D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Remathilis]

I'd remove all references to "Unless the DM changes this" and tell players that it's up to them. After all, do you tell your fighter players what feats they can take? Do you dictate what weapons they can and cannot use? How about any other class? Why do casters get to be special here? Players of every other class get to customize their character to a pretty large degree. To the point, where, in 3e anyway, two fighters could possibly not share a single feat. The only points of similarity between the two characters would be the rate at which they gained feats.

And, depending on other factors, that might not even be the same.

So, why is my game now being dictated by WOTC - after all they are the ones who are telling me that classes will look a certain way unless I, the DM, change it. And, why is the DM getting to dictate to the players?

Isn't it a lot better to let players play the characters that they want to play?

Sorry, it's not 1982 anymore. Viking Hat, My Way or the Highway DMing isn't really the way to go anymore. Is it?

Why stop there? Why put physical descriptions of elves in the PHB and let PCs decide if they're Legolas or Dobby the House Elf? Or give personality archetypes for dwarves, since the PC can play him however he want anyway. Hell, why not let any class use any weapon and armor they want? I want my monk to do kung-fu in full-plate, why should the rules limit me? Speaking of which, the rules for AK-47s and lightsabers better be in the PHB, since I don't want my fighter limited to what weapon he can take. Oh, the PHB BETTER have warforged; there should be plenty of room for them since we're cutting out the physical and personality elements out of the race descriptions.

Player entitlement should only go so far, otherwise you end up with no consistency.

 

[SageMinerve]

I'd remove all references to "Unless the DM changes this" and tell players that it's up to them. After all, do you tell your fighter players what feats they can take? Do you dictate what weapons they can and cannot use? How about any other class? Why do casters get to be special here? Players of every other class get to customize their character to a pretty large degree. To the point, where, in 3e anyway, two fighters could possibly not share a single feat. The only points of similarity between the two characters would be the rate at which they gained feats.

Apples and oranges.

You're comparing picking feats with the choice of the mechanics for casting spells. If you compared picking feats with picking spells, or fighting mechanics with casting mechanics, then you would have an argument.

 

[Remathilis]

Apples and oranges.

You're comparing picking feats with the choice of the mechanics for casting spells. If you compared picking feats with picking spells, or fighting mechanics with casting mechanics, then you would have an argument.

My point exactly.

Effectively, its subsystem choice. It would be like letting PCs pick their own variants from Unearthed Arcana (3.5). One PC takes defensive bonus to level, another takes wound/vitality points, yet another goes gestalt, and the last one takes the recharge magic variant.

Another example might be allowing PCs to freely mix Skills and Powers with core rules, meaning one PC has an initiative of 12 (based on speed factor) and one has a speed factor of Very Quick Phae (using the C&T initiative system). One uses sub-abilities to max out his PC while another uses the channeler spell point variant from S&M.

 

[Hussar]

My point exactly.

Effectively, its subsystem choice. It would be like letting PCs pick their own variants from Unearthed Arcana (3.5). One PC takes defensive bonus to level, another takes wound/vitality points, yet another goes gestalt, and the last one takes the recharge magic variant.

Another example might be allowing PCs to freely mix Skills and Powers with core rules, meaning one PC has an initiative of 12 (based on speed factor) and one has a speed factor of Very Quick Phae (using the C&T initiative system). One uses sub-abilities to max out his PC while another uses the channeler spell point variant from S&M.

Again, apples and oranges though. In your examples, these variant systems are not designed to work with each other. They are not balanced against each other and won't function well at the same table.

OTOH, our 4 (or however many) magic systems are meant to function at the same table. They are balanced against each other. A Vancian Wizard and a Mana Warlock should be able to be played in the same group right?

So, why not a Mana Wizard and a Vancian Warlock?

As far as "player entitlement" goes, well, if the only justification you have for forcing your "consistency" onto your players is the DMG, well, you have much larger issues at your table than player entitlement.

If, as the DM, you say, "I want all wizards to be Vancian" and your player says, "Well, I really wanted to play a wizard, I like the flavour of an arcane delver into the mysteries of the universe, but I hate Vancian casting", what do you do? Tell him to play a warlock, even though that's not the character he wants to play? He doesn't want an extra-planar patron. He wants to play a wizard. He just doesn't want Vancian casting.

But, because the DMG tells you that you get to sit in the big daddy chair, everyone has to do what you say?

 

[SageMinerve]

If, as the DM, you say, "I want all wizards to be Vancian" and your player says, "Well, I really wanted to play a wizard, I like the flavour of an arcane delver into the mysteries of the universe, but I hate Vancian casting", what do you do? Tell him to play a warlock, even though that's not the character he wants to play? He doesn't want an extra-planar patron. He wants to play a wizard. He just doesn't want Vancian casting.

But, because the DMG tells you that you get to sit in the big daddy chair, everyone has to do what you say?

You write this and identify the DM as the culprit. I read it and identify the player as the culprit.

Let me tell you what I think about the whole DM dictatorship / Player entitlement debate (and this is my opinion, I don't expect other people to necessarily agree, nor do I expect D&D to "officially" support it, etc.):

First, the fun factor. Everybody, DM and players, comes to the table to have fun. Playing shouldn't be a chore for anyone. Seems like it shouldn't have to be spelled out, but since I want to be thorough...

In order to make a game a successful and fun experience, everybody has to compromise, because let's face it, no matter how alike two persons think, they won't have the exact same opinion on everything.

Having said that, the workload is not shared equally. The player, after character creation, pretty much only has to be present at the game and participate. The DM, on the other hand, has a MUCH bigger workload and much bigger responsibilities. After all, if the game fails, the person likely though not necessarily) to be blamed is the DM.

Because of that, when you have a situation like this...:

In my game, wizards have to commit spells to memory and casting those spells erases them from memory.

I want to play a Wizard, but I hate Vancian casting!

... all other things being equal (ie nobody is trying to be an ass just because they can), I'd grant the DM "more right". He has put a lot of work in the campaign, and he hopefully has a good reason to go with a certain casting mechanic.

Of course, hopefully DM and Player would discuss this issue and try to reach a compromise. But at the end of the day, the guy who has put more in the game should have more leverage.

Again, this is just my opinion. I don't expect D&D Next to fully embrace this, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either.

 

[Animal]

The point is that DM is the one who defines the setting-specific stuff.
Players can make suggestions, criticize, complain. Books can provide advice and guidelines. But DM makes the final decision, because its his world.
So in the field that is expected to have so much variation from setting to setting, i don't see a reason to favour one variant over another in rulebooks. Unless we're talking about official settings, like Faerun, where wizards are historically vancian casters.. But that should probably appear in splatbooks, not in the core.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I've never really bought into the "I do more work, so, you should do what I tell you" argument. I don't DM to entitle me to more power. I DM because I enjoy the creative process. Given the choice between allowing a player to play a character that he/she is excited about and maintaining the "consistency" of my game world, I'll hand it to the player every single time. I'd much, MUCH rather have players that are enthusiastic about their character than try to force my fanfic on anyone.

Then again, I play with players who will take the time to detail their entire organization and then actually make it matter in play. If I had a table of passive players that expect to be entertained every week, I'd probably feel different.

I mean, to give an example, I have a fantastic player who really digs into her characters. She also loathes Vancian casting. To the point where, while she often plays casters, she'll take anything BUT a straight up Vancian caster. So, if she was the putative player in our little example, I'd have zero problem letting her run with it. I trust my players. I know that they are very creative people who are just as interested as having a good time as I am. I think the rules should presuppose that, rather than the traditional antagonistic relationship featured in earlier D&D advice.

 

[Rechan]

Given the choice between allowing a player to play a character that he/she is excited about and maintaining the "consistency" of my game world, I'll hand it to the player every single time. I'd much, MUCH rather have players that are enthusiastic about their character than try to force my fanfic on anyone.

This, a thousand times.

Hell, I routinely build settings around player choices, and would adore players that take an active role in assisting in fleshing out the setting. The more a player feels they're a part of the setting, the more invested they are in the game.

It's the table's setting, not mine.

 

[Manbearcat]

The turn of this thread is definitely related to the Social Contract at the table and the Creative Agenda. There is no objective orthodox here. There will be tables that run the gamut of contracts and agendas. There will be plenty of DMs who create primarily within the framework of the feedback of their players. Those players will have specific themes and archetypes they wish to play and that will be the construct that binds the DM. That DM may wish for the players to have as much autonomy as possible to be pro-active and join him in the fiction creation process. That DM may seek out mechanical resolution tools to reward players for such play. They seek the cultivation of a shared fiction and all of the player empowerment and incentives that enable that.

And there will be the exact inverse of that and everywhere in between. If 5e is going to cater to all Contracts and Agendas it needs to be malleable enough to do so and have the PC-build structure and mechanical resolution tools to propogate that. Arguing over some "one true Contract and Agenda" is ultimately pointless.

 

[SageMinerve]

Yeah, I've never really bought into the "I do more work, so, you should do what I tell you" argument.

It is not the only argument. You forgot the ass argument, and it's central:

All other things considered equal, and if no one is ACTING LIKE AN ASS, the DM should have more leverage in the campaign's choices.

I don't DM to entitle me to more power.

DM making every decisions because they want to enjoy a power trip is in flagrant contradiction to the ass argument. When someone in my group DMs, other players agree to play along with what he decides because they respect him, are confident that the DM is not in it just to make people jump through hoops, and because they're more into acting then world-building (see below).

So you see, your way (and I'm not saying your way is a bad way) is not the only choice for mature players.

I DM because I enjoy the creative process.

Hey, what do you know? Funnily enough, I too DM because I enjoy the creative process.

Given the choice between allowing a player to play a character that he/she is excited about and maintaining the "consistency" of my game world, I'll hand it to the player every single time. I'd much, MUCH rather have players that are enthusiastic about their character than try to force my fanfic on anyone.

In your example (the one about the casting mechanic), your player isn't excited about a character, he's excited about a game mechanic. If someone told me that the only reason he won't play is because he can't use THIS or THAT game mechanic, well frankly I don't know how much we'd really enjoy playing with him.

You as a player should be excited to play a wizard that's a member of the Order of Shazam , not about the fact that you're casting a certain way.

IMHO, of course. And again, I realize that not everyone has the same experience, and that's fine.

Then again, I play with players who will take the time to detail their entire organization and then actually make it matter in play. If I had a table of passive players that expect to be entertained every week, I'd probably feel different.

Look, we could go into a pissing contest about who has the best players, but it's rather immature (and this coming from a guy who's written "ass" and "pissing" in a post ). I just don't think that a campaign where players co-create the sandbox is the only way of playing for mature players and all other ways are for immature brats.

In my personal experience, I play with a group of players who enjoy the Acting side of RPGs. They're perfectly OK with the DM acting as more of a Director/Writer and they interpret characters in the world. They can't be bothered with the mechanics (well, not that much anyway) and they just want hem to stay the hell out of the way.

I challenge anyone to tell me that they're "passive" players just because they don't directly participate in the world-building process.

***

As an aside, and because I might give a different impression because we don't agree on this issue, I just want to say Hussar that I really respect you as a poster and I thoroughly enjoy all your post, and I find myself agreeing with you most of the time.

But not every time, I guess