D&D 5E The Case for a Magic Item Shop?

[ExploderWizard]

Well, it does help to read the rules. Might be enlightening. Disadvantage on all perception checks.

Care to cite the rules quote that says darkness imposes disadvantage on perception checks that DON'T rely on sight?

Complete darkness? Well, disadvantage on all attacks. No sneak attacks possible. Have to guess the location of all targets - need to make a perception check (at disadvantage) to locate the target square.

Fighting in the dark when you cannot see and your opponentt can is not a smart move. I would wait for a light source before engaging. If you are scouting then you shouldn't be picking fights alone anyhow. Thats how you get dead.

Hey, if a player tells you that he isn't having fun in your game, that means you failed as a DM. End of story. If a player is having a bad time, that's your fault. That you can continue to play and not care that your player is having a bad time speaks volumes about your DMing and a lot less about the players.

BBBBZZZZZZTTT Wrong, but thanks for playing. If someone is not having a good time, step one is to find out WHY?

It may have nothing to do with the DM or it might. Find out the facts before capitulating to every player whim. That's DMing with a spine 101 stuff there. It could be another player that is the issue. Talk about it and find out firsthand. If it IS a DM problem then find out more detail.

What about a player that has to be THE superstar and cannot stand not being on top 100% of the time? Is is still the DMs job to make this player happy at the expense of the rest of the group?

Me, if a player is having a bad time, I'm having a bad time. A great part of my enjoyment of the game as a DM comes from the idea that I'm providing a good time for the people sitting around the table with me. Obviously, opinions vary and some DM's feel it's perfectly fine to waste the time of their players on session after frustrating session of the player disliking the game.

IMHO a DM is NOT an entertainment center that exists to entertain the players. Everyone at the table should be doing their best to entertain everyone else at the table, DM and player alike. Only when everyone contributes to mutual enjoyment does everyone get the benefit of it.

No wonder we keep bleeding players to video games with DM advice like this.

My table is very full. Make of that what you will.

 

[Hussar]

Care to cite the rules quote that says darkness imposes disadvantage on perception checks that DON'T rely on sight?

Well, true, it is only perception checks that rely on sight. But, trying to scout by sound and touch is a very, very bad idea.

Fighting in the dark when you cannot see and your opponentt can is not a smart move. I would wait for a light source before engaging. If you are scouting then you shouldn't be picking fights alone anyhow. Thats how you get dead.

This I agree with.

BBBBZZZZZZTTT Wrong, but thanks for playing. If someone is not having a good time, step one is to find out WHY?

It may have nothing to do with the DM or it might. Find out the facts before capitulating to every player whim. That's DMing with a spine 101 stuff there. It could be another player that is the issue. Talk about it and find out firsthand. If it IS a DM problem then find out more detail.

What about a player that has to be THE superstar and cannot stand not being on top 100% of the time? Is is still the DMs job to make this player happy at the expense of the rest of the group?



IMHO a DM is NOT an entertainment center that exists to entertain the players. Everyone at the table should be doing their best to entertain everyone else at the table, DM and player alike. Only when everyone contributes to mutual enjoyment does everyone get the benefit of it.



My table is very full. Make of that what you will.

Yup, and as usual, it's the automatic presumption that the player has to be THE superstar. Any problem at the table is automatically the player's fault and DM's are paragons of virtue and never, ever the cause of the problem. Note how everyone should contribute INCLUDES the DM. Which means when a player tells you he isn't having fun, it's your job as the DM to fix that. Telling the player to suck it up is a toxic solution.

It would be much, much more useful if DM's would actually take some responsibility once in a while for causing problems at the table.

 

[billd91]

Yup, and as usual, it's the automatic presumption that the player has to be THE superstar. Any problem at the table is automatically the player's fault and DM's are paragons of virtue and never, ever the cause of the problem. Note how everyone should contribute INCLUDES the DM. Which means when a player tells you he isn't having fun, it's your job as the DM to fix that. Telling the player to suck it up is a toxic solution.

It would be much, much more useful if DM's would actually take some responsibility once in a while for causing problems at the table.

I'm going to have to point out that ExploderWizard posed a hypothetical counterexample to the blanket statement you made that it is the DM's fault ("end of story") if a player isn't having fun. And here you are turning it around implying he is making the blanket statement.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, Bill91, because that's his first post in the thread.

 

[Random Bystander]

For some gaming groups, yes, the PCs are superstars. For others, they're just another bunch of characters.

Again, badwrongfun.

 

[billd91]

Yes, Bill91, because that's his first post in the thread.

And his posts have clearly reflected a viewpoint that a number of other participants on these boards have been agreeing with - sometimes you face adversity and have to adapt to the situation rather than force the situation to adapt to your build and/or complain about the DM. It's not always the DM's fault if the players aren't having fun - sometimes it really is the fault of the player who refuses to accept anything but one preferred solution.

 

[Hussar]

Like I said before. I believe that if any of your players is sitting at the table and not having a good time, you have failed as a DM. And I certainly never want to play with a DM who feels that a player's enjoyment of the game is less important that maintaining some bizarre notion that setting is more important than people enjoying the game.

Hey, to each his own. If you enjoy this sort of thing, knock yourself out. Me, I'll play in games where the people sitting at the table having a good time is the most important consideration.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I mean, to each his own - In some games I can see the appeal of just picking the stuff you want rather than questing for every damn piece of equipment - but when I hear the op's story, it makes me think of maybe a dozen possible resolutions (finding an enchanter, making a deal with a demon, etc), and trading gp for an item is probably the least interesting.

 

[Hussar]

I mean, to each his own - In some games I can see the appeal of just picking the stuff you want rather than questing for every damn piece of equipment - but when I hear the op's story, it makes me think of maybe a dozen possible resolutions (finding an enchanter, making a deal with a demon, etc), and trading gp for an item is probably the least interesting.

Agreed. It is boring. But, it's also very, very fast. Imagine that you now have six players, all of which want to find an enchanter, make a deal with a demon, etc and you get to spend the next several sessions completely derailing the campaign just to basically run six different lone wolf campaigns. Ick, no thanks. There's a reason we don't have Paladin Mount quests built into the class anymore.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Like I said before. I believe that if any of your players is sitting at the table and not having a good time, you have failed as a DM. And I certainly never want to play with a DM who feels that a player's enjoyment of the game is less important that maintaining some bizarre notion that setting is more important than people enjoying the game.

Hey, to each his own. If you enjoy this sort of thing, knock yourself out. Me, I'll play in games where the people sitting at the table having a good time is the most important consideration.

That's not necessarily a DM failure. As an extreme example, suppose the DM and 4 out 5 players are having a wonderful time, and the last player won't be happy unless the game is totally changed. That's not a DM failure, it's a bad fit. Some game preferences are just incompatible. A good DM will try to maximize fun at the table, including his own, but sometimes there aren't reasonable compromises, and sometimes someone is a bad fit for the group.