I don't DM 4th edition, but when I do

[ShinHakkaider]

So what's this then?

That's you quoting me. And little out of context I might say especially since the focus on the first part of what I'm trying to say has to do with the players attempting to dictate SPECIFICALLY what challenges they are to face in an adventure.

For example: If they tell me no Rust Monsters, no Mind Flayers, no Vampires, no Wights, no Dragons, nothing with Spell resistance or immunities? They simply dont get to dictate that. They might as well as be telling me no leveled up monster classes. No Barbarian Orcs, no Goblin Rogues. That's what I'm specifically talking about.

Next time I'll be clearer. I'm talking about them not wanting to deal with specific creatures.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

As a player, I definately wouldn't show up to the next game. I deal with petty tyrants and bosses in my working life. I don't need it on my day off, thank you very much.

Also since I taking that this was aimed directly at me you might want to tone it down a little.

Go back and read my comment about "Mewling pantywaists" it wasnt aimed directly at anyone in this thread. In fact I was saying that I dont think that most players ARE that type. Trust me if I need to call someone out directly I have no problem with doing that whatsoever.

 

[Pour]

I'm amazed this thread has been allowed to swell to 8 pages. I mean... come on. Is this thread for real? In the 5e forums? What a shameless baiting.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

See and that's where both sides are talking past each other.

For some people it is about the dungeon/campaign world and characters are merely vessels for exploring that dungeon/campaign world. If one character dies or becomes too hopelessly gimped to play, you roll up a new character and continue on.

For other people, it is about the story of a particular group of characters. In such a case, random rolls leading to death and/or uselessness are disruptive to that character arc. If a character dies, all of the character specific plot hooks, preperation, and a huge portion of the storyline dies with him. It is very difficult to invest a new character with the same sense of purpose in the existing story.

Is the second style of play more linear? Of course it is. But if people are enjoying it, that's okay. Also, if they complain that save-or-die or rust monsters are disruptive to their style of play to the point that they would get upset at having their expectations for their character arc dashed, it isn't because they have to grow a set of testicles. It is because they have a different viewpoint about what the game is for than you do.

Finally, there is the problem of DM's who like to use save-or-die, rust monsters, and other such mechanics because they are an easy way to use the rules to frustrate or bully their fellow players. That doesn't mean that save or die mechanics are to blame directly for that DM's behavior, but it has left a lot of bad feelings towards those mechanics by some players.

Okay had to walk away from the keyboard. Was a little heated. Better now.
Listen I get all of this stuff that youre saying here.

As a GM I've had character death completely derail a some interesting character stuff a player and I hashed out. I get it, I really do.

But as a player who once lost like, 4 PC's during a Keep on the Borderlands Campaign? Who lost something like 3 characters during A1 alone? And maybe 2 characters during G1-3? I know what it's like. TRUST ME. But it's not at all that difficult to pick up the ball and keep it rolling with a PC. It's not. It's a ROLE PLAYING GAME for pete's sake. If people are having problems coming up with new hooks especially when there are other hopefully still alive PC's at the table to hook into? Then there's a problem.

I'm sorry I dont think that rust monsters are a deal breaker. For me as a GM if I throw a rust monster at my players characters and someone's valued weapon or armor gets hosed, it's just an opportunity for them to get some newer, cooler weapons and armor. The trick is not to be a dick about I guess. If your players know that you're not out to screw them and you want it to be challenging and so do they then it's not a problem.

It's when people start throwing around the automatic accusations of mean-spiritedness and maliciousness for using a rust monster is when my hackles get raised because that hasn't been my feedback experience from several different groups of players for over 20 years. The idea that youre a bad DM or a Tyrant because to exhibit a certain amount of control over your game feels like an attack by self entitled players who really dont want to be challenged and want to be the heroes without putting in the work.

I dont fool myself into thinking that D&D is a work of fiction. I like that there's no guarantee for the heroes. No plot immunity. I like that if the heroes have fought and survived they've done so not because there's some greater story arc they have to finish but that they've legitimately done everything they could to survive against odds that would have killed any other person (any may have done exactly that) and have in fact SURVIVED.

As a GM? That is where I derive the most of my joy from. The player characters surviving. Whether its a Mind flayer raiding party, A stone ginat and his two pet Rust Monsters or hostile negotiations vs a vice lord and his gang. The the players PC's are left standing after getting the crap kicked out of them? That's makes me feel great as a DM.

 

[ferratus]

Also since I taking that this was aimed directly at me you might want to tone it down a little.

You might want to take your own advice on that one. When you push, people push back.

I think we should stop talking to each other now.

 

[Blackwind]

They simply dont get to dictate that.

Which makes it sound like a social contract issue.

Of course, traditionally, in D&D, they don't get to dictate that. The DM has absolute authority as to what gets thrown at the PCs. But this has often led to unhappy players and not-fun times at the game table, and not just because players are pantywaists. I think what pemerton is trying to get at is that if the group is trying to create a story together, things like rust monsters can ruin that story in a way that is just... not even cool, or interesting. Which is why some groups, and games, have moved toward giving the players more input into what happens in the story.

It's the kind of thing I think we need to communicate about more explicitly in our game groups. For example, in my Red Box game, the PCs knew that they could randomly encounter Crab Spiders, with their save-or-die poison, or get stabbed to death by female hobgoblins. I explained all this upfront and told them not to get too attached to their characters. But if we were playing a long term campaign in some other system (like the Shadow of Yesterday campaign I'm currently running), with the PCs putting a lot of work into their character backgrounds, it would be ridiculous to murder them in their sleep with Crab Spiders (or Spider Crabs, as I usually term them when drunk).

So different groups, and different games, have different expectations and agreements as to what can and will happen in play. Maybe in your game, "They simply don't get to dictate that," but in someone else's game, they might have more input. And those different play styles (dare I say Creative Agendas?) are something that WotC will have to take into account if they want to create an edition that is "good enough" for all stripes of D&D fans.

 

[Blackwind]

But as a player who once lost like, 4 PC's during a Keep on the Borderlands Campaign?

Wait, you played in my Keep on the Borderlands campaign??

 

[ShinHakkaider]

You might want to take your own advice on that one. When you push, people push back.

I think we should stop talking to each other now.

Who did I push? Listen I said that I don't think all or even most players are mewling pantywaists. I wasn't targeting anyone in the thread specifically. If you want to take insult where none was intended then that's YOUR issue not mine.

Wheras your response specifically was an insult towards me. Listen I've been called plenty worse so your little barb is just that. But dont attribute action to me that wasn't intended the way that you're perceiving them then walk away all butt-hurt even after I've clarified that i wasn't trying to insult anyone here.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Wait, you played in my Keep on the Borderlands campaign??

Either yours or your twins'.

I was lucky to have some good DM's at the beginning there but CRIPES man those early games were hard on the 1st and 2nd level PC's.

 

[pemerton]

I'm talking about them not wanting to deal with specific creatures.

Whereas I said, and I think that [MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION] agreed, that if our players handed us a list of monsters that they weren't interested in having their PCs fight, we'd be happy to take account of that.

We are also, more generally, happy to shape adventures to fit with our players' preferences.

Is the second style of play more linear? Of course it is.

I'm going to disagree with you here. It might be, but it needn't be. And you yourself have given the reason why:

I would also like to say that I am happy to take into account any feedback on what kind of game my players want to have, and what they want to do. In fact, I encourage it and plan encounters around that feedback.

If the GM let's the players make their own choices in what they have their PCs do, and then takes account of those choices, and the feedback that they represent, in designing future encounters, then the game will be very non-linear. Because the players typically won't know what they are going to have their PCs do until they do it. And the GM therefore won't have the feedback to build on until the players actually play the game. And so the whole thing develops in unexpected directions.

TL;DR: dont' let the sandboxing crowd persaude you that the only alternative to setting-exploration sandboxing is linear adventure paths!