Players with own ideas of how to run a game, even if it means less enjoyment

[Mystical-man]

I have experienced a few players in my time who have played dnd for quite a while (more than myself) and a lot of the time they have interesting and fun views on the game but after a while I've started to see a few long time dnd players who've got almost stuck up ideas about how dnd should be run.

This has ranged from any type of non obvious build that you wouldn't expect (dex based barbarian, bard grappler and paladin/rogue to name a few) just being bad and not caring to consider the mechanics, all homebrew being overpowered or a joke, party/character optimisation being more important than enjoying the game and more. This is only things I've seen from people online (only glimpses from people in my irl group) but has anyone else had to deal with players like this?

[suplee215]

Dnd is a game where everyone needs to have a talk about what game they want. While you often have to compromise just knowing can help. I have a player in a game I DM who been playing since 2e and he has very strong opinions. The thing he cares about is how much treasure and exp he gets and not much outside that. He also gives bad advice to other players that basically go "if you cast a spell that isn't dealing damage what's the point" to the point wher I need to remind him different people enjoy different things and telling someone their fun is wrong just makes you look stupid.

[VitiumHK]

It's important to talk to said players outside the game and go over how you, as a DM are going to run the game.

For example, I've been DMing for less than a year, but I clearly establish that my games are 90 percent RP (role play) and exploration and can go a month without combat.

I also establish that discussions about the mechanical rules are to be had outside the game to keep the flow and tempo of the game moving.

[Kurt Kurageous]

It starts with the DM in session zero.

The wise DM asks their players what they want out of the game and mentally puts that against what they are prepared to run (homebrew adventure) or willing to learn to run (published), and then pitches the story of that adventure to the players.

If the players agree, then the GM can give the ground rules to head off those "troubled concepts" you have seen.

[Zuras]

I play mostly AL, where characters are 100% portable between tables, and there are multiple venues around town. You run into many players with different preferred play styles, but most people are polite and self sort into tables where they feel comfortable, rather than telling you “your fun is wrong”.

Normally the only person I see being told “your fun is wrong” is LOL Chaotic Neutral Dude or “that’s what my character would do” Boy. Lots of people this week have been complaining about Mr. “I fireballed someone in a crowded bar because they disrespected me.”

[Zhorn]

When I made my first character, I built it with the thinking about optimized choices for combat, and had been studiously studying the PHB, DMG, and XGtE thinking it was for the good of the game.
I learned that was wrong, though it did take me a few sessions to shift gears.
My DM at the time made quite a few choices I didn't agree with, and a few other players in the group made some loony characters (barbarian wizard for example), and while at first I was finding it a little maddening (I had previously come over from getting into tabletop via wargaming), it was probably the best experience I could have hoped for to break me out of my previous mindset.
Wild magic was everywhere, illusions and darkness for constant enemies, almost all magic items were just flavor gimmick items, and the biggest goal of the first 5 sessions was an upcoming body-building competition.
I'm now running a more serious campaign with me as the DM, and every week I'm thinking "can I make this as fun for my players as that campaign was for me".
Sometimes the best way to break people out of elitist mindsets is put them into enough crazy scenarios to the point that they learn to embrace the lunacy.
I still have to bite my tongue when some of my players don't pick the glaringly obvious optimal choice (dragonborn with 5+ enemies infront of him in a 15ft cone and doesn't use his breath attack), but I'm doing my best to make sure they play their characters they way they want to.

[DMThac0]

I tend to find that most of the players I've run games for tend to feel that modules are boring and prefer homebrew games. As to the overpowered/joke side of the coin, I can understand it but I would say it's inherently a bad DM not that homebrew is bad.

I've never run into the type of player that says an an uncommon combination for character build is bad wrong fun. That's not to say that there aren't players who will say that an uncommon build is probably not going to be effective, but they won't stop a person from playing it. Personally I like to come up with some really weird ideas and try to make them work, even though I know that they're risking a very early death.

A lot of what you're talking about, at least from my experience, is learned behavior. Whether this behavior is learned by playing with poor DMs, poor player combinations, or external influences, it's all something that has skewed that particular player's point of view on the game. One of the best examples I can come up with is my brother and myself as DMs/Players.

---
Dming I am the "yes, but" type of DM, I'll let almost anything happen at my tables. I'll consider the actions of my players, consider if there's a feasible way they could do what they want, and consider if there's a chance to succeed. I will bullet point out the session that we're heading into and pray that my players don't toss all my work out the window. Then, when they inevitably do, I'll work my bullet points in using whatever means I can while still letting my players run amok. I had a simple fetch quest for my players to take on, go into the catacombs, find a thing, come back with it. As flavor I had some street urchins steal from the party while they were heading to the catacombs. The party never made it to the catacombs, 4 hours later the party was now in league with, or indebted to, the man who ran an underground gang of children thieves.

My brother is the "railroad" and the "it's my story" DM. If the players try to use their agency and do the things that interest them, but it strays too far away from what he had planned, you find out that you can't. There's no information for you to find, there's something blocking your path from leaving the location you're in, there's no way to avoid the neon sign saying danger. He'll withhold information because "You didn't ask" even though it's something that you would know simply by having proximity to, or handling of, the item. It's his story and if you don't do what he thinks should happen in his story, he'll find a way to make sure his story is still told.

---

So, people who play with me will find that they're given a lot more freedom to do what they want and that I'll bend the "rules" until they beg for mercy. These players will find it difficult to play with "purists" who do thing RAW, and it will cause problems. I also let the story unfold with the players' choices, that free form style can be difficult for players who prefer more structure. Conversely people who play with my brother will find that it's a game where the DM is out to get the players and their choices have little impact on the story as a whole. When those players find other DMs, they may be the min/max, combative, and distrusting players we hear about.

[jjordan]

...telling someone their fun is wrong just makes you look stupid.That's a great quote.

[Sigreid]

I dont generally stress too much over how others build and play their characters and am blessed whr a steady group that feels the same way. Then, we've really only got one player that really enjoys pushing character build limits. And I'm the only player that really does much actions for entertainment value thing and I try to not be too disruptive. As an example, when playing a rogue I enjoyed picking someone's pocket, planting the item on someone else and yelling "stop thief!"

[Wraith]

I think that at least one of the terms you're looking for is "grognard". It's not a direct insult, but it is a less-than-polite term for a gamer who is, shall we say, set in their ways; they're the guys who always insist that the way that THEY play D&D is the best way, and that houserules or homebrew or any one of a myriad of things is "bad" because they don't like it.

Occasionally they're quite mild - they think that all dwarfs (male or female) should have beards and Scottish accents. Sometimes they're generally horrible human beings who use their preconceived ideas to gatekeep and actively stop other people from playing games in the way that they want to.

I haven't experienced any of the latter, thankfully. It's the sort of thing that if I did encounter them, would cause me to walk away from the table - I am very adamant that the amount of fun that I have in a game is not directly related to how perfectly optimised my character is. I can play that sort of game, and I have enjoyed it in the past, but usually I like to be the guy who tries to make a Grappler-Bard work.
It usually doesn't, but I'm happy to accumulate funny stories of all of my failures if it means that I might get to treasure those few sublime moments when a lucky diceroll sees it all come together for a brief, fleeting success. Effectiveness is not always the same as fun; failure and the ability to laugh at yourself and the silly hijinx that ensue can be just as enjoyable. :smallsmile:

[Kurt Kurageous]

Back in my day, we were always suspicious that a person was a grognard when they started their posts with "Back in my day..."

[Sigreid]

Back in my day, we were always suspicious that a person was a grognard when they started their posts with "Back in my day..."

Get off my lawn!! 😝

[mephnick]

For example, I've been DMing for less than a year, but I clearly establish that my games are 90 percent RP (role play) and exploration and can go a month without combat.
.

Not to be a jerk, but your group would likely benefit from researching other systems.

[VitiumHK]

Not to be a jerk, but your group would likely benefit from researching other systems.

No offence taken, I borrowed a few concepts from other systems and use a lot of "contests" during social encounters to make the game feel alive. For example, I'll give a half-orc barbarian PC advantage on an intimidation check vs. a commoner NPC's wisdom check at disadvantage.

My campaigns, as a result of the emphasises on expiration and RP, give a meaning to take feats like skilled and prodigy.

I might try new systems down the line, but I'm having a lot of fun. Also, when there is combat, the combat feels meaningful vs. raw number crunching. I want my players to think and act from their PC's perspective.

[Sigreid]

No offence taken, I borrowed a few concepts from other systems and use a lot of "contests" during social encounters to make the game feel alive. For example, I'll give a half-orc barbarian PC advantage on an intimidation check vs. a commoner NPC's wisdom check at disadvantage.

My campaigns, as a result of the emphasises on expiration and RP, give a meaning to take feats like skilled and prodigy.

I might try new systems down the line, but I'm having a lot of fun. Also, when there is combat, the combat feels meaningful vs. raw number crunching. I want my players to think and act from their PC's perspective.

It was a video game, but one MMO I played had debates resolved with cards that represented points, counter points, facts, etc. So it was a structured card game. It was kind of brilliant and worked surprisingly well. As you advanced in diplomacy you got to have more of your cards in your hand for the debate.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that at least one of the terms you're looking for is "grognard". It's not a direct insult, but it is a less-than-polite term for a gamer who is, shall we say, set in their ways; they're the guys who always insist that the way that THEY play D&D is the best way, and that houserules or homebrew or any one of a myriad of things is "bad" because they don't like it. That's not what a grognard is. You are describing a sub set of player who hold to a "one true way" attitude that is NOT confined to grognards, who are rather advocates of Old School styles of play.

Grognards as a group do not by default adhere to "one true way" play. And they sure didn't learn to play "one true way" since back in the old fart days, every table was different and there was a hell of a lot less standardization.

been there, done that, have a t-shirt.

And I have a lawn.

[mephnick]

It was a video game, but one MMO I played had debates resolved with cards that represented points, counter points, facts, etc. So it was a structured card game. It was kind of brilliant and worked surprisingly well. As you advanced in diplomacy you got to have more of your cards in your hand for the debate.

It's not cards, but Dogs in the Vineyard has a poker-like "bid-bet" system of dice for settling conflict. It's pretty cool and is great for "social combat".

[Kurt Kurageous]

Grognards as a group do not by default adhere to "one true way" play. And they sure didn't learn to play "one true way" since back in the old fart days, every table was different and there was a hell of a lot less standardization.
been there, done that, have a t-shirt.
And I have a lawn.

This is true. Korvin has a t-shirt. We had magic users, not wizards, warlocks, sorc somethings. A gish sounded like you mispronounced what you put your pizza slice on.

And standardization was not even a twinkle in Hasbro's eye because the rule makers were in Wisconsin, not on some coast.

It was a lot like the scenes in Stranger Things at some tables, more like wargamers (we all were then) taking a break from a game with a map of some kind, die cut counters, and having to do math to determine whether this was a 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, etc attack, then rolling a single die to determine the result. Wargaming was standardized within the game, and D&D was the opposite.

Now most of this board is filled with power-gaming ideas built around the latest thing from WotC. And that's fine.

But this old man says you will yearn for simpler times when WotC breaks 5e with an overwhelming number of player character options. They did it before, they'll do it again. They're already doing it.

[KorvinStarmast]

But this old man says you will yearn for simpler times when WotC breaks 5e with an overwhelming number of player character options. They did it before, they'll do it again. They're already doing it. They can't help themselves. Hazbro and WoTC have I think taken on board the idea that being responsive to the fan base is a worthwhile piece of this business model.

To a certain extent, the fan base (or at least part of the fan base) asks for that never ending fiddling with class and sub class etc. We'd get new classes/NPCs with some frequency in Dragon, not to mention Paladin, Monk, Thief, Druid, assassin showing up in supplements, and Ranger showing up in Strat Review.
I remember the Dragon mag that has witches as a sub class, and bards in SR .. and .. and ... so there's always been a certain element of "what about this kit?" woven into the basic archetypes.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I've actually run into the opposite lately; I've run into newer players who are, for lack of a better term, plugged into the D&D meta, and opine that the only Warlock that's worthwhile is Hexblade and Paladins should always multiclass with Sorcerer or Warlock, and that sort of thing. There's "stuff you should play", and it's the stuff that gets talked about. I'm playing with an older group of gamers (because, well, we're all old), and, with a few exceptions, is a very much non-optimizing bunch, and everybody is very chill about choices. I mean, there are multiple Rangers, so you know people don't care about playing actually good characters. Heyoooooooo . . .

Also, I'm actually one of those "no homebrew" people, just because of time. I run one campaign, play in another, and there are currently enough player options for everybody to be happy, and it's just not worth my time to make rulings on whether something is OK or not. So much of the homebrew stuff posted on r/dnd (for example) is freaking insane, and it's just not something I want to bother with anymore. Items? Fine, those I can go with, but they all have to be approved by a group before they're used. Races or classes? We noped out collectively, just because so much of it is crazy that it was just determined to not be worth looking at.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Also, I'm actually one of those "no homebrew" people, just because of time. I run one campaign, play in another, and there are currently enough player options for everybody to be happy, and it's just not worth my time to make rulings on whether something is OK or not. So much of the homebrew stuff posted on r/dnd (for example) is freaking insane, and it's just not something I want to bother with anymore. Items? Fine, those I can go with, but they all have to be approved by a group before they're used. Races or classes? We noped out collectively, just because so much of it is crazy that it was just determined to not be worth looking at.

You could be me, and I could be you.

Multiclassing is optional. I've nope'd it at my table mentally, but none of the all adults I game for have ever brought me a multiclass proposal.

It's a question of what kind of D&D you wanna play.

[Keravath]

This is true. Korvin has a t-shirt. We had magic users, not wizards, warlocks, sorc somethings. A gish sounded like you mispronounced what you put your pizza slice on.

And standardization was not even a twinkle in Hasbro's eye because the rule makers were in Wisconsin, not on some coast.

It was a lot like the scenes in Stranger Things at some tables, more like wargamers (we all were then) taking a break from a game with a map of some kind, die cut counters, and having to do math to determine whether this was a 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, etc attack, then rolling a single die to determine the result. Wargaming was standardized within the game, and D&D was the opposite.

Now most of this board is filled with power-gaming ideas built around the latest thing from WotC. And that's fine.

But this old man says you will yearn for simpler times when WotC breaks 5e with an overwhelming number of player character options. They did it before, they'll do it again. They're already doing it.

Advanced Squad Leader - best wargame ever :)

[at least in my opinion :)]

[VitiumHK]

It was a video game, but one MMO I played had debates resolved with cards that represented points, counter points, facts, etc. So it was a structured card game. It was kind of brilliant and worked surprisingly well. As you advanced in diplomacy you got to have more of your cards in your hand for the debate.

I'm going to borrow some of these ideas, thank you for the suggestion.

[KorvinStarmast]

Advanced Squad Leader - best wargame ever :)

[at least in my opinion :)] Oh My Gosh, Squad Leader. That takes me back. (Also Sniper ... SPI game...)
I had drifted from board games by the time ASL came out. A friend of mine has, I think, a first printing/issue copy of the game.

[noob]

I've actually run into the opposite lately; I've run into newer players who are, for lack of a better term, plugged into the D&D meta, and opine that the only Warlock that's worthwhile is Hexblade and Paladins should always multiclass with Sorcerer or Warlock, and that sort of thing. There's "stuff you should play", and it's the stuff that gets talked about. I'm playing with an older group of gamers (because, well, we're all old), and, with a few exceptions, is a very much non-optimizing bunch, and everybody is very chill about choices. I mean, there are multiple Rangers, so you know people don't care about playing actually good characters. Heyoooooooo . . .

Also, I'm actually one of those "no homebrew" people, just because of time. I run one campaign, play in another, and there are currently enough player options for everybody to be happy, and it's just not worth my time to make rulings on whether something is OK or not. So much of the homebrew stuff posted on r/dnd (for example) is freaking insane, and it's just not something I want to bother with anymore. Items? Fine, those I can go with, but they all have to be approved by a group before they're used. Races or classes? We noped out collectively, just because so much of it is crazy that it was just determined to not be worth looking at.

It is true that average homebrew quality is low and that most homebrew are situational to one level of optimisation(so you have homebrew planned around characters that have infinite armies and infinite everything on everything they have(high optimisation) and homebrew planned around characters which took the corpse flaw and then roleplay how their body is doing nothing at all(very intense reverse optimisation))
so if you plan to use homebrew the best thing is to only take stuff that is simple so for example "fullcasters only have the right to one school of magic + banlist for stupid spells(like planar binding)" in 3.5

[Keravath]

Oh My Gosh, Squad Leader. That takes me back. (Also Sniper ... SPI game...)
I had drifted from board games by the time ASL came out. A friend of mine has, I think, a first printing/issue copy of the game.

I have the first printing of the rule book and ended up buying the second edition because my first one was so beat up. I also have 10 or so of the modules but I haven't played it in years now. If you think finding D&D groups can be hard, finding compatible folks playing ASL can be even tougher :) ... though there are a few groups out there.

ASL is a lot less mass market than D&D and cost of entry is pretty high though I think MMP is still publishing the rule book, new material and reprinting various modules.

[Keravath]

It is true that average homebrew quality is low and that most homebrew are situational to one level of optimisation(so you have homebrew planned around characters that have infinite armies and infinite everything on everything they have(high optimisation) and homebrew planned around characters which took the corpse flaw and then roleplay how their body is doing nothing at all(very intense reverse optimisation))
so if you plan to use homebrew the best thing is to only take stuff that is simple so for example "fullcasters only have the right to one school of magic + banlist for stupid spells(like planar binding)" in 3.5

I like to be clear about what kind of homebrew is being discussed.

1) There are homebrew rules. These are sometimes not well thought out. They can be DM reactions to perceived balance issues (real or imagined). In some cases, this is a result of DMs from previous editions coming to 5e and changing things before playing it enough. Other times, a DM imagines something they think would be cool and tosses it into a game. Considering how unbalanced some of the Unearthed Arcana material is when it is released for playtest it isn't at all surprising that material from the broader community can be even less balanced.

2) On the other hand, homebrew campaigns can be brilliant. Homebrew campaigns are, in some ways, the heart and soul of D&D. The DM creating a virtual gaming world in which the players adventure. The players actions can affect the world and the world can affect them. The DM may incorporate homebrew magic items that support the plot. There may be flavourful differences in the world that affect how the world develops. For example, I played in a campaign once in a world without metal. Various kinds of woods, properly prepared, took the place of metal in terms of what could be done with them; hardened wooden armor and weapons for example. It made for a flavorful campaign world though there were only minor tweaks to the mechanical rules.

Campaign quality can vary a lot but in general, with a good DM, it can be much better than published modules.

[Kurt Kurageous]

ASL is a lot less mass market than D&D and cost of entry is pretty high though I think MMP is still publishing the rule book, new material and reprinting various modules.

The rules were the reason I stopped.

The basic play mechanics of SL were ridiculous in the beginning. You spend more time reading and rereading the rules than playing, and playing felt like running a manual computer simulation. You were a slave to the rules and the rules lawyer. Taking an entire afternoon to resolve a firefight that was over in five minutes wasn't fun anymore.

D&D felt like a vacation after ASL.

I bet it's hard to find a fellow ASL player/masochist. Tried tinder?

[Mikal]

telling someone their fun is wrong just makes you look stupid.

Not always. I point you to the rpg horror stories reddit for lots of examples of wrong fun