1) A novice DM will abuse that power because they can't separate themselves from their plans. They'll take thing personally.
2) Humans are lazy and creatures of habit. A dictator is better than anarchy, a power crazed DM is better than no DM (or worse, having to DM yourself)

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-29, 03:39 PM

I think the core of it is twofold:

1) A novice DM will abuse that power because they can't separate themselves from their plans. They'll take thing personally.
2) Humans are lazy and creatures of habit. A dictator is better than anarchy, a power crazed DM is better than no DM (or worse, having to DM yourself)

As to point 1, I find novices tending to be more on the pushover side, not the "taking things personally" side. That or the blatant railroaders because they haven't figured out how to improvise properly yet. Both of those are fixable.

Mostly agree with #2.

Demonslayer666

2018-01-29, 04:23 PM

...
The idea that 3e somehow gave players more control just doesn't hold water with me. There were more & more detailed rules. That's it. Some groups, both DMs and players, find that more enjoyable. Others less.

...

With those rules came accountability, at least when using the battle board.

Everything was right in front of us using the battle board, and the monsters have to abide by the same rules as the players. The players could hold the DM accountable for what happened.

As a player, that was something I really enjoyed. The DM could not detail out the description to to favor the enemies on a whim, like "no, you can't get all 6 with your fireball, they are too spread out. You can only get 3."

Chugger

2018-01-29, 04:29 PM

It was 3E that taught players they had walking feet to vote with and no gaming is better than bad gaming. Tyrannical DMing existed in 3E. The difference was that players were finally able to recognize them and deal with it as they please. Personally I learned how to deal with it at the of 2E. I still had trouble dealing with Jerk players in my early 3E years, but I eventually learned having gained the confidence of dealing with tyrannical DMs.

Today I have no problems dealing with tyrannical DMs or Jerk players. I am perfectly fine with leaving the game if that's what has to happen, and I've already done it. Other times, it's the Jerk player who leaves or the DM who finds he has no players.

As usual, Pex, you're spot on! Amen!

Unoriginal, I don't see the kind of complaining you mention. I think you're bending the complaints so you can shoot them down. I see complaints where the DM is "punishing" players for specific things as opposed to upping the stakes and _challenging_ them.

Some DM's are control-freaks and are, well, "evil" (narcissistic, sociopathic, some other disorder - or if not an all-out disorder, then they're on the "spectrum" of some disorder). As Pex says, quit - get the hell away from them - do not sit at their table any more.

DMs are (edit, supposed to be) directors of a great experience, which includes possibility of death and a challenge - but also many other things must be done. And DM's who set out to "punish" or "control" players are not directors of great experiences: they're tiny brained wipers of you know what, mentally sick, and need to be abandoned and ignored.

Chaosmancer

2018-01-29, 04:35 PM

Lots of interesting points here. I'll add a handful of thoughts, starting with a good base point.

People can be unreasonable.

We've glossed over the "jerk DM" problem, but there is another aspect of it we have to remember. Bad experiences stick with people. If someone's first two DMs were jerks who abused their power, then it is more likely that they will be suspicious of their next couple DMs and maybe even DMs as a whole. It isn't like the rules could actually help, but it lends a sense of authority and safety to have the rules backing you up. It probably takes some people a few years for that to stop being the case.

Additionally, there is a long history of DM vs Players mindsets in the game. It is less encouraged than it used to be (Tomb of Horrors was specifically designed to "put players in their place" as the legends go) but it still lingers. And since it lingers players can feel like any limit on the infinite power of the DM levels the playing field and gives them a better chance.

I actually found some of the above posts amusing as I read about "3.x freed players from DM tyranny and showed them the truth of their own power". One of my first thoughts was, "so you prefer six tyrants to one?" It isn't quite accurate but i know a few players who would ruin the game for others if i didn't reign them in.

Then there is the "game world" argument. This one is complicated. On one hand, should the world be tailored to the players, either positively or negatively? Is it fair if the DM designs something after they know the players abilities, since that knowledge will "taint" the final product with expectations and contingencies that would not have existed otherwise?

Some of these positions make sense to me, others don't, but they also inform this idea of needing more limits on the DM, or more things defined more explicitly so the DM doesn't need to come up with them themselves

Waterdeep Merch

2018-01-29, 04:42 PM

Caelic

2018-01-29, 05:17 PM

The player choose one of the options, and the GM decides what beasts fitting those criteria will show up. The spell doesn't state the later, but it doesn't have to: it directly states the former, and the later is the only possible option, unless you want to add more rules not included in the spell's description.

Whether you say "The DM selects the specific creatures," or "The player selects the specific creatures," you're adding exactly the same amount to the rules.

Let's be honest here: the "DM picks the creatures" ruling only came along after the developers realized how incredibly broken allowing the summoning of pixies was. Not to mince words, I think it's pretty evident that it was an attempt to nerf that specific ill-advised option without actually issuing errata or saying "We done screwed up."

Rhedyn

2018-01-29, 05:17 PM

When the DM has to write rules it exposes them suspicion in a way just creating the world rarely does.

From an ethical standpoint, the appearance of impropriety is as important as actual violations. I believe a good system helps a DM run a game. One aspect of assistance is that the rule system removes suspicion, and also helps the players feel like the DM prepared for this (the biggest lie in RPGs). If everyone knows the DM has to make **** up on the spot for the game to even function, all the positive elements of a rules heavy system evaporate.

If you are going to have rules light elements, the whole game might as well have them too.

Tanarii

2018-01-29, 05:28 PM

With those rules came accountability, at least when using the battle board.

Everything was right in front of us using the battle board, and the monsters have to abide by the same rules as the players. The players could hold the DM accountable for what happened.

As a player, that was something I really enjoyed. The DM could not detail out the description to to favor the enemies on a whim, like "no, you can't get all 6 with your fireball, they are too spread out. You can only get 3."Battle boards are not unique to 3e. Furthermore, they only give the illusion of accountability, since they give the illusion of precision.

However, since I'm a strong proponent of the way 5e's flexible rules system gave back DMs freedom from the Tyranny of rules lawyer players, so I guess you guys have a point. 3e was clearly the system that they used to shackle the wise and benevolent DMs of this world, who were providing non-tyrannical players everywhere with fun and exciting games.

To be serious on different editions for a second: When it came out, I actually really enjoyed 3e putting everything under a single centralized system, and having clearly defined combat mechanics. Because it made it more battlemat friendly. I liked battle-mat friendly, highly tactical, and strong centralized powers system of 4e too. 5e is a nice change of pace after a decade of that, and it's certainly a bajillion times easier to play or run.

Errata

2018-01-29, 05:59 PM

Some abilities you look at and know they're good. Some you look at and know they're not good. Some you look at and just don't know, because some crucial part of it is particularly open to interpretation from someone other than you.

If people are making permanent, irreversible decisions about their character, they will tend to value the ability that they can trust will live up to expectations vs. the unknowable one which they may learn is relatively useless only after they've attempted to use it.

In some cases there is just a specific rule interpretation you could check with your DM about before committing, but in the case of some abilities it's always going to vary according to the specific situation each time you use it, so even talking about it in advance doesn't clarify much. Plus people on this forum are often in very early stages of comparing many alternatives, and are not yet dealing wtih one specific character making one specific choice, so a lot of ambiguity could lead them to steer clear of certain types of builds very early on.

2D8HP

2018-01-29, 06:58 PM

Often on this forum I see people treating the DM having control over the Ability checks' DCs or.....

...am I just missing something/taking some persons complaining too seriously?

If it's really face-to-face then it's an issue, but if you're just posting 'bout stuff other people have posted, remember that the world is a very big place with lots of people with internet access now and someone somewhere sometime has probably voiced most every opinion that may be imagined.

To demonstrate; Despite my STUNNING HUMILITY I must admit these aren't just opinions but are SOLID GOLD FACTS THAT ONLY THOSE WHO ARE WRONGLY WRONG WRONG WILL DISBELIEVE!!!:

Excalibur is a better movie than whatever new movie that's out that I haven't seen yet and will be FOREVUH!!!

Does the new movie have performances by Cherie Lunghi, Helen Mirren, Liam Neeson, and Patrick Stewart in it?

No?

Then IT DOES NOT HAVE THE WILL OF THE WARRIOR, THUS CANNOT MATCH Excalibur IN AWESOMICITY THEREFORE Excalibur HAS ALREADY WON!!!

I rest my case.

Also, to play D&D properly one must have the right influences, which are:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76VaPmTHxI/AAAAAAAAB90/jp_QEn8jKSg/s320/conanelric1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76i4WQ-17I/AAAAAAAAB-E/xdEuV-lr0as/s320/conanelric2-1.jpg

If one is not so influenced, one is likely playing HERETICALLY!!!

FOR SHAME!!!

When the DM has to write rules it exposes.....

....If everyone knows the DM has to make **** up on the spot for the game to even function, all the positive elements of a rules heavy system evaporate.....

Yes, amazing how 5e D&D relies on DM's judgement, creativity, and making rulings, sort of like every version of D&D that I'm familiar with has since the beginning of the game:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "..The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play...."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "...As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual..."

Odd, isn't it?

Pex

2018-01-29, 07:41 PM

Huh. I learned that in AD&D 1e & BECMI, in high school even. So did plenty of other people I played with. Including plenty of players that didn't find my style of running a game enjoyable. I had and have no problem with that, provided they don't try to claim their stylistic preferences for "fun" are superior to mine and the rest of the group.

Now if an entire group wants to walk, I'm going to take a nice hard look at what I'm doing. For that matter, I'm not opposed to listening to what even one player has to say.

The idea that 3e somehow gave players more control just doesn't hold water with me. There were more & more detailed rules. That's it. Some groups, both DMs and players, find that more enjoyable. Others less.

I know as a player I'd much rather my DM make up DCs on the spot based on what's going on in his world, rather than have to consult a table for "DC to pick an reinforced steel lock made by a master dwarven artisan under the dark-light of the new moon".

Actually, I'd prefer the lock already have a DC the DM set during prep-time, however he arrived at it. But that's a little hypocritical considering I'm perfectly willing to call for checks and set DCs on the fly. :smallbiggrin:

I was there on the internet. :smalltongue:

I was in ye olde rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup in early internet when there was still only 2E. I was fighting for the Stormwind Fallacy before it was so named, and I was in the minority. Most everyone was insistent that having high ability scores meant you were a munchkin and couldn't roleplay. I was the only who said otherwise, that ability scores had no relation to roleplaying. Eventually I got a few converts. When 3E came out and there was Point Buy, I finally won the argument.

When 3E came out web page forums started to become user friendly leading to the demise of the newsgroups. There were a few others I was on in addition to WOTC. That's where Stormwind coined the term. That was when more and more people were speaking out against tyrannical DMs as they heard about games without such DMs. Games not playing at the DM's house? Players taking turns DMing? Vote with your feet? No game is better than a bad game? These were new concepts to people back then. Players knew only of gamers in their neighborhood/college. Learning how it didn't have to be how they were playing was eye-opening.

Tanarii

2018-01-29, 07:56 PM

I was in ye olde rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup in early internet when there was still only 2E. I was fighting for the Stormwind Fallacy before it was so named, and I was in the minority. Most everyone was insistent that having high ability scores meant you were a munchkin and couldn't roleplay. I was the only who said otherwise, that ability scores had no relation to roleplaying. Eventually I got a few converts. When 3E came out and there was Point Buy, I finally won the argument.Now THAT doesn't surprise me. I don't agree that TSR 2e fostered a "tyrannical DM" syndrome, but it sure fostered Anti-Wargame One-True-Way-Roleplay-ism. Although the exact form varied, sometimes being anti-dice and other times pro-amateur-theatre. And the stench of that elitist attitude still lingers even today.

That was when more and more people were speaking out against tyrannical DMs as they heard about games without such DMs.I was all over forums during 3e and 3.5 and I don't recall a peep of this. What I recall is endless debates around the minutia of rules interactions, plus the uproar around 3.5 and how it "ruined the game". There was a big pro-optimizer faction, but that was what I was talking about above, the infamous "Roleplay vs Rollplay" debates and the drive to change "munchkin" to "optimizer". But nothing about anti-DM tyranny and pro-player-something-something.

Which probably just goes to show we were interested in totally different things at the time. :smallbiggrin:

Sigreid

2018-01-29, 07:57 PM

I was there on the internet. :smalltongue:

I was in ye olde rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup in early internet when there was still only 2E. I was fighting for the Stormwind Fallacy before it was so named, and I was in the minority. Most everyone was insistent that having high ability scores meant you were a munchkin and couldn't roleplay. I was the only who said otherwise, that ability scores had no relation to roleplaying. Eventually I got a few converts. When 3E came out and there was Point Buy, I finally won the argument.

When 3E came out web page forums started to become user friendly leading to the demise of the newsgroups. There were a few others I was on in addition to WOTC. That's where Stormwind coined the term. That was when more and more people were speaking out against tyrannical DMs as they heard about games without such DMs. Games not playing at the DM's house? Players taking turns DMing? Vote with your feet? No game is better than a bad game? These were new concepts to people back then. Players knew only of gamers in their neighborhood/college. Learning how it didn't have to be how they were playing was eye-opening.

Everything you said here preceded public access to the internet by a good bit. As kids we learned that the game had to be fun for everyone, it's more fun for everyone if the DM slot went to whoever had an idea, and the game should be convenient for everyone you want to play with in the very early 80's. All of that was pretty obvious.

Chaosmancer

2018-01-29, 09:47 PM

A good DM wants to show their players a good time. A good player wants to experience the game the DM has put together. Neither should feel entitled to something from the other- rather, both should be working to enrich each other. D&D is not the world nor the characters, it's the interaction between players and the DM. The better those experiences, the better the game.

See base assumption. People can be unreasonable.

Of the game would be better if Bob was allowed to stat out his hometown. Which is a highcity. With a standing army of griffon riders. And he's childhood friends with the captain of the guard.

And of course the game would be better if everyone reacted with horror at the desecration of the holy temple of Baset, and then the group will ride off into the hills to slay those responsible.

And of course the game would be better with no gnomes, or Tieflings, in fact those players cause trouble and its easier just to set that rule.

And of course the game would be better if the ranger used Sharpshooter more, and the warlock grabbed darkness and teamed up with the shadow monk

Players or DMs, everyone has moments when they want to improve the experience for everyone. Or they want the spotlight. Or they want the group to appreciate the dramatic tension. And sometimes that impulse improves the game, and sometimes that impulse frustrates the other party.

It's just people, it's going to happen. And since the game is set up as a 6 together 1 alone, your DM gets scrutinized a lot, while players get talked about a lot in places DMs congregate. Like forums.

Malifice

2018-01-30, 12:00 AM

Waterdeep Merch

2018-01-30, 12:12 AM

See base assumption. People can be unreasonable.

Of the game would be better if Bob was allowed to stat out his hometown. Which is a highcity. With a standing army of griffon riders. And he's childhood friends with the captain of the guard.

And of course the game would be better if everyone reacted with horror at the desecration of the holy temple of Baset, and then the group will ride off into the hills to slay those responsible.

And of course the game would be better with no gnomes, or Tieflings, in fact those players cause trouble and its easier just to set that rule.

And of course the game would be better if the ranger used Sharpshooter more, and the warlock grabbed darkness and teamed up with the shadow monk

Players or DMs, everyone has moments when they want to improve the experience for everyone. Or they want the spotlight. Or they want the group to appreciate the dramatic tension. And sometimes that impulse improves the game, and sometimes that impulse frustrates the other party.

It's just people, it's going to happen. And since the game is set up as a 6 together 1 alone, your DM gets scrutinized a lot, while players get talked about a lot in places DMs congregate. Like forums.

I think that's the best thing to be unreasonable about, though- assuming everyone wants what's best. It's true, not everyone will want to play nice all the time. And missteps will happen even with the best players and the best DM. But striving for an equilibrium of respect and mutual enjoyment is the best sort of goal one can hope for when playing these games.

We fail, we get mad, we ruminate, and sometimes we get mean. It happens. But if we stop every now and then and remember that what we are engaged in is supposed to be fun for all of us; while we may be unable to always elevate the unreasonable people around us, we can at least be more reasonable ourselves. And in that, at least, things can be a little better.

I'd rather be open to the possibility of a good experience than hamper them out of fear of a bad experience. This is why I don't want to suspect my DM's of anything untoward before they've done it.

Pex

2018-01-30, 12:13 AM

Do you DM?

Not often.

When I do I apply the same standards I want on myself. When I find I can't or don't I reevaluate my opinions. Sometimes I will change them. For example, I used to believe monsters and NPCs should follow the same rules as PCs in their creation. Due to the time sink alone in creating humanoid NPCs that was driving me up the wall I no longer insist on that. The simplicity and time saver of giving NPCs the abilities I want them to have and not worry if they're build legal is a stress reliever.

Malifice

2018-01-30, 12:23 AM

Not often.

Have you ever spent a lot of time building and designing a world, and statting up encounters, and being a fair DM and then having to deal with a whiny player that doesnt give a ****?

Spent hours of your personal time each and every week sitting down, and drawing up maps, and designing fun and challenging encounters every single week, only to have to deal with an antagonistic little **** on game night?

I see so much **** given to DMs, when its a largely thankless task, and involves a ton of work over and above that of a player (not just encounters and plot hooks and the like, but also including managing players on actual game night, and playing every single NPC realistically etc), and is vital to the actual game.

I get that there are adversarial ***** of DMs out there, but the amount of whining about DMs on here is ridiculous.

Its a tough job, and we should all be a lot more thankful people do it. We couldnt game without the hard work of DMs.

Pelle

2018-01-30, 04:46 AM

Agreed.

When DMs makes honest mistakes or just have different preferences (for themselves or accomodating to different players), I see a lot of people on these boards jump and call the DMs tyrants and instinctively assume that what they do is with bad intent just to be spiteful.

This is a really bad attitude, and often looks like entitlement. People (even DMs) can make mistakes, or have other preferences than you, ok? If so, bring it up for discussion and see if you can agree on something instead of attacking the other person right away.

Glorthindel

2018-01-30, 05:58 AM

If the player is "good", as in "I like to have my glory but I won't metagame nor trying to finish all encounters by myself", any pragmatic DM will hand him full rein soon enough.

If the player is usually playing well in group but tries something that really feels world-immersion breaking, such as summoning elephants on a boat, the fact that DM ultimately has the last word means he can ban it or not depending also on the character background and other factors.

If the player is behaving in an utterly ecogentric manner, then the DM has some control to limit the collateral damage on the other players.
If he's expecting the same one-trick Conjure Feys > Pixies to work in any and every situation, but that trick would be felt as totally illogical or wrongfun by other players, DM can either roleplay the Pixies or make things simpler and use other spirits.

These conjuration spells fall upon the same problem as others like higher level illusions, suggestions or environmental control. They can be as useless as extremely powerful, so for everyone to have fun, they need to be worked in both intelligence by both the player and the DM.
The only true difference is that with illusions, DM's safeguards come after the fact, by choosing how the worlds react to what the player described. Whereas with sumons, DM's safeguards comme before the fact.

The only thing a DM must do is give the golden rules on how he sees those spells working in session 0. Past that...

I fully agree here - although I doubt the ambiguity was by design (as I don't think too highly of the current crop of designers), I thoroughly agree that it is actually preferable to hard and fast rules in situations like this, as it allows a bit of wiggle room to reign in abuse, whilst allowing players a mostly free reign.

Not letting a player summon horses with conjure animals if they need something to ride, is interferring with player options. Having someone kill the horses while the players are in a tavern, is controlling the world.

I have a hard time believing you are serious in your last paragraf. The spell states i can summon 8 beasts of cr 1/4 or lower. I use the spell to summon 8 wolves, who are beasts of cr 1/4 or lower. I now did what the spell say i can do with it. Are you really saying your interpretation is how you and your group understood the spell before you read the developer comment? If so, im truly surprised, and i am sure you are one of a few.

As I see it, the current ruling (of the DM choosing) is a band-aid to a problem that earlier editions didn't have - an increase in player knowledge in areas that were traditionally reserved for DMs only.

When I DMed back before 3rd ed (and well into the 3.5 era) the idea that a player would be able to look up monster stats was absurd. Before it was all available to see on the internet, there was only one way a player could get to see the stat blocks of a monster, and that was to open the Monster manual. And generally speaking, doing so was considered taboo. So back then, when a player kicked out a summoning spell, he was doing it blind, and was invariably left on the mercy of the DM to give him some options as to what creatures he could summon, and the extent of the information the player would be given (it was fairly common to just give the player a cut-down cheat-sheet of just the few stats they would need to run it in a fight). Which meant the DM could pre-emptively take broken or weird options off the table, and freed of knowing the 'optimal choice', players would frequently err on the side of thematic choices rather than calling up the mathematically optimal choice every time. I suspect that is why people you are arguing with say they read the spell already as "DM choose" - since that has kinda been how it used to be; the player gave the parameter of what he wanted (a mount, a tough tanky monster, a hard hitting glass cannon monster) and the DM told him what best fitted his request.

But now, that's not the case, and players with summon spells (or animal companions, familiar options, or wild shape) take immediately to the MM or the internet and get a breakdown of the optimal creature-per-level, along with instant knowledge of which has the highest hit bonus, hit points, and best spell like abilities. I don't believe this was ever the intent, and these spells and abilities have rocketted in strength and effectiveness because of this.

The problem isn't a player summoning horses when he needs a ride, or an aerial or aquatic option when faced with challenge that requires it. It is summoning the same optimal CR-whatever creature for the spells level every time, rain or shine, jungle, desert, or artic tundra. I reckon the new ruling has been brought in reign in this creep in power, and reintroduce a little variation to the world of summoning, not to deliberatly screw players by giving them things inappropriate to the problem they are trying to solve.

Gardakan

2018-01-30, 06:18 AM

Well... I can totally see myself doing this to a player who wants to use pets but takes too long in combat to declare what he does.

It's like playing a caster and not knowing what your spell does... I can totally get along with a new player willing to experiment, but it's on them to arrive prepared to the game (I had it in Adventurer's League and the player wasn't prepared, I gave him one big minion and that was it, he argued that he could summoned X CR ... I asked him if he had them and he bringed the whole DM part... He had a Saber toothed Tiger).

Especially when you don't understand a monster's stat sheet... it's painful for other players and it's not helping you being fluid while in combat.

I have Animate Objects on a Sorcerer, and I bring d20s in loads in case I want to animate tiny objects to do damage.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-30, 09:03 AM

As I see it, the current ruling (of the DM choosing) is a band-aid to a problem that earlier editions didn't have - an increase in player knowledge in areas that were traditionally reserved for DMs only.

When I DMed back before 3rd ed (and well into the 3.5 era) the idea that a player would be able to look up monster stats was absurd. Before it was all available to see on the internet, there was only one way a player could get to see the stat blocks of a monster, and that was to open the Monster manual. And generally speaking, doing so was considered taboo.
<snip>
But now, that's not the case, and players with summon spells (or animal companions, familiar options, or wild shape) take immediately to the MM or the internet and get a breakdown of the optimal creature-per-level, along with instant knowledge of which has the highest hit bonus, hit points, and best spell like abilities. I don't believe this was ever the intent, and these spells and abilities have rocketted in strength and effectiveness because of this.

This.
A thousand times, this.
In the past, it was specifically spelled out, written, right in the DMG and MM, on page 1, that these books were not to be opened or read by players. Period.
Now it has become common practice, and that's where the problems arise from. Players have information that was never meant for them, which makes summoning spells significantly more powerful than they are intended to be.
Solution: DM chooses.

Pex

2018-01-30, 09:05 AM

Have you ever spent a lot of time building and designing a world, and statting up encounters, and being a fair DM and then having to deal with a whiny player that doesnt give a ****?

Spent hours of your personal time each and every week sitting down, and drawing up maps, and designing fun and challenging encounters every single week, only to have to deal with an antagonistic little **** on game night?

I see so much **** given to DMs, when its a largely thankless task, and involves a ton of work over and above that of a player (not just encounters and plot hooks and the like, but also including managing players on actual game night, and playing every single NPC realistically etc), and is vital to the actual game.

I get that there are adversarial ***** of DMs out there, but the amount of whining about DMs on here is ridiculous.

Its a tough job, and we should all be a lot more thankful people do it. We couldnt game without the hard work of DMs.

Yes I have.

The Jerks and the Munchkins. The Jerk players I flat out refuse to enable. They don't get to keep for themselves party treasure. I tell them outright. If they try to Lone Wolf adventures, depending on circumstances either nothing happens or they get in trouble. This is different than scouting for the party. Scouting is fine. This is purposely separating from the group to do their own thing for their own personal game. The Munchkins I try to teach. I'll let them have their combat fun, but they get consequences in social encounters without screwing over the players who are being reasonable. For example, I don't care how long a moon druid can be in bear form. He's not going to be allowed to walk freely in the village as a bear. He can stew outside if he wants, but stuff will happen in the village with the rest of the party and he can just watch everyone else play. I will tell him why this is happening when he doesn't get the hint.

If either player leaves in a huff or doesn't come back next session, I don't shed a tear.

Chaosmancer

2018-01-30, 09:12 AM

I think that's the best thing to be unreasonable about, though- assuming everyone wants what's best. It's true, not everyone will want to play nice all the time. And missteps will happen even with the best players and the best DM. But striving for an equilibrium of respect and mutual enjoyment is the best sort of goal one can hope for when playing these games.

We fail, we get mad, we ruminate, and sometimes we get mean. It happens. But if we stop every now and then and remember that what we are engaged in is supposed to be fun for all of us; while we may be unable to always elevate the unreasonable people around us, we can at least be more reasonable ourselves. And in that, at least, things can be a little better.

I'd rather be open to the possibility of a good experience than hamper them out of fear of a bad experience. This is why I don't want to suspect my DM's of anything untoward before they've done it.

I shall second, third and fourth this if you don't mind.

As I see it, the current ruling (of the DM choosing) is a band-aid to a problem that earlier editions didn't have - an increase in player knowledge in areas that were traditionally reserved for DMs only.

When I DMed back before 3rd ed (and well into the 3.5 era) the idea that a player would be able to look up monster stats was absurd. Before it was all available to see on the internet, there was only one way a player could get to see the stat blocks of a monster, and that was to open the Monster manual. And generally speaking, doing so was considered taboo.

See, something about this seems... Insufficient.

I have three players at my table who will likely know a spell, monster, or magic item upon its description. That's because all three of them have DM'd or considered DMing at one point or another. Not that we cycle DMs within the same game, but they've run games I'm not a part of.

Heck, I personally have a very hard time seperating the things I KNOW as a DM from my player knowledge when I sit down to play. If the wizard we were fighting dissolves into snow and slush when i land the killing blow, I can't just pretend I don't know what just happened. I do know.

And with how freeform a lot of old groups were, and the stories I've heard of people playing the same adventure with different groups, i find it difficult to blame the internet for this, or to think that my opening the monster manual for my game on Thursday is a taboo for playing my Barbarian for Saturday.

Actually, lets add this to our considerations. A lot of DMs are players and a lot of players are DMs. Some of us are more dedicated to one position or the other, but most of us have been on both sides more than once. And in some respects it is a false divide.

Glorthindel

2018-01-30, 11:17 AM

See, something about this seems... Insufficient.

I have three players at my table who will likely know a spell, monster, or magic item upon its description. That's because all three of them have DM'd or considered DMing at one point or another. Not that we cycle DMs within the same game, but they've run games I'm not a part of.

...

And with how freeform a lot of old groups were, and the stories I've heard of people playing the same adventure with different groups, i find it difficult to blame the internet for this, or to think that my opening the monster manual for my game on Thursday is a taboo for playing my Barbarian for Saturday.

But how much do you really know?

I have DMed for 20 years, across four editions of D&D (5 if you count 3.5 as a different edition to 3, and given that spells and monster stats changed between 3 and 3.5 I suppose it does for the purpose of this arguement, and a handful of other fantasy RPG's. Naturally, I am going to be fairly clued up on my monsters, but only really in broad strokes - every edition changes rules slightly, adds and removes things, alters mechanics, and sometimes straight up guts a monsters lore or abilities, and completely changes things.

Yes, I can usually reliably identify a monster based on a short description, and certainly know the broad strokes of most monsters abilities (whats usually poisonous, what throws out save-or-die effects like disintegrate or petrification, etc, etc), but even then, that is limited to the things that sticks in your head, or have used in the past (as an example, I have never used a Grell or a Peryton - I could describe both from all the times I have leafed past their pages in my various MM, but abilities and appropriate level to fight one, no idea). But the actual fine details, the hard stats? Forget it; I couldn't tell you how many hp an Orc has this edition, how lethal this editions Manticore or Wyvern poison is, what exactly every eye stalk of the Beholder does, which breed of Giant has the highest Strength Score (by order of the old adventure series I could guess Fire, but it would be a guess), and importantly to the subject of this discussion, which has the best combat stats between a Wolf, a Wolverine, or a Leopard. For any of this, I need to open the book. And without access to the book, I'm going to need to guess, which is going to lead to me varying my choice from time to time out of a desire to test other options, rather than sticking to the internet-proven number 1 option.

Caelic

2018-01-30, 11:31 AM

But how much do you really know?

The answer to that, of course, is going to vary depending on the individual player.

But the actual fine details, the hard stats? Forget it; I couldn't tell you how many hp an Orc has this edition, how lethal this editions Manticore or Wyvern poison is

Well, Manticores aren't poisonous, so the answer to that one is "Not very." ;)

, what exactly every eye stalk of the Beholder does, which breed of Giant has the highest Strength Score (by order of the old adventure series I could guess Fire, but it would be a guess), and importantly to the subject of this discussion, which has the best combat stats between a Wolf, a Wolverine, or a Leopard. For any of this, I need to open the book. And without access to the book, I'm going to need to guess, which is going to lead to me varying my choice from time to time out of a desire to test other options, rather than sticking to the internet-proven number 1 option.

...and you raise a valid point: some people, despite lengthy experience, aren't going to know all of these things, or are going to mix up capabilities between editions. (My own DM forgot that many undead simply have darkvision now, rather than super-spiffy undead sight, and are at disadvantage in the dark just like everyone else.)

However, others will know these things, either because of a particularly keen memory, a competitive nature, or simply a tendency to reread the rulebooks over and over again. The problem with restricting book access, in my opinion, is that it significantly handicaps new players who are just learning the system, while providing little or no hindrance to those who have mastered it.

Chugger

2018-01-30, 08:47 PM

Have you ever spent a lot of time building and designing a world, and statting up encounters, and being a fair DM and then having to deal with a whiny player that doesnt give a ****?

Spent hours of your personal time each and every week sitting down, and drawing up maps, and designing fun and challenging encounters every single week, only to have to deal with an antagonistic little **** on game night?

I see so much **** given to DMs, when its a largely thankless task, and involves a ton of work over and above that of a player (not just encounters and plot hooks and the like, but also including managing players on actual game night, and playing every single NPC realistically etc), and is vital to the actual game.

I get that there are adversarial ***** of DMs out there, but the amount of whining about DMs on here is ridiculous.

Its a tough job, and we should all be a lot more thankful people do it. We couldnt game without the hard work of DMs.

Malifice, psst - don't mess with Pex. He's wiser than you'll ever be, and you'll end up looking bad ... at best.

When you say "whining" you're using a nasty, despicable rhetorical tactic that civilized posters do not use. When you reduce and denigrate all complaining about something with no way of knowing the quality of it - you're not psychic, you don't know how legit the complaints are - to "a baby or small child's waaa waaaing" - you're blindly and tyrannically trying to stiff-arm and shut down people. Instead you should ask if your own assumption, that most DMs are okay (or whatever your core assumption is), is valid or even remotely correct. If otherwise bright people (like Pex) are saying they're experience doesn't match yours - instead of calling this whining, maybe you should realize people live outside the bubble of your limited reality and experience different things.

Obviously DnD is played in many places, and in some there will be mostly good DMs, while in others there will be mostly bad DMs - and this is so subjective that it will be impossible for us to agree on what is what. I know truly awful DMs who have strengths - but also bad deficits - let's call them "gapped" - and their bad spots make them too awful for me to game with - but others, who don't care about such things or who are delighted by this DM's strengths or w/e - they still play with him. I don't call them stupid - they're just different from me - and have different cares and interests and tolerance levels.

You disservice yourself and this whole community when you stoop to using such rhetorical devices. Please don't. I'm sure you're better than this - and I'm sure you have much to contribute. But labeling complaints you either don't like, haven't observed yourself, or don't understand "whining" is wrong.

Did I mention not to mess with Pex?

Tanarii

2018-01-30, 09:19 PM

Did I mention not to mess with Pex?Messing with Pex is my favorite forum sport. :)

Malifice

2018-01-30, 09:21 PM

Yes I have.

The Jerks and the Munchkins. The Jerk players I flat out refuse to enable. They don't get to keep for themselves party treasure. I tell them outright. If they try to Lone Wolf adventures, depending on circumstances either nothing happens or they get in trouble. This is different than scouting for the party. Scouting is fine. This is purposely separating from the group to do their own thing for their own personal game. The Munchkins I try to teach. I'll let them have their combat fun, but they get consequences in social encounters without screwing over the players who are being reasonable. For example, I don't care how long a moon druid can be in bear form. He's not going to be allowed to walk freely in the village as a bear. He can stew outside if he wants, but stuff will happen in the village with the rest of the party and he can just watch everyone else play. I will tell him why this is happening when he doesn't get the hint.

If either player leaves in a huff or doesn't come back next session, I don't shed a tear.

Most 'bad' players can be dealt with by an experienced DM.

A lot of people DM passively. You have to be active as a DM; and that involves a lot of 'people management.'

Have a 'spotlight hog'? Dont let him dictate the conversation. Spend your sessions specifically going around the table and asking each player in turn, 'what are you doing?' every 5-10 minutes. Give each player ample chances to interact with the DM and each other.

Munchkinism can be dealt with easy enough. Simply reward roleplaying. Munchkins are all about rewards. If they see another player getting rewarded for roleplaying (useful allies, frequent awards of inspiration, NPC interactions resulting in the NPC providing aid like magic items and similar, etc) they catch on naturally, and start to roleplay a lot more frequently.

****; you do it right and they'll be rocking up with detailed backstories and character illustrations within a few sessions.

Murderhobism is dealt with rather easily. I simply have a quick alignment discussion, if the problem persists I change the PCs alignment. Actual in game acts of [theft, murder etc] are simply dealt with by local authorities in the game. My games are run in Faerun and the assumption is that any population centre of town size or larger has access to at least 1 mid range Magic user, and at least 1 Cleric of the local domiant faith of mid level (capable of casting spells like speak with dead, divination, zone of truth and so forth). Guards and Veterans patrol the streets, and there are usually a few Knights and a Champion rounding out the towns garrison. Unless the PC is very VERY sneaky, the authorities usually get their man. And of course, the penalty for murder is generally hanging (or paying for a Raise dead spell, and a hefty fine and banishment from the town).

Avoid heavy handedness, but you're in charge.

I find that bad players have almost invariably picked up bad habits from other games. With good DM management, you can curb most of the bad player behaviour. Its actually rather rewarding to turn a 'bad player' into a better one.

Some players are just ********s though. But thats life really.

Long story is DMing is more of an art than a science. You need a strong knowledge of the rules to be a good DM, and a great imagination (and ability to improvise and adapt) are also vital. But far more importantly, you need to bring good people management to your game table, and be prepared to deal with different personalities, and gell them into working together and abiding by the social contract of the table (of which you as DM are responsible for).

Its why I generally blame the DM when tables go out of kilter or games break down. Its almost invariably the DMs fault. That said, it''s a tough job, and some players are hell bent on making it harder than it needs to be.

Chugger

2018-01-30, 09:41 PM

Oh Tanari, yer just sayin' that cuz all the cool kids say that! :smallbiggrin:

Malifice

2018-01-30, 09:58 PM

Malifice, psst - don't mess with Pex. He's wiser than you'll ever be, and you'll end up looking bad ... at best.

When you say "whining" you're using a nasty, despicable rhetorical tactic that civilized posters do not use. When you reduce and denigrate all complaining about something with no way of knowing the quality of it - you're not psychic, you don't know how legit the complaints are - to "a baby or small child's waaa waaaing" - you're blindly and tyrannically trying to stiff-arm and shut down people. Instead you should ask if your own assumption, that most DMs are okay (or whatever your core assumption is), is valid or even remotely correct. If otherwise bright people (like Pex) are saying they're experience doesn't match yours - instead of calling this whining, maybe you should realize people live outside the bubble of your limited reality and experience different things.

Firstly Im not having a go at Pex.

Secondly when it comes to whining, you're ironically doing just that here. At my table, I'd politely ask you to cut it out, and we can talk about it after the session. Politely at first (asking you nicely to cool your jets and keep it for after the game, where we can chat about it man to man), and then telling you firmly if that doesnt work (flat out telling you to cut it out, last warning) because the other players and I didnt swing over with character sheets and cheetos to listen to you sook, and we're not here to hear you whine, we're here to play a game and have fun.

Do it again after those warnings, and you get a text message mid week telling you not to bother coming back to the game.

Problem solved. Three strikes and all that.

Obviously DnD is played in many places, and in some there will be mostly good DMs, while in others there will be mostly bad DMs - and this is so subjective that it will be impossible for us to agree on what is what. I know truly awful DMs who have strengths - but also bad deficits - let's call them "gapped" - and their bad spots make them too awful for me to game with - but others, who don't care about such things or who are delighted by this DM's strengths or w/e - they still play with him. I don't call them stupid - they're just different from me - and have different cares and interests and tolerance levels.

Good for you mate. Im simply stating how I run my table.

As DM I uphold the social contract, and ensure players do so as well. Its no different from managing a team at work. I'll work with a disruptive player, and try and guide them towards a better path that is less disruptive to other players, but at the end of the day, if you're affecting everyones enjoyment of the game, and arent listenting, there is an effective solution that I am not afraid to employ.

Unoriginal

2018-01-30, 10:23 PM

Malifice, psst - don't mess with Pex. He's wiser than you'll ever be, and you'll end up looking bad ... at best.

If otherwise bright people (like Pex)

I'm sure you're better than this - and I'm sure you have much to contribute. But labeling complaints you either don't like, haven't observed yourself, or don't understand "whining" is wrong.

are saying they're experience doesn't match yours - instead of calling this whining, maybe you should realize people live outside the bubble of your limited reality and experience different things.

Did I mention not to mess with Pex?

When you reduce and denigrate all complaining about something with no way of knowing the quality of it - you're not psychic, you don't know how legit the complaints are - to "a baby or small child's waaa waaaing" - you're blindly and tyrannically trying to stiff-arm and shut down people.

Instead you should ask if your own assumption, that most DMs are okay (or whatever your core assumption is), is valid or even remotely correct.

When you say "whining" you're using a nasty, despicable rhetorical tactic that civilized posters do not use.

You disservice yourself and this whole community when you stoop to using such rhetorical devices.

A piece of advice, Chugger: if you're trying to tell someone they shouldn't resort to " nasty, despicable rhetorical tactic that civilized posters do not use" that they "disservice [themselves]and this whole community when [they] stoop to using" them, maybe you shouldn't use the same rhetorical tactic in the same post.

Yes, you didn't call Malifice's post "whinning". You just:

- Called him inferior to Pex
- Implied he was not bright
- Implied he didn't understand what people were talking about, while condescendingly declaring you're sure he can contribute if he wish so (and so implying he is not contributing)
-Declared he lives in a "bubble of limited reality", aka saying he's out of touch with reality/delusional.
-Declared that people shouldn't "mess" with Pex, implying Pex is being treated unjustly and warning people they shouldn't do that.

While simultaneously:

-Reducing and denigrating all complaining Malifice did about something with no way of knowing the quality of it
-Pretending that your own assumption are valid and correct, without questioning them, when dismissing Malifice's with a"whatever".

Which not only the logos of your rhetoric more than questionable, it also ruins the ethos you're aiming for and makes the pathos you're going for -ie, evoking the impression of a wise defender scolding an unreasonable troublemaker- miss its mark by a wide margin.

So, I reiterate my piece of advice: don't scold people by using the same thing you're scolding them for.

Malifice

2018-01-30, 10:26 PM

So, I reiterate my piece of advice: don't scold people by using the same thing you're scolding them for.

I actually found it hillarious as the post itself was me saying 'I hate it when players whine'.

The irony of then being whined at was not lost on me.

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-30, 10:36 PM

Malifice

2018-01-30, 10:52 PM

All that makes you is either a slow learner or a slow adapter.
We learned to get rid of toxic players well before AD&D 1e was released. We were all about the fun.
All of us walked from crap DM's ... we'd just play somewhere else or somewhen else, and not let that one know where we were. I guess the modern age can't handle that kind of peer feedback.
The message got through, in part because in those days the RPG community was small, and unlike now, there weren't that many RPG's to play.
Thankfully, over the years, the variety has increased and the styles and flavors have grown. (This is all goodness).

I think it's great that there are more choices. Getting the right fit for the system and the group is a good thing. It helps the fun.

This.

3E actually fostered an environment of 'player entitlement' where players suddenly felt as if it was their god given right to be sooks at the table if you politely declined their [Divine metamagic feat, nightstick using, Archivst 1/ Warblade 1/ Crusader 1/ Fighter 1/ Cleric 1/ Ruby knight vindicator 5] at your casual gaming table.

Its an issue that has carried over to PF (and been amplified). That game is all about the minigame of splatbook trawling to come up with some kind of úber sock puppet [feat/ class/ trait/ archetype/ item/ spell] combo that is game wrecking [while simulatanously avoiding trap options]. Players invest literally months and years of their time on forums and elsewhere designing character builds.

They sook it right up, when you say 'No'.

They seem to have forgotten along the way, that the DM always retains that right.

Games gotta be fun for everyone, and that includes all players being on the same level of ability and power (and are all contributing to a level that they are enjoying themselves). My job as DM is to manage that phenomenon and ensure it happens.

If that means I have to say no to your special snowflake, I'll do it in the blink of an eye.

Pex

2018-01-30, 11:22 PM

All that makes you is either a slow learner or a slow adapter.
We learned to get rid of toxic players well before AD&D 1e was released. We were all about the fun.
All of us walked from crap DM's ... we'd just play somewhere else or somewhen else, and not let that one know where we were. I guess the modern age can't handle that kind of peer feedback.
The message got through, in part because in those days the RPG community was small, and unlike now, there weren't that many RPG's to play.
Thankfully, over the years, the variety has increased and the styles and flavors have grown. (This is all goodness).

I think it's great that there are more choices. Getting the right fit for the system and the group is a good thing. It helps the fun.

For my personal experiences, environment may have been a factor. My early 2E years were in college with a small group, relatively speaking, of players. Voting with your feet only meant you didn't get to play at all. The internet existed but not quite user friendly yet. My access was college computers. To have left a game was to mean the DM and I hated each other personally, which happened. Long story which I have discussed in previous threads. It was after college when my gaming options were more flexible that I could and did find the guts to walk out of a game because of "DM tyranny". I didn't have a personal computer until several years after graduation. They weren't so common back then. The "Geek Social Fallacies" were also a factor. It took a lot longer to cure myself of them. :smalltongue:

As I've said somewhere in some thread, maybe this one, it took 3E for me to learn I didn't have to tolerate Jerk players. I left a gaming group because most of the players were, and I finally got it that no gaming was better than bad gaming. The DM was fine as a DM. I had talked to him of my issue. He was sympathetic but didn't do anything about it. To be fair it wasn't 3E specifically that taught me this. It was the internet. It was the forums where the message was spread, and I also realized I could find another gaming group without too much trouble. I was one of those players who needed someone to say I didn't have to accept bad gaming.

I eventually reached my Golden Age. Twelve wonderful years playing with the same small group of players in a 3E game. I'm playing with two of them now in my current Pathfinder group.

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-30, 11:25 PM

The "Geek Social Fallacies" were also a factor. It took a lot longer to cure myself of them. :smalltongue: Yeah, peer influence is a curious thing.

I finally got it that no gaming was better than bad gaming. It's a liberating moment, isn't it? :smallcool:

mephnick

2018-01-30, 11:27 PM

Malifice, psst - don't mess with Pex. He's wiser than you'll ever be, and you'll end up looking bad ... at best.

Lol..you're high dude.

Malifice

2018-01-30, 11:33 PM

As I've said somewhere in some thread, maybe this one, it took 3E for me to learn I didn't have to tolerate Jerk players.

I work long hours as a lawyer, and travel the world a fair bit. I have a girlfriend (and occasionally a mistress) to deal with in my limited spare time.

What spare time I have left over, I dont want to be spending it with jerks, sooks, or people that bring me down. Moreso when I spend time duing the week, trying to come up with cool and fun adventures for them, and they rock up to the table and act like brats or worse.

I play the game for enjoyment, and my enjoyment as a DM is when my players have come together as a team, and have fun. There are moments in each session where I can kind of mentally sit back, and observe the players and see how they are all coming along, and how things are going. You *know* as DM when you're getting it right, and its a pretty good feeling.

When it comes to players that are Jerks or what-not, I just boot them once it's obvious that this is just who they are. I value my spare time, and I've never wanted to spend it with people I dont like.

Nothing wrong with that. Its just how it is.

ad_hoc

2018-01-30, 11:46 PM

Are you really saying your interpretation is how you and your group understood the spell before you read the developer comment? If so, im truly surprised, and i am sure you are one of a few.

Let's be honest here: the "DM picks the creatures" ruling only came along after the developers realized how incredibly broken allowing the summoning of pixies was. Not to mince words, I think it's pretty evident that it was an attempt to nerf that specific ill-advised option without actually issuing errata or saying "We done screwed up."

It didn't occur to me to play it another way than 'DM picks the creatures' until I read threads about it on this board.

Malifice

2018-01-31, 12:10 AM

It didn't occur to me to play it another way than 'DM picks the creatures' until I read threads about it on this board.

I let players pick within reason subject to the environment.

Casting it in a swamp? Giant alligator, or a giant constrictor snake or something. Casting it in a desert? Giant scorpions, or camels or whatever.

opaopajr

2018-01-31, 01:21 AM

It's a trust issue in such a low-return stakes activity (literally everything in RPGs is ephemeral make-believe) that it confuses me how people can end up so poorly socialized. I chalk it up to the cruelties of children's reindeer games at school leaving behind casualties.

Not necessarily my job to fix that -- I am not being paid for administering therapy (and it'd be criminally irresponsible of me to do so unlicensed) -- though I sometimes make the effort to be a friend and mentor if I see openness and potential.

Trust is a leap of faith, each time. Sometimes it fails as it was placed in someone not mature enough yet. Sometimes it fails because we're all human, make mistakes, and have our bad days. But I must admit the lack of personal resilience won't get any better if distrustful people remain playing in their sheltered paranoia.
:smallfrown:

Go forth and risk getting your heart broke; they're made of rubber. You can bounce back! :smallsmile: It's only a game of pretend. The experience might help you cope when things are real.

Citan

2018-01-31, 03:32 AM

I let players pick within reason subject to the environment.

Casting it in a swamp? Giant alligator, or a giant constrictor snake or something. Casting it in a desert? Giant scorpions, or camels or whatever.
THIS. Was probably the RAI from the beginning, hence the ambiguous writing, that the developers had to specify after the fact through errata.

Beelzebubba

2018-01-31, 06:14 AM

Additionally, there is a long history of DM vs Players mindsets in the game. It is less encouraged than it used to be (Tomb of Horrors was specifically designed to "put players in their place" as the legends go) but it still lingers. And since it lingers players can feel like any limit on the infinite power of the DM levels the playing field and gives them a better chance.

Well, if you read the history (or lived through it like I did), they badly needed to be put into their place. At least the ones who came up to one of the damn founders of the game and said 'My character is 50th level and has Thor's hammer and Enkil's Helmet and a Cube of Force with 1000 charges and the Apparatus of Kwaaalish and the Invulnerable Coat of Arnd! I'm so GOOD at your game!'

(I'm paraphrasing there, that did happen to Gary all the time, but I did meet a kid who said he played D&D who gave me the above speech almost verbatim.)

Tomb of Horrors was also made for a timed tournament, where people used pre-made characters, and the last one standing won a prize. So, the lethality served a purpose in context. The only modules released by TSR back then that were anything like that were all tournament dungeons. The others were quite varied, so the idea that antagonism was the pervasive truth of the game is undeserved.

--

Back then, we approached the game in many different ways, just like today, and there were role-play heavy tables, 'kick in the door' tables, and 'Monty Haul' tables. Just like today. The truly antagonistic DMs were few and far between. Since I was in the game at it's first peak, game stores were everywhere and it was pretty easy to find other tables. In fact, our groups generally had several concurrent game systems running, from Traveler to Champions to Shadowrun. And, reading the 'DM' threads on this forum, the problems we generally had - and the gossip surrounding the bad DMs - are no different from today.

The one thing I remember specifically was all the role-play heavy tables I knew of skewed older and were invite only. Those are the ones that generally had female gamers, and they kept us young dumb kids with social and power issues at arm's distance. So, who knows how many of those tables really existed, because most of them kept to themselves.

--

OK, history lesson over.

Beelzebubba

2018-01-31, 06:18 AM

I let players pick within reason subject to the environment.

Casting it in a swamp? Giant alligator, or a giant constrictor snake or something. Casting it in a desert? Giant scorpions, or camels or whatever.

Yeah, this. And, if the player does the homework to find the stat blocks, prepare, and use the conjurations in a way that makes sense vs. being a power gamer, why would any DM want to interfere with that? I certainly don't need the headache.

If anything, if they wanted to cast it and weren't prepared, I'd just say 'look, it's going to slog down the combat, cast another spell instead for now.' That won't happen, because any Druid player at my table gets the speech of 'this is the most bookkeeping intensive class in the entire game, and don't bother being one unless you are willing to prep almost as much as I do, and take direction from me as to how to prep for those troublesome spells.'

Pex

2018-01-31, 08:55 AM

This.

3E actually fostered an environment of 'player entitlement' where players suddenly felt as if it was their god given right to be sooks at the table if you politely declined their [Divine metamagic feat, nightstick using, Archivst 1/ Warblade 1/ Crusader 1/ Fighter 1/ Cleric 1/ Ruby knight vindicator 5] at your casual gaming table.

Its an issue that has carried over to PF (and been amplified). That game is all about the minigame of splatbook trawling to come up with some kind of úber sock puppet [feat/ class/ trait/ archetype/ item/ spell] combo that is game wrecking [while simulatanously avoiding trap options]. Players invest literally months and years of their time on forums and elsewhere designing character builds.

They sook it right up, when you say 'No'.

They seem to have forgotten along the way, that the DM always retains that right.

Games gotta be fun for everyone, and that includes all players being on the same level of ability and power (and are all contributing to a level that they are enjoying themselves). My job as DM is to manage that phenomenon and ensure it happens.

If that means I have to say no to your special snowflake, I'll do it in the blink of an eye.

Munchkinism has been a problem of all editions, not unique to 3E. Perhaps you've been inundated with them as I've been with tyrannical DMs. You had to deal with players who demanded anything and everything. I had to deal with a DM who stopped being my friend because my cleric would cast a spell that was not Cure Light Wounds.

3E published a lot of books, but it was never a case where just because it was published it had to be used.

Pelle

2018-01-31, 10:49 AM

Munchkinism has been a problem of all editions, not unique to 3E. Perhaps you've been inundated with them as I've been with tyrannical DMs. You had to deal with players who demanded anything and everything. I had to deal with a DM who stopped being my friend because my cleric would cast a spell that was not Cure Light Wounds.

3E published a lot of books, but it was never a case where just because it was published it had to be used.

Some players consider not allowing published material to be tyrannical DMing, though. Not sure where you draw the line, or what it takes for you to vote with your feet. Not allowing casting other spells than CLW doesn't sound fun, but I guess that's not edition related.

Based on your experiences, you seem to want rules that limit the DM so that you still can play with everyone, even bad DMs. I think most people just play with people they trust, and assume that the DM is trying to run a good game. I do, and therefore prefer flexible rules that don't limit the DM.

Tanarii

2018-01-31, 10:56 AM

3E published a lot of books, but it was never a case where just because it was published it had to be used.
You sure wouldn't know that from the attitudes of many players, especially many online posters.

It's carried over in 5e too. Mention the possibility of a no-multi class, no-feat game and you'll get all sorts of negativity.

Regitnui

2018-01-31, 11:01 AM

You sure wouldn't know that from the attitudes of many players, especially many online posters.

It's carried over in 5e too. Mention the possibility of a no-multi class, no-feat game and you'll get all sorts of negativity.

Which leads to the "tyrannical" DM who won't allow you an exploit (feral tiefling coffeelock, hexadin) for fear of having a character that overshadows less experienced players at the same table.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-31, 11:03 AM

You sure wouldn't know that from the attitudes of many players, especially many online posters.

It's carried over in 5e too. Mention the possibility of a no-multi class, no-feat game and you'll get all sorts of negativity.

My games have historically allowed players to choose one or the other for their character, but not both, on an individual basis.
You can multiclass, or you can use feats. Choose.

Chaosmancer

2018-01-31, 11:09 AM

Most 'bad' players can be dealt with by an experienced DM.

A lot of people DM passively. You have to be active as a DM; and that involves a lot of 'people management.'

Have a 'spotlight hog'? Dont let him dictate the conversation. Spend your sessions specifically going around the table and asking each player in turn, 'what are you doing?' every 5-10 minutes. Give each player ample chances to interact with the DM and each other.

Munchkinism can be dealt with easy enough. Simply reward roleplaying. Munchkins are all about rewards. If they see another player getting rewarded for roleplaying (useful allies, frequent awards of inspiration, NPC interactions resulting in the NPC providing aid like magic items and similar, etc) they catch on naturally, and start to roleplay a lot more frequently.

****; you do it right and they'll be rocking up with detailed backstories and character illustrations within a few sessions.

Murderhobism is dealt with rather easily. I simply have a quick alignment discussion, if the problem persists I change the PCs alignment. Actual in game acts of [theft, murder etc] are simply dealt with by local authorities in the game. My games are run in Faerun and the assumption is that any population centre of town size or larger has access to at least 1 mid range Magic user, and at least 1 Cleric of the local domiant faith of mid level (capable of casting spells like speak with dead, divination, zone of truth and so forth). Guards and Veterans patrol the streets, and there are usually a few Knights and a Champion rounding out the towns garrison. Unless the PC is very VERY sneaky, the authorities usually get their man. And of course, the penalty for murder is generally hanging (or paying for a Raise dead spell, and a hefty fine and banishment from the town).

Avoid heavy handedness, but you're in charge.

I find that bad players have almost invariably picked up bad habits from other games. With good DM management, you can curb most of the bad player behaviour. Its actually rather rewarding to turn a 'bad player' into a better one.

Some players are just ********s though. But thats life really.

Long story is DMing is more of an art than a science. You need a strong knowledge of the rules to be a good DM, and a great imagination (and ability to improvise and adapt) are also vital. But far more importantly, you need to bring good people management to your game table, and be prepared to deal with different personalities, and gell them into working together and abiding by the social contract of the table (of which you as DM are responsible for).

Its why I generally blame the DM when tables go out of kilter or games break down. Its almost invariably the DMs fault. That said, it''s a tough job, and some players are hell bent on making it harder than it needs to be.

I'll agree people management is a vital and great skill for a DM. However, some of your responses here (and perhaps it is simply a matter of phrasing and expectations) seem somewhat condescending. Maybe it is different for you and your groups, but I find the social dynamics of party management to be a much rockier and complex beast than your "easy" and "simple" solutions paint.

Well, if you read the history (or lived through it like I did), they badly needed to be put into their place. At least the ones who came up to one of the damn founders of the game and said 'My character is 50th level and has Thor's hammer and Enkil's Helmet and a Cube of Force with 1000 charges and the Apparatus of Kwaaalish and the Invulnerable Coat of Arnd! I'm so GOOD at your game!'

(I'm paraphrasing there, that did happen to Gary all the time, but I did meet a kid who said he played D&D who gave me the above speech almost verbatim.)

Tomb of Horrors was also made for a timed tournament, where people used pre-made characters, and the last one standing won a prize. So, the lethality served a purpose in context. The only modules released by TSR back then that were anything like that were all tournament dungeons. The others were quite varied, so the idea that antagonism was the pervasive truth of the game is undeserved.

--

Back then, we approached the game in many different ways, just like today, and there were role-play heavy tables, 'kick in the door' tables, and 'Monty Haul' tables. Just like today. The truly antagonistic DMs were few and far between. Since I was in the game at it's first peak, game stores were everywhere and it was pretty easy to find other tables. In fact, our groups generally had several concurrent game systems running, from Traveler to Champions to Shadowrun. And, reading the 'DM' threads on this forum, the problems we generally had - and the gossip surrounding the bad DMs - are no different from today.

The one thing I remember specifically was all the role-play heavy tables I knew of skewed older and were invite only. Those are the ones that generally had female gamers, and they kept us young dumb kids with social and power issues at arm's distance. So, who knows how many of those tables really existed, because most of them kept to themselves.

--

OK, history lesson over.

I thought Gary had made The Tomb separately, then some time later it was used as a tournament module. But, I'm not a game's historian and the stories get muddled up.

I still think the attitude strange though.

Do we feel the need to put players who bend the rules or outright cheat in monopoly, risk, dark souls, pac-man or any other game "in their place"?

Some gaming tables are gonzo affairs where ridiculous stuff happened and a player killed all the gods and put all the goddesses in a harem, but that doesn't mean i should "put them in their place". If they want to bring that character into my more serious game, its a flat no, but i don't need to do anything other than enforce the rules at my table.

Potato_Priest

2018-01-31, 11:18 AM

I've played under DMs who've made very questionable calls before and kept going and I've walked out on other DMs whose only "crimes" were things my fellow players considered "creative encounter design" and cracking down on metagaming. The difference is partly in how good my out of character relationship with the person is, and mostly on whether I was enjoying the game. So, I imagine that there are a lot of players who stick with "bad" DMs because they're still having fun. These DMs may be very strong in one aspect of gameplay and weak in others, or they may just be good friends of the players, so everyone has a good time with D&D as an excuse to hang out.

I wasn't around for D&D 2e o 3.5, but I was already deliberately not informing toxic players where and when we were meeting before I ever came to these forums, so I imagine that the behavior has been there as long as people have had home games.

Sigreid

2018-01-31, 11:32 AM

I'll agree people management is a vital and great skill for a DM. However, some of your responses here (and perhaps it is simply a matter of phrasing and expectations) seem somewhat condescending. Maybe it is different for you and your groups, but I find the social dynamics of party management to be a much rockier and complex beast than your "easy" and "simple" solutions paint.

I thought Gary had made The Tomb separately, then some time later it was used as a tournament module. But, I'm not a game's historian and the stories get muddled up.

I still think the attitude strange though.

Do we feel the need to put players who bend the rules or outright cheat in monopoly, risk, dark souls, pac-man or any other game "in their place"?

Some gaming tables are gonzo affairs where ridiculous stuff happened and a player killed all the gods and put all the goddesses in a harem, but that doesn't mean i should "put them in their place". If they want to bring that character into my more serious game, its a flat no, but i don't need to do anything other than enforce the rules at my table.

I think it's possible that Tomb was designed as a last Harrah. A fun way to get characters out of the world before starting a new batch. I've been part of groups that have done that before, where everyone knows going in that the goal is a spectacular and memorable death.

Gardakan

2018-01-31, 11:36 AM

You sure wouldn't know that from the attitudes of many players, especially many online posters.

It's carried over in 5e too. Mention the possibility of a no-multi class, no-feat game and you'll get all sorts of negativity.

Why mentioning a negative possibility and then mentioning that you receive negativity. A DM that modify the rules because he can't manage them or don't want to play with them is kinda of a negative Dungeon Master in that regard.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-31, 11:39 AM

Why mentioning a negative possibility and then mentioning that you receive negativity. A DM that modify the rules because he can't manage them or don't want to play with them is kinda of a negative Dungeon Master in that regard.

How is not offering Optional Rules in play at your table a negative possibility, and how does that make you a negative DM?
That's like saying any DM who doesn't use the Flanking rules, or the Spell Point variant, or whatever other optional rules available, is a bad DM who can't manage the game.

MadBear

2018-01-31, 11:47 AM

I think it's possible that Tomb was designed as a last Harrah. A fun way to get characters out of the world before starting a new batch. I've been part of groups that have done that before, where everyone knows going in that the goal is a spectacular and memorable death.

I think wikipedia sums it up quite nicely:

"Tomb of Horrors was written by Gary Gygax for official D&D tournament play at the 1975 Origins 1 convention.[3][5][6] Gygax developed the adventure from an idea by Alan Lucien, one of his original AD&D playtesters, "and I admit to chuckling evilly as I did so."[7] Gygax designed the Tomb of Horrors modules for two related purposes. First, Gygax explains, "There were several very expert players in my campaign, and this was meant as yet another challenge to their skill—and the persistence of their theretofore-invincible characters. Specifically, I had in mind foiling Rob Kuntz's PC, Robilar, and Ernie Gygax's PC, Tenser." Second, so that he was "ready for those fans [players] who boasted of having mighty PCs able to best any challenge offered by the AD&D game."[8]"

basically it was:

1. For his campaign with friends where it was meant to be a real challenge
2. For the fans who had characters who were "unbeatable"

Sigreid

2018-01-31, 12:04 PM

You sure wouldn't know that from the attitudes of many players, especially many online posters.

It's carried over in 5e too. Mention the possibility of a no-multi class, no-feat game and you'll get all sorts of negativity.

I thought it was well established that the internet was 60% porn, 30% vitriol for entertainment and 10% education and reasonable discussion. 😁

MadBear

2018-01-31, 01:04 PM

I thought it was well established that the internet was 60% porn, 30% vitriol for entertainment and 10% education and reasonable discussion. 😁

That sure does put a whole new spin on 60% of the posts on this forum ;-P

Tanarii

2018-01-31, 01:05 PM

My games have historically allowed players to choose one or the other for their character, but not both, on an individual basis.
You can multiclass, or you can use feats. Choose.I like that.

Why mentioning a negative possibility and then mentioning that you receive negativity. A DM that modify the rules because he can't manage them or don't want to play with them is kinda of a negative Dungeon Master in that regard.

How is not offering Optional Rules in play at your table a negative possibility, and how does that make you a negative DM?
That's like saying any DM who doesn't use the Flanking rules, or the Spell Point variant, or whatever other optional rules available, is a bad DM who can't manage the game.Yup. An example of exactly what I mean. I mention not putting the optional multiclassing or feats rules in a game, and it takes less than six posts to get a negative response to that. Clearly a negative possibility, clearly a negative DM. /rolleyes

I thought it was well established that the internet was 60% porn, 30% vitriol for entertainment and 10% education and reasonable discussion. 😁
I think you're overestimating the education and reasonable discussion slice of the pie. :smallbiggrin:

Regitnui

2018-01-31, 01:29 PM

I think you're overestimating the education and reasonable discussion slice of the pie. :smallbiggrin:

More and more when the politics of partisanship is somehow more popular. You can't like something and criticise it.

Pex

2018-01-31, 01:32 PM

You sure wouldn't know that from the attitudes of many players, especially many online posters.

It's carried over in 5e too. Mention the possibility of a no-multi class, no-feat game and you'll get all sorts of negativity.

For me context is everything. I wouldn't anecdotally say a no feat no multiclassing game means a tyrannical DM. What house rules are in play? What other restrictions are there? What's the DM's attitude when discussing the game. I suppose attitude/demeanor is the major determinant. Wanting a simple game is fine. Having figurative steam come out of the ears in vitriol complaining about players only want to "rollplay" or care about power, that tells me the DM wants absolute control over everything. Gritty realism rest variant, house rules restricting magic use, and magic being illegal in some parts of the game world would confirm it. No player character shall dare be "powerful". Anything more than a character's main attack being 1d8 + 2 damage is abhorrent. The DM is omnipotent!

Waterdeep Merch

2018-01-31, 03:28 PM

For me context is everything. I wouldn't anecdotally say a no feat no multiclassing game means a tyrannical DM. What house rules are in play? What other restrictions are there? What's the DM's attitude when discussing the game. I suppose attitude/demeanor is the major determinant. Wanting a simple game is fine. Having figurative steam come out of the ears in vitriol complaining about players only want to "rollplay" or care about power, that tells me the DM wants absolute control over everything. Gritty realism rest variant, house rules restricting magic use, and magic being illegal in some parts of the game world would confirm it. No player character shall dare be "powerful". Anything more than a character's main attack being 1d8 + 2 damage is abhorrent. The DM is omnipotent!

A lot of it comes down to the pitch. If a DM told me they wanted to invite me to a game, but told me I'd have extremely limited player options, I'd be notably weaker than all the other players, and have a story element that made it harder for me to play even without the handicap, I'd... probably play the game. Happily now, actually. That sounds like a good challenge.

But I'd only enjoy that because it's what I'm expecting going in. If these are things that crop up when the game was sold to me as a fun casual game, I'd be annoyed. I'd also hate it in reverse, if I was promised a back-breaking experience and found I could steamroll everything without trying. Don't you call it masochism and spare the lash!

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-31, 03:33 PM

But I'd only enjoy that because it's what I'm expecting going in.

This is a critically important point. I can have fun with a lot of variations. But after I've built a character with one set of assumptions (after asking about house rules!), don't tell me that really we're using variant encumbrance, rolling to see what spells you can actually learn, or any other such thing. I'd not have minded if I'd have known. The character would be different, but that's fine.

Especially don't tell me when we're in the middle of a dungeon miles from the nearest resupply and suddenly it matters exactly how much I weigh and how much I'm carrying.

Tanarii

2018-01-31, 03:36 PM

But I'd only enjoy that because it's what I'm expecting going in. If these are things that crop up when the game was sold to me as a fun casual game, I'd be annoyed.
Fun & casual doesn't imply all optional rules are on the table. Nor variants.

In fact, casual kind of implies they aren't. Fun varies so much from person to person it doesn't imply anything really.

This matters far more for 3e and 4e than in 5e, of course. They have a ton of additional splat. So do 1e and 2e for that matter.

Sigreid

2018-01-31, 03:38 PM

Another factor for me is since my group allows any of us to take the DM chair, we also tend to take a few moments here and there as we go along to agree in broad strokes on how big things work.

MadBear

2018-01-31, 03:49 PM

For me context is everything. I wouldn't anecdotally say a no feat no multiclassing game means a tyrannical DM. What house rules are in play? What other restrictions are there? What's the DM's attitude when discussing the game. I suppose attitude/demeanor is the major determinant. Wanting a simple game is fine. Having figurative steam come out of the ears in vitriol complaining about players only want to "rollplay" or care about power, that tells me the DM wants absolute control over everything. Gritty realism rest variant, house rules restricting magic use, and magic being illegal in some parts of the game world would confirm it. No player character shall dare be "powerful". Anything more than a character's main attack being 1d8 + 2 damage is abhorrent. The DM is omnipotent!

what's funny is that to me, I still don't see a necessarily tyrannical DM with what you posted.

I can imagine playing a game in a world set to the pitch:

"You're basically living in the post apocalypse, where magic killed off 99% of humanity. It's 100 years later, and while humanity has recovered to a point, magic has only recently bled back into society. Magic has been banned. Most government officers are like the Brotherhood of Steel (they use magic, but imprison/kill those who they catch using it).

In this campaign, the players start off coming out of the peasant class. They don't have the training or experience that those who are well to do have. "

In that case, I'd still probably find that a fun interesting campaign. Now, does that mean every DM has good intent? hell no, there are many out there whose table I'd walk from, but I wonder if you've gone to far the other way in ascribing bad intent that might not be there. A bunch of restrictions in place to set a mood for a setting is fine in my book.

Dyndrilliac

2018-01-31, 04:17 PM

3E published a lot of books, but it was never a case where just because it was published it had to be used.

That's why I really like the PHB+1 rule that they enforce in Adventurer's League. You can use the Player's Handbook and ONE other sourcebook for your character of your choice. Choose wisely!

Beelzebubba

2018-01-31, 04:34 PM

I still think the attitude strange though.

Do we feel the need to put players who bend the rules or outright cheat in monopoly, risk, dark souls, pac-man or any other game "in their place"?

Some gaming tables are gonzo affairs where ridiculous stuff happened and a player killed all the gods and put all the goddesses in a harem, but that doesn't mean i should "put them in their place". If they want to bring that character into my more serious game, its a flat no, but i don't need to do anything other than enforce the rules at my table.

See, that's the thing. I've played absolutely gonzo games. One of the characters featured a robot we rescued from the spaceship from S4 Barrier Peaks. He who wore a white trench coat, cowboy hat, and in combat he basically injected various odd chemicals via syringes in two of his four hands. (He was a re-skinned Monk.) Another was a sentient blob that grappled. Another was an intelligent bear with opposable thumbs modeled after the Klybor from Traveler.

Is that bad? No.

But, is literally bragging 'hey man I am so awesome at your game, I am the best' after basically cheating? And literally bragging to the maker of the game? That's super childish, and that's the kind of deluded chutzpah that is begging to be deflated, and when it happens, it's for that person's own good.

That's like those punk kids that challenged Bruce Lee, or people that seek modern MMA fighters and challenge them in their own gyms. Why should they back down when that person is clearly in their face, spoiling for a fight? Being the 'big man' by walking away isn't always for the greater good... sometimes deflating someone's delusional ego is best.

And, remember, this wasn't Gary going out looking for it. This is people coming to him. And, if you read up on his voluminous posts on the internet, he didn't do it with anger, or spite, or anything super negative... he did it with a chuckle. Because it's funny.

Look, if you want to treat everyone around you like glass, then that's your call. But it's not the best way for every situation.

Errata

2018-01-31, 04:38 PM

In this campaign, the players start off coming out of the peasant class. They don't have the training or experience that those who are well to do have. "

Probably not what you meant, but a fun experiment for a low magic/low power campaign start would be to have players start with 1 level of "commoner" and have to multiclass into a PC class, and they have to roleplay how they can transition into that class. Including acquiring an arcane focus, spellbook, pact, or anything else required for spellcasting. If roleplay opportunities for training don't coincide perfectly with experience progression, they can take a few temporary commoner levels and retroactively convert levels beyond level 1 into the new class. Virtually no starting equipment, just some farming implements and whatever they can take from enemies if they can survive some low level encounters. The start with a fairly limited skill list, but can choose an artisan's tool proficiency in place of a skill, in which case they start with those tools. d6 hit die. They don't get a saving throw proficiency until they pick their first PC class level, at which point they get it from that.

Level 1 commoner's ability is Inconspicuous. If all visible party members have this trait (excluding their familiars or animal companions), and they are not currently brandishing a weapon (having one ready to grab as a free action is fine), opponents must pass a sense motive check to avoid being "surprised" in the first round. DC is the lowest passive deception score of any visible party member, with a disadvantage to deception for anyone wearing more than light armor.

There's no "tyranny" inherent in this sort of gameplay if everyone is up for it.

Tanarii

2018-01-31, 04:42 PM

Gritty realism rest variant, house rules restricting magic use, and magic being illegal in some parts of the game world would confirm it.Maybe he's trying to run a Dark Sun campaign? :smallbiggrin:

MadBear

2018-01-31, 04:43 PM

no, you basically hit the nail on the head with what I was getting at. It's like what Pex started saying. It's all about the context. I have DM's whose game all play in no matter what crazy rules they implement, because there fun and I know there goal is to get everyone having a good time. I also know DM's who I'll never play with again, because they're not trustworthy.

I just don't see the limits Pex put in his post as mirroring what I've found makes a table fun.

MrStabby

2018-01-31, 06:21 PM

Darth Ultron

2018-02-01, 08:29 AM

Why are people playing with someone they can't trust to not be a jerk? Are people assuming the DM having control over the world means they'll abuse it?

Well, in a lot of cases the person only has one game to play in, so they are ''stuck'' with the DM.

And a lot of people, you know the sort of person that needs things like Safe Spaces, think that anyone in any type of authority or position of power is ''bad'' (you know, except if it was them, wink wink). So that is the general base for the hate vs DMs, though plenty of people are just also adversarial hate filled rage monsters too.

mephnick

2018-02-01, 09:09 AM

Well, in a lot of cases the person only has one game to play in, so they are ''stuck'' with the DM.

There's always a second game if they start their own. But people are too lazy to create their own content so they'd rather just complain about their tyrannical DM that at least gets something done.

Chaosmancer

2018-02-01, 12:27 PM

But, is literally bragging 'hey man I am so awesome at your game, I am the best' after basically cheating? And literally bragging to the maker of the game? That's super childish, and that's the kind of deluded chutzpah that is begging to be deflated, and when it happens, it's for that person's own good.

That's like those punk kids that challenged Bruce Lee, or people that seek modern MMA fighters and challenge them in their own gyms. Why should they back down when that person is clearly in their face, spoiling for a fight? Being the 'big man' by walking away isn't always for the greater good... sometimes deflating someone's delusional ego is best.

And, remember, this wasn't Gary going out looking for it. This is people coming to him. And, if you read up on his voluminous posts on the internet, he didn't do it with anger, or spite, or anything super negative... he did it with a chuckle. Because it's funny.

Look, if you want to treat everyone around you like glass, then that's your call. But it's not the best way for every situation.

I don't disagree with you neccesarily.

I'm reminded of an anecdote, some old famous author (of the kind who were drunk jerks ) went up to the heavy weight boxing champion of the time and demanded a bout. The boxer refused and the writer went on to whet his ego by telling everyone how he'd intimidated the man.

Eventually boxer gets interviewed about the incident, and tells the reported that the reason he refused was because he knew the author was crazy, and if they got in the ring he would have had to hurt him to end the fight.

And he didn't get into the sport of boxing for the joy of hurting people (my interpretation)

And that's where I'm sitting on this. I've met people with more ego than brains. Heck, one of my good friends would totally be one of those people going up to Gary Gygax bragging about how he PWNED the game. And, I'm not seeking out more people like him, and if they sit at my table I'll let them brag. And enforce the rules as they stand, because going thru the trouble of forcing them to admit they aren't as good as they think... Nothing about that process sounds fun, and I got into gaming to have fun, not puncture egos.

Waterdeep Merch

2018-02-01, 12:50 PM

I don't disagree with you neccesarily.

I'm reminded of an anecdote, some old famous author (of the kind who were drunk jerks ) went up to the heavy weight boxing champion of the time and demanded a bout. The boxer refused and the writer went on to whet his ego by telling everyone how he'd intimidated the man.

Eventually boxer gets interviewed about the incident, and tells the reported that the reason he refused was because he knew the author was crazy, and if they got in the ring he would have had to hurt him to end the fight.

And he didn't get into the sport of boxing for the joy of hurting people (my interpretation)

And that's where I'm sitting on this. I've met people with more ego than brains. Heck, one of my good friends would totally be one of those people going up to Gary Gygax bragging about how he PWNED the game. And, I'm not seeking out more people like him, and if they sit at my table I'll let them brag. And enforce the rules as they stand, because going thru the trouble of forcing them to admit they aren't as good as they think... Nothing about that process sounds fun, and I got into gaming to have fun, not puncture egos.

There's a give-and-take. You have to decide if the person in question is worth trying to help, first. Not in some cosmic sense, but if that person is important enough to you that you're willing to spend part of your life trying to make them a better person. And in a game, that's really only applicable if you were planning on playing with them any further. And that's only applicable after you've thought about (or tried) whether it would be better to talk to them or simply not play with them in the first place.

Then, there's the realization that any such belief is ultimate borne of ego. After all, you're imposing your beliefs of how things should be on another person who might fundamentally disagree, and could have solid reasoning for doing so. If, after thinking it through, you're alright with all of this, and you've given real consideration towards both the person and yourself, then trying to help them in such a way makes sense. Though, in all honesty, I wouldn't be looking to make a person better for the sake of playing a game so much as better people outside of it, using the game as an Aesop. Something games are very good at doing.