D&D 5E Do PCs at your table have script immunity?

[Vaalingrade]

The DM is a player too, and one with far more work on their plate. They shouldn't be out voted to run a game style they dont agree with.

The players can all walk away too. Then that Real Ultimate DM power doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The irony though, is that nearly unkillable individual PCs end up making TPKs more likely.

Yeah, if the DM is mad set on making them die.

Which is weird to me since the DM can just declare your character has a congenital heart defect at that point rather than wasting everyone's time running through pen and paper Saw.

 

[overgeeked]

No one should have to play or run a game they do not want to. We all have the right to set whatever boundaries work for us. No one is special on this account though. At least that's how I see it. When I run a game my labor does not entitle me to anything. I do it because I like it. Not because I expect special privileges.

And if the DM doesn’t want to run something, they don’t have to. If a player doesn’t want to play in a game, they don’t have to. The easiest solution is for the DM to offer up a game and see if there are interested players. Go from there. Players can try to pitch a game and see if a DM wants to run that, but it doesn’t seem to work out that often.

 

[Nefermandias]

It is even sillier to pretend that what the players want somehow does not matter.

I mean, as a GM, what are you there for more - having it be "your game", or the enjoyment of the players?

Are you really curious to know my stance on this or is this just a rhetorical question?

In any case, for me, "my game" comes first. Players who are not okay with my style and table rules are welcome to walk away. I have never understood the "being a fan of your players" thing.

And please, don't red text me.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I never understood these debates when they pop up. We've all had this process down pat since we were ~4-6 years old and had a group of friends with unsupervised free time and the question arose, "so, what'd'you guys want to do today?"

If you boil this down to the basics, we're saying that people have to decide what to do together, and when there are disagreements people have to negotiate, bargain, and arrive at a consensus, and that TTRPGs are no exception. Honestly, there's no controversial statements here. Yes, someone who has to put in specific effort can always say, 'no, I am not going to do that'; and likewise if that person decides that that means they will do exactly what they wanted, no compromise, they might end up with no fellow participants. Again, no controversy and the lesson was learned in grade school.

Does a person with a greater lift on the project 'deserve' some special consideration? Maybe. Depends on the situation and group dynamics. Same thing happens with the guy who is always late, but faulting them for that makes no sense because they have to drive through rush hour traffic while no one else does. Or the one that has kids and has to cancel the most. Group dynamics and negotiations and accommodations to others and individual situations are part and parcel of all things, and not specifically different for our silly little elfgames.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The players can all walk away too. Then that Real Ultimate DM power doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

True, but practically speaking, one DM is more likely to walk away than every individual player.

Even so, session 0 is when this decision needs to be made, for everyone.

 

[ART!]

I picked "NO (mostly)". Regardless of who's running the game, in my group you die if things just really don't go your way and/or you do something just really, willfully foolish. None of us go out of our ways to kill characters, but we don't protect them from untimely deaths, either. A couple characters have been brought back by various means, almost always at a cost other than money.

 

[dragoner]

I'll say the same thing I said in the other thread is that the threat of character death is a crude lever to keep players in line; the whole immunity deal, is also railroad insurance, for players to be able to say No. Of course it promotes a different style of game, and many will push back against it for that.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The DM is a player too, and one with far more work on their plate. They shouldn't be out voted to run a game style they dont agree with.

Everyone has the veto on their own participation - but only the dm walking away ends the game.

However, if it gets to that point, more than one thing has already gone wrong. Ideally everyone is concerned with everyone's fun.

So I usually think of the dm as having a share-and-a-half of the burden; more than the rest, but not so much as to outweigh everything by themselves.

 

[dragoner]

Everyone has the veto on their own participation - but only the dm walking away ends the game.

However, if it gets to that point, more than one thing has already gone wrong. Ideally everyone is concerned with everyone's fun.

So I usually think of the dm as having a share-and-a-half of the burden; more than the rest, but not so much as to outweigh everything by themselves.

Ideally a conversation is provoked so that a compromise is reached where everyone is happy. Mistakes will be made though, I know I have made them on both sides of the screen, everyone has.