D&D 5E Bad Wrong Fun

[Lanefan]

Why isn't "something in between" a valid answer? I've been playing that way for almost 40 years now, except those occasions where a dm decides the players opinions are irrelevant. You just listen to each other and explain why you want to make the changes you want to make. At the end of the day the dm gets final say, but that doesn't empower them to make any decision they want regardless of what anyone else thinks - and if they do, they're a bad dm.

One thing to clarify - are you talking about mid-campaign changes or pre-campaign parameters?

For major mid-campaign changes I largely agree with you. If, for example, I've signed up to play a bog-standard game in Greyhawk and a year in you decide to shift the campaign to Eberron and use that setting's rules I-as-player have a right to be a bit hacked off because that's not what I signed up for and Eberron isn't a setting I want to play in.

But for pre-campaign parameters there's no discussion required or needed. If I design a setting with no Gnomes in it then that'll be made clear when I invite you in, and should you accept said invite you ain't playing a Gnome in that setting no matter how much you bribe me. Ditto for houserules (a big deal here, as about 95% of my game system is houserules these days). I-as-DM get to make those decisions*; and most of them are made long before I start inviting players into the game.

* - whether those decisions are correct is of course an open question that won't be answered until play is well underway - the trial-and-error method of game design, I call it - but that's another issue entirely.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One thing to clarify - are you talking about mid-campaign changes or pre-campaign parameters?

For major mid-campaign changes I largely agree with you. If, for example, I've signed up to play a bog-standard game in Greyhawk and a year in you decide to shift the campaign to Eberron and use that setting's rules I-as-player have a right to be a bit hacked off because that's not what I signed up for and Eberron isn't a setting I want to play in.

But for pre-campaign parameters there's no discussion required or needed. If I design a setting with no Gnomes in it then that'll be made clear when I invite you in, and should you accept said invite you ain't playing a Gnome in that setting no matter how much you bribe me. Ditto for houserules (a big deal here, as about 95% of my game system is houserules these days). I-as-DM get to make those decisions*; and most of them are made long before I start inviting players into the game.

* - whether those decisions are correct is of course an open question that won't be answered until play is well underway - the trial-and-error method of game design, I call it - but that's another issue entirely.

I'm talking about mid- and pre-campaign changes, (although pre-joining-the-campaign is a bit different) but not the changes themselves so much as how they're presented and what that says about you're attitude as a dm. So there's a lot of context to consider.

"No gnomes" might be good or bad, depending on why. Maybe it's a long-running campaign and gnomes were destroyed a few years IRL ago. That's a canon fact so that's cool. Or maybe you have a whole new race that fills that niche so you'd push the player toward that. Or maybe you're running an all-dwarves game and gnomes aren't dwarves. All of these are reasons, and it doesn't take much of a reason to be a reason. If I don't think the theme is interesting - well, ideally I should know the theme before I'm making a character anyways, so I'd probably just bow out at that stage. But making changes to stay on theme assumes there's a theme, which you should be able to express and should do so when you invite the player at the latest.

Bad reasons fall into two groups: ones based on wrong information (you think gnomes are op because they get resistance to all magic) - these sometimes come up when you forget that a houserule is a houserule and don't realize removing the houserule would solve the issue. Any reason that comes from an erroneous basis is a weak reason, and I would challenge it - although that might not result in an overall change so much as making a new houserule. The second is when you literally can't say anything beyond "no, I don't want you to," when there's no associated context. Basically dm's who impose restrictions without any thought as to why they're doing so.

Which, I should note: is clearly not what you're doing. I might have a lot of questions about why you have houserules X, Y, and Z, especially because if I understand your reasoning I can predict other houserules and thus build a character who fits your game - and I might ask about stuff you haven't included for similar reasons. But that's collaboration. I want you to have fun, just not at the expense of my own fun, but I assume you feel the same way.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Bad reasons fall into two groups: ones based on wrong information (you think gnomes are op because they get resistance to all magic) - these sometimes come up when you forget that a houserule is a houserule and don't realize removing the houserule would solve the issue. Any reason that comes from an erroneous basis is a weak reason, and I would challenge it - although that might not result in an overall change so much as making a new houserule. The second is when you literally can't say anything beyond "no, I don't want you to," when there's no associated context. Basically dm's who impose restrictions without any thought as to why they're doing so.

Which, I should note: is clearly not what you're doing. I might have a lot of questions about why you have houserules X, Y, and Z, especially because if I understand your reasoning I can predict other houserules and thus build a character who fits your game - and I might ask about stuff you haven't included for similar reasons. But that's collaboration. I want you to have fun, just not at the expense of my own fun, but I assume you feel the same way.

This is one of those posts (and one of those conversations) where I wonder who on earth other folks are gaming with. Do you really encounter DMs who won't say anything beyond, "No, I don't want you to"? If so, why the heck are you playing with them? How old is this person?

Like the conversations about metagaming, I think it comes down to trusting your table. If somebody in my group is starting a new campaign (we take turns DMing) and they say, "Hey, in this campaign the only allowable races are...." it just wouldn't even occur to think they're doing this for some kind of passive-aggressive reason. I assume they have a concept in mind for a world, and I certainly don't want to start the whole campaign off by trying to break that concept for them.

The game doesn't need rules or guidelines or DMing principles that are designed to minimize the damage caused by jerks. Just don't play with jerks.

 

[TheSword]

My current pet hate is a player using his character to take the michael out of the campaign and the NPCs. Out-of-character joking is fine for me and we all do it, but he does it in character and the other players and I are just left there in bewilderment, wondering how to rescue the conversation.

I’ve considered talking to him, but it’s a relaxed game and he’s only one of five PCs so we just roll Our eyes and carry on.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Anyway, back to complaining...

Complaint #73: Experienced players who not only have to study their character sheet every time (even worse if they're using D&DBeyond) while they agonize over what to do on their turn, but who apparently don't even start this process until the DM tells them it's their turn.

 

[Zaukrie]

I usually read a thread before replying....but, well, I didn't this time, sorry.....

Rules lawyers
Fluff lawyers
Players that cheat on their rolls or math aren't my favorite, but usually I'm just amused
Players that always want the spotlight and don't care about other player fun (I rarely see this)
And the one right above this post.

It's all guidelines, and for fun.

 

[jmartkdr2]

This is one of those posts (and one of those conversations) where I wonder who on earth other folks are gaming with. Do you really encounter DMs who won't say anything beyond, "No, I don't want you to"? If so, why the heck are you playing with them? How old is this person?

Like the conversations about metagaming, I think it comes down to trusting your table. If somebody in my group is starting a new campaign (we take turns DMing) and they say, "Hey, in this campaign the only allowable races are...." it just wouldn't even occur to think they're doing this for some kind of passive-aggressive reason. I assume they have a concept in mind for a world, and I certainly don't want to start the whole campaign off by trying to break that concept for them.

The game doesn't need rules or guidelines or DMing principles that are designed to minimize the damage caused by jerks. Just don't play with jerks.

The whole concept of badwrongfun is that it's wrong even to people you aren't playing with.

So while I avoid dm's that do this - the very fact of their existence annoys me. Especially because they tend to sour open gaming options like AL.

Or, as op asked: it sets off my badwrongfun alarm.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The whole concept of badwrongfun is that it's wrong even to people you aren't playing with.

So while I avoid dm's that do this - the very fact of their existence annoys me. Especially because they tend to sour open gaming options like AL.

Or, as op asked: it sets off my badwrongfun alarm.

Oh, well in that case....Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Oh, well in that case....Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert.

Heh.

That is still the most broken thing I've ever encountered in 5e.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Heh.

That is still the most broken thing I've ever encountered in 5e.

Not just broken numerically. Broken narratively. Anybody who actually plays this build and enjoys it is definitely having badwrongfun.