D&D 5E Mechanics you don't want to see, ever

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

In your view we may be a table of That Guys, but somehow adventuring gets done - and has done for a very long time with the same core group.

(the "rookie" player in my current game has "only" been at it for 28 years...)

So you have a group that all trust and know each other implicitly. They all know the game and know what to expect. Do you guys ever play with other people?

If you try to play the same way with a newly assembled group of fresh acquaintances, you're likely going to have a disaster of a game.

 

[Lanefan]

So you have a group that all trust and know each other implicitly. They all know the game and know what to expect. Do you guys ever play with other people?

Others - quite a few others, come to think of it - have come and gone over the years.

If you try to play the same way with a newly assembled group of fresh acquaintances, you're likely going to have a disaster of a game.

Maybe - or maybe not. Depends what expectations are set up ahead of time, and how clearly; and-or how seriously people are planning to take things.

What I've found over time is that a party tone gets set very early on (sometimes after a bit of conflit, other times not) and once it's set it tends to hold for ages. That tone might be co-operation, or conflict, or gonzo, or rivalry; goody-good characters or not-so-good; but it's largely set by the type of characters people play early and how they play them.

Strangely enough, one of our crew is (in theory) planning to start her own game soon. She's never DMed before, but is on record as saying she hopes her game is gonzo...and for a new DM I can kind of see why: if the players are driving all the action it's less for her to worry about. But it needs the right type of players, to be sure.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You'd get a howl of argument from me on that one, if only because it's not your right as DM to tell me how to play my character.

The DM isn't telling you how to play your character. The DM is making a suggestion as to how you might want to change the way you play your character, as an alternative to no longer being invited to their game.

If my character doesn't fit in with the party it's up to the party - in character! - to deal with, either by accommodating him or throwing her out or leaving him behind or killing her outright. Or just making things such that my character's best option is to leave.

Regardless, it's still my character and does NOT become an NPC; and I can still play it in the background even if it does leave the party (e.g. secretly follows the party anyway).

That would be the DM's call.
If the DM OKed the character getting booted because the way that you were playing them was disruptive to the game on the OOC level, they are likely to not allow that option.

The social contract covers, and ends at, how I fit in with the other players at the table. The characters in the game, however, aren't beholden to any such meta-contract.

Most games that I'm aware of are no-PVP from session zero/social contract. The DM has a remit to work against the characters, which is going to have the potential to kill them, but still might try to avoid specific issues that would cause the player to no longer enjoy playing that character.
Because characters are played by the players, their behaviour will be constrained by the meta-contract that constrains the players.

And right there you've taken in-character actions to an out-of-character argument, which wrecks the whole thing.

Deal with it in character, and laugh about it at the table.

Please bear in mind that this is not about harmless inter-party shenanigans, or agreed-upon PVP in a PVP game.
Its not about something the player can just laugh off.
It might be an action that strikes too close to an issue that the player has had to deal with. It might be a potentially long-term change to something that the player regards as a core part of the identity of a well-loved character.

This is about doing something to the character that actively upsets the player.

As in you are choosing for your character to do something to their character that you know will upset the player.

As in you are choosing to upset the player. - Who presumably was a friend.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

You'd get a howl of argument from me on that one, if only because it's not your right as DM to tell me how to play my character.

Then you simply wouldn't be invited back (or possibly even booted if the discussion got heated enough). Basically, you'd be howling into a vacuum.

I agree that it is not be my right to tell you how to play your character. But it is my right (and, I feel, duty) to try and make my game as fun as possible for the vast majority of the players at the table. My particular table would find your style hugely aggravating and we'd consider that sort of behavior as being a deliberate a-hole. I am under no obligation to alter the table's preferred play to accommodate you. And won't.

My free-time and the free-time of my working-parent players is too precious to have it spoiled by someone whose play style is so diametrically opposed to ours.

This is NOT damning your play-style. Everyone has their own way of playing. I'm just noting that it clashes with my table. I'm sure you could find (and obviously have found many years ago) a table that meshes better.

Simple. Solved.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

As a side note, telling me: "You have to do it my way or I'll leave!" (not aimed at you, Lanefan, just a general observation!) in order to have what the table/other players would view as disruptive behavior left alone will just have me pointing at the door. There are just too many players out there who'd mesh better and want to play to put up with that.

Now, if the table tells me to back the heck down, it's a group decision. And I'll have to examine whether or not I'm willing to put up with it on my free time. Is the ROI on my free-time to game expenditure coming up green or red? If it's red, then I'll leave the game.

I have no problem with the idea that the others at the table may not have the same view of fun as I do and will cast no stones at them. I've been uninvited by a game group before. No hard feelings were had. We just didn't mesh. I still remain friends with some of the players in that group.

edit: removed some grandma-unfriendly words.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Disagree. Level differences have never been an issue at our tables. One current group has PCs ranging from 10th to 14th level. They all contribute just fine and no one feels like a sidekick. In fact, the hero of two of the last three battles has been the 10th level enchanter with his Bigby’s Hand. Different tables, different expectations, I suppose.

I actually played several good ad&d games where if you died you started over again at 1st level. This was done even if the rest of the party was 10th level. We rarely ever got over 12th. And we had a good time. We did catch up because of the level progression difference. Actually this guy still runs a very good sandbox in the Chicago area. I would say this particular DM is the best ad&d dm I ever played with. He really knew how to build his setting and knows the mechanics of the game. We also didn’t cry when several of our characters died until we finally got one up a few levels to be more survivable. I would say someone died every session or two. He had a really good way of turning that into a possible plot point too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Now get the hell out of my thread.

You’ve posted a thread in a public forum. Please leave the moderating to the moderation staff.

 

[5ekyu]

You'd get a howl of argument from me on that one, if only because it's not your right as DM to tell me how to play my character.

If my character doesn't fit in with the party it's up to the party - in character! - to deal with, either by accommodating him or throwing her out or leaving him behind or killing her outright. Or just making things such that my character's best option is to leave.

Regardless, it's still my character and does NOT become an NPC; and I can still play it in the background even if it does leave the party (e.g. secretly follows the party anyway).

The social contract covers, and ends at, how I fit in with the other players at the table. The characters in the game, however, aren't beholden to any such meta-contract.

This is way cool! That said, did the party never think to do some divination on the Rogue to see if it was on the up-and-up? If not, theyère in part the authors of their own demise.....

"Regardless, it's still my character and does NOT become an NPC; and I can still play it in the background even if it does leave the party (e.g. secretly follows the party anyway)."

You can absolutely play that character in the background... at some other table. Just go get some other GM to run that game. Dont call us, we wont call you.

At my table, for csmpsign, one of my opening topics is the nature of the team vs solo play. For 5e D&D it's almost always thst dolo play will be kept minimal, often summarized if allowed- to push the team aspect of play in limited time sessions. It encourages the buddy system - involve at least two people - which keeps folks interacting.

Along with that is the absolute- if the others PCs decide tgry font wsnt to keep you around, dont wsnt to adventure with you etc, you are gone - the character- not dome solo quest stuff. Whether or not you the plsyer get to continue depends on what the rest of us think you.

As for any sort of "or I walk" or " I walk" my long settled policy on that I'd wish you well in future endeavors. No offer of middle ground or compromise- no discussion.

If someone comes to me with " hey, got an issue, what can we do?" I will try and work it out to grest effort... but if it starts at "or wslk" or " I gotta go" - thats ultimatum and I wont play well with those.

I have found far less conflicts in the parties once the idea that as GM I am not enabling de facto hostages taking by jerk players. Likely not a gsme to suit you.

 

[Arnwolf666]

"Regardless, it's still my character and does NOT become an NPC; and I can still play it in the background even if it does leave the party (e.g. secretly follows the party anyway)."

You can absolutely play that character in the background... at some other table. Just go get some other GM to run that game. Dont call us, we wont call you.

At my table, for csmpsign, one of my opening topics is the nature of the team vs solo play. For 5e D&D it's almost always thst dolo play will be kept minimal, often summarized if allowed- to push the team aspect of play in limited time sessions. It encourages the buddy system - involve at least two people - which keeps folks interacting.

Along with that is the absolute- if the others PCs decide tgry font wsnt to keep you around, dont wsnt to adventure with you etc, you are gone - the character- not dome solo quest stuff. Whether or not you the plsyer get to continue depends on what the rest of us think you.

As for any sort of "or I walk" or " I walk" my long settled policy on that I'd wish you well in future endeavors. No offer of middle ground or compromise- no discussion.

If someone comes to me with " hey, got an issue, what can we do?" I will try and work it out to grest effort... but if it starts at "or wslk" or " I gotta go" - thats ultimatum and I wont play well with those.

I have found far less conflicts in the parties once the idea that as GM I am not enabling de facto hostages taking by jerk players. Likely not a gsme to suit you.

I’ve seen many a PC over they years turned into an NPC. And in some settings like ravenloft it was hardwired into the setting. It’s really up to the DM, but I am the first to admit that if i Didn’t like the reasoning i just wouldn’t play again. That’s all you can really do is walk away. But in some settings it’s essential.

 

[Umbran]

Why are you projecting the (likely) a-holeness of the character on to its player? The two aren't always linked.

Because, if your character is an a-hole to another character, without prior agreement with the other player, then, you are also being an a-hole. You are at a (perhaps virtual) table with other real-world people. They actually matter. If you are not considerate of them, you are, I am sad to say, in the wrong.

Remember: "because it was what my character would do!" is not an acceptable excuse for being a jerk to real-world people.