D&D 5E Warlocks and Hex and the "daily morning short rest"

[Caliban]

I am direct and clear. Im a little uncertain how much more clear I can be.

More clear: I don't like that tactic/exploit. Don't use it, because it won't work.

Not clear: "I will arbitrarily punish your characters as soon as you try to do something and I decide after the fact that I don't like you doing it." <- This is just being a bad DM.

 

[Flamestrike]

More clear: I don't like that tactic/exploit. Don't use it, because it won't work.

Not clear: "I will arbitrarily punish your characters as soon as you try to do something and I decide after the fact that I don't like you doing it." <- This is just being a bad DM.

How about just 'No'?

And if you come to my table looking to 'exploit' something, you'll generally get shown the door. A player trying to exploit or game the system isnt welcome at my table.

Im not saying its 'badwrongfun' and I get that some people like exploiting loopholes, or gaming the system and/or testing the DM. At my table, none of us do by convention/ social contract. It douche behaviour and gets you booted.

I dont need a table of rules to enforce this. I just DM it.

And Im not deciding anything 'after the fact'. Like I said, these conventions form part of the rules of the table, and part of the social contract. A player that sits down at the table, knows this already. If he then whined like you do here, would just get shown the door.

Which would probably be for the best for both of us. I play to have fun with friends. My friends dont try and 'exploit' the rules or 'game the system'. Its poor ettiquete, just like if we were meeting on the weekend to play a friendly game of Cricket, and a player sooked when he was given out, claimed a catch that didnt carry, or hogged the batting not letting others have a go, or engaged in poor sportsmanship.

The spirit of the game is more important than the letter of the rules. If you come to my table trying to rely on the latter to the detriment of the former, you dont belong at that table. I expect the DM to enforce both at the table (both when I DM and when I play).

 

[Caliban]

How about just 'No'?

That would also be fine. Except you haven't been saying that. Instead you've been bragging about how you'll bring the hammer down, in game, on the players PC's instead of talking directly to the players.

Which is is it then? Do you tell them "No", or do you abuse your role as the DM and arbitrarily punish the PC's for even suggesting it? You've been very inconsistent on this point.

And if you come to my table looking to 'exploit' something, you'll generally get shown the door. A player trying to exploit or game the system isnt welcome at my table.

Oh trust me, I won't be going anywhere near a table you run. You come off as way too arbitrary and adversarial for me to find you acceptable as a DM. Sorry, you just don't make the grade.

I'm kinda surprised you still have players, actually. Unless all your tough talk on the forum is just that, and you actually act like an adult when dealing with players in real life.

As for the rest of your post...eh, more big bad DM talk that you are in no danger of actually having to back up.

 

[Flamestrike]

That would also be fine. Except you haven't been saying that.

Yes, I have. You havent been listening, and have been trying to get into an argument with me.

I dont brook players trying to exploit rules or game the system. I dont care how they try and justify it, and to be frank, I have no time to listen to it either. Ive heard it all before in 30 years of gaming. The very fact they're trying it on (and trying to justify it) means they're not my kind of player. They get a stern look and an unambiguous 'No'. Occasionally I also like to make the attempt backfire on them. Then they tend to instead take the path of least resistance and buy in willingly.

If none of that works, I dont want to waste my valuable gaming time, playing (or arguing) with people who are trying to game or exploit the system or the rules. Im 42 years old, and I value my spare time. Id rather have a shared experience with a group of people that arent trying to game or exploit the system, and are instead focussed on playing characters, overcoming challenges, and having fun.

I cant stand it. Its obvious when it happens, and it ruins the immersion of both myself and the other players at the table.

They might be a perfect fit for a different table though. More luck to them elsewhere.

Oh trust me, I won't be going anywhere near a table you run. You come off as way too arbitrary and adversarial for me to find you acceptable as a DM. Sorry, you just don't make the grade.

We're in agreement then. See, it all works out in the end, and everyone is happy.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

A game master can absolutely meta game. Deny it a billion more times, it will still be true.

Monsters with no prior knowledge of the PC's somehow being prepared with exactly the right countermeasures for their usual tactics? DM is metagaming.

A unique magic item that is "perfect" for a PC's character concept "just happens" to be in the possession of a random group of monsters (or in their lair, etc.). DM is metagaming.

A monster with a specific vulnerability is coming up, so the DM includes a weapon/wand/scroll that deals exactly that type of damage in the treasure just before they have to fight it? DM is metagaming.

DM's metagame all the time. It's in the job description. Sometimes they do it to make the game more fun or more challenging, sometimes they do it just because they are being petty and adversarial. But it definitely happens.

All of these are, to me, examples of evidence that the DM cannot "metagame" - because each and every one of those examples is just the game, not meta-game.

At the very least, if a person insists on calling those things "metagame" rather than "the game", it should indicate that a DM "metagaming" is not inherently some act of abhorrent nature that is the antithesis of role-playing.

 

[Caliban]

Yes, I have. You havent been listening, and have been trying to get into an argument with me.

Oh, I've been reading. You've just been very inconsistent with what you are saying. I'm not the only one to notice it either, so don't try to pretend it's just me not understanding you. Revisionist history doesn't work on a message board.

The only thing you've been clear about is that you like show the player's whose boss in the most heavy handed way possible. While I'm sure that makes you feel very dominant, it doesn't actually contribute anything useful to the discussion.

 

[Caliban]

All of these are, to me, examples of evidence that the DM cannot "metagame" - because each and every one of those examples is just the game, not meta-game.

At the very least, if a person insists on calling those things "metagame" rather than "the game", it should indicate that a DM "metagaming" is not inherently some act of abhorrent nature that is the antithesis of role-playing.

I feel like you didn't read everything I wrote.

 

[Flamestrike]

The only thing you've been clear about is that you like show the player's whose boss in the most heavy handed way possible. While I'm sure that makes you feel very dominant, it doesn't actually contribute anything useful to the discussion.

No, I dont 'like' doing it at all. I hate doing it. Im just not afraid to slap down twits that try and game/ exploit the system. It has no place at my table. As DM I referee both the letter of the rules, and the spirit of the game.

What I 'like' is a bunch of blokes getting together and exploring a shared fantasy world without me being required to do intervene to stop gamist rubbish from messing with our fun. I have enough to do with designing encounters and adventures, ensuring every player is engaged with the story and not overshadowed by anyone else, making rules decisions, and making sure everyone is having fun, and leaves happy.

Ergo why I dont hesitate to crack down on or turf out players that attempt to try it on.

Is it heavy handed? Yeah sure. But it works. Do I like doing it? Not at all. But of all the methods I've tried, its the one that works the best for all involved.

I dont have to muck around with walls of rules to patch over possible rules loopholes or exploits. I dont have to deal with whiny players that want to debate with me or derail the other players with alignment arguments, rules exploits or anything else. My players also save a lot of time looking for rules exploits, justifying cheese, or looking for ways to game the system, or try it on with me.

My end game is: If you're the kind of person who rocks up to a friendly game with your mates, and tries to game the system, exploit the rules or cheese it up, I dont want to play with you. Cut it out, or find new friends. Im not having a bar of it at my table. I value my spare time.

I know this is an alien concept for a lot of people, but screw it. One things for sure, its cuts out 99 percent of the arguments, time wasting, alignment debates, and rules lawyering that I see wreck more campaigns and suck more fun out of the game than anything else. You can argue 'RAW' at a different table. Players know when theyre cheesing or relying an exploit. Dont do it.

If valuing my time and not wanting to play with people who game the system makes me a bad person, then so be it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I feel like you didn't read everything I wrote.

And I feel like all that tells me is that you haven't understood what I said in response to what you wrote.

I have no idea where along the way you've fallen off course on the way to understanding me, so I can't really offer any help. Sorry.

 

[cbwjm]

Sounds like this thread should be closed, it's just turning into wanky arguments with nothing to do with the thread.