D&D 5E Bad Wrong Fun

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I think far too many people take "the players have less say" to mean "the players have no say." And that's not a good way to run a game.

It's more like "players have a lot of say, but their say is encapsulated inside the DM's say."

 

[jmartkdr2]

It's more like "players have a lot of say, but their say is encapsulated inside the DM's say."

That would be the good way to play it.

Which is why I get so confused when people argue against the idea that players should have some say.

 

[prabe]

DMs who ban a bunch of stuff (esp. races/classes) with poor/no/irrational explanations is a definite warning sign/red flag. A DM who says "In my campaign there are no halflings, because they're just not part of my setting" is fine, but when you have DMs saying "no Tiefling PCs because they're for edgelord losers" or "no Warlocks because they're OP!" (whilst allowing Wizards/Clerics/Druids/etc. lol of course) or just presents you with a big list of "banned" stuff, well then that's like red flashing light and klaxons level of warning signs.

So, it's probable that if a DM has disallowed something--especially in a kitchen-sinkish setting--then it's because they don't like that something, or it at least doesn't fit into the world/game they want to run. I know that some of the things I disallow are for that reason. I wrote the exclusions into the setting because I wanted those things excluded. Of course, I also don't think "I don't want those in the world/game I'm running" is a decent, decently rational reason; YMMV.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think far too many people take "the players have less say" to mean "the players have no say." And that's not a good way to run a game.

The players do have a say. They have complete say over the actions and behaviors and choices of their PC. The DM has no say over those things. But that's about it unless you've all agreed beforehand that you're doing a collaborative story together where you've giving players more power than RAW or RAI state.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The other thing that always happens in these conversations is that somebody says, "Let the players have more say. If they want to decide in the middle of a scene that they have a relative who told them the secret of such-and-such, that becomes a prompt for the DM."

Then the response is, "But where does it all end!??!?!! What's to stop them from narrating that the relative also left them a sentient vorpal sword that has the Monster Manual memorized!?!?" (Or whatever.)

It ends where your players, who you trust (right?), think a good story ends and disruptive gaming begins.

 

[guachi]

Two that I include in my Session Zero:
Griefing, which many have touched on. If it's something solely between and among players, such as PvP or pranking, then all parties have to be on board with it. Otherwise the target can just say, "no". If all parties agree then they get to make the rules.

When players actually agree (and this only happened once when two PCs were playing tricks on one another) it can be really fun. Without a DM everything plays out faster AND the rest of the party can go about their business while the pranksters act like goofballs.

Slow resolution of combat. DO SOMETHING in combat and then roll the damn dice. I even have a t-shirt I wear when DMing that says "Just Roll the Damn Dice". Please, grind the game to a halt while you spend minutes figuring out what you want to do in your six-second turn and THEN wasting more time rolling the dice. So I tell players in Session One that fast resolution of players turn benefits everyone. When everyone goes quickly everyone stays more engaged and everyone gets their turn faster. Makes a big difference.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The players do have a say. They have complete say over the actions and behaviors and choices of their PC.

I would argue the players should also have some choice about who the pc's are.

Within the confines of the setting, but not within the confines of whatever the dm feels like the pc's should be.

 

[Lanefan]

This thread is about warning signs though, and those are both totally legit warning signs.

DMs who ban a bunch of stuff (esp. races/classes) with poor/no/irrational explanations is a definite warning sign/red flag. A DM who says "In my campaign there are no halflings, because they're just not part of my setting" is fine, but when you have DMs saying "no Tiefling PCs because they're for edgelord losers" or "no Warlocks because they're OP!" (whilst allowing Wizards/Clerics/Druids/etc. lol of course) or just presents you with a big list of "banned" stuff, well then that's like red flashing light and klaxons level of warning signs.

Likewise a DM who lets you play a race, but then decided to grief the hell out of you by having NPCs react as if you are a monster, especially without a clear and polite explanation of the issues involved beforehand. Particularly if they clearly enjoy being racist as hell to your character. Bonus "run a mile" points if they actually re-enact "Deep South"-type stuff instead of merely "angry peasants".

If the DM gave clear warning ahead of time that playing such a character was very likely going to lead to grief, she can't then be blamed for bringing the grief when some bonehead plays the character anyway.

DMs who are surly/rude about character choices in general are almost always very bad DMs. I mean, surly/rudeness is always a bad sign in a DM, but that's a particularly good warning sign, because if you see a DM actually get rude or angry about say, you even asking about playing certain races/classes, he is almost certainly a completely toxic DM with anger/control issues.

Yeah, outright rude and-or angry is one thing but simply saying "No" is not rude. It's direct, and to-the-point, and (with any luck) clear enough to pre-emptively stop any further lobbying.

Giant lists of house rules in 5E is another good "red flag" for me from a DM, especially if they try to minimize them, or can't explain them rationally. I have met people who have a bunch of house rules and run a good game, but it's usually a highly stylized one with a very specific focus, and they know it, and can explain all their choices. I've come across more people who have a ton of house rules and most of them make no sense, often contradicting each other (sometimes literally, sometimes thematically), or worst but perhaps most common, they have a bunch of house rules to "cover stuff the rules don't", when the rules actually do cover that, often with a near-identical rule, but they clearly don't know that.

Don't think you'd like me as a DM, then, as I wouldn't even consider running 5e without first house-ruling it into near-unrecognizability in order to make it full-on old school in feel and play; and yes that would include banning a bunch of races and classes that weren't around in the 1980s.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would argue the players should also have some choice about who the pc's are.

Within the confines of the setting, but not within the confines of whatever the dm feels like the pc's should be.

They do. I've never met a single DM that didn't give that choice to the PCs. Do you know any? Where the players are dictated which race/class/gender they must be by the DM?

the players have a lot of choice, because there are a LOT of combinations allowed, even in the basic game. Not having ALL choices don't mean the players don't have "SOME" choice.

 

[jmartkdr2]

They do. I've never met a single DM that didn't give that choice to the PCs. Do you know any? Where the players are dictated which race/class/gender they must be by the DM?

the players have a lot of choice, because there are a LOT of combinations allowed, even in the basic game. Not having ALL choices don't mean the players don't have "SOME" choice.

Yes, I know dm's like that.

Are you so certain they don't exist?