D&D 5E Bad Wrong Fun

[Helldritch]

To re-order those rules slightly...

1. No PVP unless unless everybody is playing an evil character.
2. Nobody may play an evil character
3. ...

Nope, the order was right.
I have two ongoing campaigns. A few years ago, one group was evil, the other was good. Their deeds were affecting both campaigns. And at one point, the two groups met. And they fought to the bitter end. Strangely, the newbee won! A lesson of humility for old grognards. Young players can be brilliant too! (young is relative. they were in their early thirties then... and the old grognards were in their middle forties...) So, yep, my order was ok for my case. But given that most DM have only one group. Your order fits a lot more people than mine.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Although I have a very democratic approach to gaming. I don't think that a DM has to explain everything in details as to why he bans such and such things in his games.

You're rather proving my point.

Explaining and "democracy" have nothing to do with each other. It's problematic that people think that they do.

The major problem, for me, as an extremely experienced DM and player, is that, through the whole time I've played all sorts of RPGs, a lot of DMs have banned things or created elaborate house rules, but many have not actually done so for rational reasons. Sometimes it's just as simple as a gut/instinctual dislike or something, or simple ignorance of the actual rules leading to pointless house rules. Sometimes they have some whole elaborate set of restrictions or house rules, but they don't have a rational basis (and no, some dubious "rationalization" doesn't make them rational), and typically don't make any damn sense, and sometimes outright break the game. In my experience, the people who do this typically can't/won't explain it, no matter how politely and kindly you try to get them to. Once I was getting someone to explain some elaborate house rules in the 1990s and the person realized how dumb they were without me even saying anything - in the process of actually explaining them he saw the contradictions and idiocy they embodied.

But sometimes there's some elaborate pile of house rules, or bizarre restriction, and it is totally rationally justifiable. It does have some kind of cool idea underneath it, and it does work. And those people never seem to have the slightest difficulty in, nor fear of, explaining stuff.

This is why it's important that DMs be willing and able to explain rules-changes they make. Not just so the players, who may themselves have very good reasons for wanting to understand, but so they can show that the changes actually have a rational/sane basis.

No-one is saying you have to give your players a 2-hour lecture before the first session, on the reasoning behind your house rules and restrictions, but if you're unwilling to or incapable of explaining them, that is a definite red flag, and it should be to you too.

A pet peeve of mine is a player who whines and complains just because a ruling doesn't go his way. If it doesn't kill your PC, go with it and discuss with the DM afterwards if you don't like the ruling.

I've seen this happen, but when you just say "We can discuss the ruling afterwards, if you like!", for me that has caused them to stop whining in 100% of cases, and in about 80% of cases, they then didn't actually want to discuss the rule, they were just okay with it, the main thing was that they wanted an opportunity to discuss it, a recognition that it was worthy of discussing, even if they decided not to take it.

 

[Helldritch]

You're rather proving my point.

Explaining and "democracy" have nothing to do with each other. It's problematic that people think that they do.

The major problem, for me, as an extremely experienced DM and player, is that, through the whole time I've played all sorts of RPGs, a lot of DMs have banned things or created elaborate house rules, but many have not actually done so for rational reasons. Sometimes it's just as simple as a gut/instinctual dislike or something, or simple ignorance of the actual rules leading to pointless house rules. Sometimes they have some whole elaborate set of restrictions or house rules, but they don't have a rational basis (and no, some dubious "rationalization" doesn't make them rational), and typically don't make any damn sense, and sometimes outright break the game. In my experience, the people who do this typically can't/won't explain it, no matter how politely and kindly you try to get them to. Once I was getting someone to explain some elaborate house rules in the 1990s and the person realized how dumb they were without me even saying anything - in the process of actually explaining them he saw the contradictions and idiocy they embodied.

But sometimes there's some elaborate pile of house rules, or bizarre restriction, and it is totally rationally justifiable. It does have some kind of cool idea underneath it, and it does work. And those people never seem to have the slightest difficulty in, nor fear of, explaining stuff.

This is why it's important that DMs be willing and able to explain rules-changes they make. Not just so the players, who may themselves have very good reasons for wanting to understand, but so they can show that the changes actually have a rational/sane basis.

No-one is saying you have to give your players a 2-hour lecture before the first session, on the reasoning behind your house rules and restrictions, but if you're unwilling to or incapable of explaining them, that is a definite red flag, and it should be to you too.



I've seen this happen, but when you just say "We can discuss the ruling afterwards, if you like!", for me that has caused them to stop whining in 100% of cases, and in about 80% of cases, they then didn't actually want to discuss the rule, they were just okay with it, the main thing was that they wanted an opportunity to discuss it, a recognition that it was worthy of discussing, even if they decided not to take it.

When a new player comes into my games he is said the following.
1) There are very few houserules. They fit on a two page sheet with big fonts because I am an old grognards. Most houserules are for some additional equipment or were taken directly from the optional rules in the DMG.
2) Before a campaign, any player has the right to ask for a new houserule or the removal of one.
Example: Players loved the flanking rule. I saw that the rule was helping the monsters a lot more than it did the players. I was the one to ask for its removal. TPK dropped significantly as players no longer take unnecessary risks to get a good flank.
A player asked for inspiration to be given not only for good roleplay but also at the beginning of each in-game week. I'll pass the rationals behind the modification but it was accepted. A new player later thought it was too much at first, and saw that it was no so.
3) No unofficial classes are allowed as are unofficial spells either. I no longer have the time to playtest new stuff. I must, sadly rely on stuff that has been playtested by others.
4) Some races might and will suffer from bad stereotype. If you want to play such a race, fine. But there might be bad consequences. If you absolutely want to play orc in Greyhawk, be ready to never go into towns. You will be killed on sight. Wait for an Ebberon campaign where you will be praised or wait for an evil campaign.
5) Beers and strong drinks are allowed. But drink moderately. I hate drunken players. They are just badwrongfun.

Edit: In the example of #2, you should have read a lot more and not a lit more...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, one thing I've decided from reading this thread is that the next time there's a Warlord debate and I say I don't want Warlords to be official because I don't want to have to play with them, and somebody says, "Then just don't allow them in your games! Simple!" I'm going to link to this thread.

 

[Coroc]

For me, conflict between party members. I have always viewed the game as a team sport, and when certain PCs start fighting and arguing with other PCs, that's no fun for me. PvP is straight out.

I'm currently in a campaign with Avernus, which seems to be an official promotion of said behavior with the way it's written, and I don't like it, storyline and "dark secrets" and "redemption paths" be darned. It causes arguments between friends and breaks down trust.

That is interesting, is there a section in the adventure which recommends to the DM, that he shall brief the players, that there might be intra party conflicts at some point in the game, which go beyond Player X is dominated (for some rounds) and attacks player Y?

 

[billd91]

That is interesting, is there a section in the adventure which recommends to the DM, that he shall brief the players, that there might be intra party conflicts at some point in the game, which go beyond Player X is dominated (for some rounds) and attacks player Y?

I haven't spotted anything to that point, however, the PCs are adventuring in Hell. If there aren't temptations and corruption opportunities galore, that would be weird. That may mean that Descent into Avernus isn't for every group and I think that's fair.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is interesting, is there a section in the adventure which recommends to the DM, that he shall brief the players, that there might be intra party conflicts at some point in the game, which go beyond Player X is dominated (for some rounds) and attacks player Y?

There are a few things. For example, the DM is advised that if a PC does a selfish act while in Avernus, they get inspiration. The book literally rewards bad PC behavior and encourages it. Then you've got the shield which pretty much dominates a PC against their will (the save DCs are near impossible) to do what the shield wants (which inevitably is against having a cohesive party, and seriously hurts player agency for that character who gets dominated). And then the book highly encourages DMs to use the PCs fears and flaws and use those often against the PCs themselves all throughout the campaign.

It's basically just a huge set up to make the PCs lives miserable. It's in hell, I get that. But it encourages and rewards players to play their PCs against each other, which is very much a badwrong experience for me.

 

[Fauchard1520]

A pet peeve of mine is a player who whines and complains just because a ruling doesn't go his way. If it doesn't kill your PC, go with it and discuss with the DM afterwards if you don't like the ruling.

Right on. But how about the devil's advocate version? Is it possible to questions a ruling with good grace in the moment? Or is it always disruptive?

 

[prabe]

Right on. But how about the devil's advocate version? Is it possible to questions a ruling with good grace in the moment? Or is it always disruptive?

I think it's possible, but there needs to be good faith and mutual trust between the players and the GM. When I GM, I ask the players about the rules for their characters, a lot, if/when something comes up that I'm not expecting or unsure about, and I trust them to know or find the right rules and play by them. I think they trust me to handle the GM-facing rules fairly, and if/when I make mistakes I try to fix them as quickly, fairly, and gracefully as possible (like realizing that there were one too many dice on the table for an attack I'd just rolled, and telling the player to subtract a 5 rather than a 1). While there are antagonistic forces and things in the game world, I am not an antagonistic GM.

 

[jasper]

There are a few things. For example, the DM is advised that if a PC does a selfish act while in Avernus, they get inspiration. The book literally rewards bad PC behavior and encourages it. Then you've got the shield which pretty much dominates a PC against their will (the save DCs are near impossible) to do what the shield wants (which inevitably is against having a cohesive party, and seriously hurts player agency for that character who gets dominated). And then the book highly encourages DMs to use the PCs fears and flaws and use those often against the PCs themselves all throughout the campaign.

It's basically just a huge set up to make the PCs lives miserable. It's in hell, I get that. But it encourages and rewards players to play their PCs against each other, which is very much a badwrong experience for me.

DC 18 impossible? maybe at tier 1. Hard at Tier 2. And bad luck at tier 3. That if people carry the hidden lord with them. I must missed how hell promotes PVP. Page numbers please.