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

[Micah Sweet]

Death's not the only way to lose, just the most disruptive, annoying or distasteful to some people.

Also, pretty much all previous editions had some level of mutual respect and comraderie between all players at the table to achieve a common desired game style. There never was a time when the DM was undisputed ruler of their group.

True, but until perhaps 4th ed, the game assumed a higher level of potential lethality than it currently does. If you come from and liked that older tradition (as I do), it can be a bit jarring to have your players balk at the possibility of character death.

 

[Vaalingrade]

True, but until perhaps 4th ed, the game assumed a higher level of potential lethality than it currently does. If you come from and liked that older tradition (as I do), it can be a bit jarring to have your players balk at the possibility of character death.

Okay, so that's a discussion for you and your players. That shouldn't stop me and mine from playing the way we like or force new players into the older system when that's one thing that got a lot of people to leave the game and hobby.

And it doesn't justify mischaracterizing it as having the players reject 'losing'.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, so that's a discussion for you and your players. That shouldn't stop me and mine from playing the way we like or force new players into the older system when that's one thing that got a lot of people to leave the game and hobby.

And it doesn't justify mischaracterizing it as having the players reject 'losing'.

First, how does any of that stop you from playing how you like, with like-minded players?

Second, we don't know what the players mean by not wanting character death until we ask them. I've met many who legitimately don't want to lose, and death is seen as the most obvious expression of that idea. Just because someone wants death off the table doesn't mean they're ok with other forms of failure. Sometimes players just want the DM to run them through a power fantasy.

 

[Umbran]

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.

People keep saying this as if it cannot be a negotiation. As if it is "voting" with hard lines and no give and take, no compromise.

That's not a constructive way to approach the game - for either player nor GM, nor should it be how we talk about games. A GM coming to the table unwilling or unable to compromise is just as much (if not more) a problem as a player who does the same.

We are all engaging in a hobby entertainment. If the prep is not an entertainment, and is so much a labor for you that you feel a need to extract concessions to make the whole thing worth your while, that bears some examination.

 

[Nefermandias]

Death's not the only way to lose, just the most disruptive, annoying or distasteful to some people.

Also, pretty much all previous editions had some level of mutual respect and comraderie between all players at the table to achieve a common desired game style. There never was a time when the DM was undisputed ruler of their group.

I would even go further and suggest that mutual respect and comraderie between players are desirable things in any group activity. I don't think that it needs to be codified in the rules of any edition. I don't see your point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People keep saying this as if it cannot be a negotiation. As if it is "voting" with hard lines and no give and take, no compromise.

That's not a constructive way to approach the game - for either player nor GM, nor should it be how we talk about games. A GM coming to the table unwilling or unable to compromise is just as much (if not more) a problem as a player who does the same.

We are all engaging in a hobby entertainment. If the prep is not an entertainment, and is so much a labor for you that you feel a need to extract concessions to make the whole thing worth your while, that bears some examination.

I agree. I was responding to verbiage that seemed to assume a vote, with the DM having an equal share.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Just musing on the idea of how the group decides what is happening, I think a lot of the problem here is that many people in the West, especially in the US, are just not familiar with the concept of consensus as a way of making decisions, partly because it's so rarely modelled here.

People are very familiar with strict hierarchies and dictatorial models, with limited decision-makers or just one, and there's a temptation to see things that way. People are very familiar with democracies (whether one-person one-vote or otherwise), and if you reject dictatorship there's a further temptation to see that as the model, and then of course some people reject it as "unfair" or whatever.

Consensus is an alternative to voting or having a single leader, where you work together to agree a mutually acceptable outcome. It's used by some organisations. There are versions where people can be overruled, but there are also versions where they cannot. I think, informally, as I said, most groups do work this way, but if you wanted to understand a formal structure that could be used, there's some details here and lots on the internet:

Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'd particularly say the Quaker method is worth looking at (not for religious reasons obviously, just they have a pretty good way of working it - so long as you're not looking for snap decisions, but deciding what/how to run absolutely doesn't need to be snap).

I would even go further and suggest mutual respect and comraderie between players are desirable things in any group activity. I don't think that it needs to be codified in the rules of any edition. I don't see your point.

Honestly, this feels self-contradictory or confused to me. Yes, they're good things in any group activity, but they're more helpful and important in TT RPGs than many others, and you provide no rationale or explanation of why you think they "don't need to be codified in the rules". Obviously they can never be fully codified, but you can have a game where the rules, the language used, the explanations, and so on, all promote the idea of camaraderie and mutual respect and so on, or you can have ones where they don't, and I'm unclear on why you seem to think you should actively avoid promoting something you've yourself just painted as an unqualified good. Can you explain?

It kinda looks like you're saying "The world would be a better place if everyone was kinder and more helpful to each other, but we definitely should not make any laws or engage in any education campaigns to encourage that!". Confusing.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

It kinda looks like you're saying "The world would be a better place if everyone was kinder and more helpful to each other, but we definitely should not make any laws or engage in any education campaigns to encourage that!". Confusing.

That may be confusing but I don't think it's self contradictory. One doesn't entail the negation of the other.

A thing can be "good" but it can also be the case that an action that can promote that good might, actually, bring about more "not-good" than the amount of "good" it brings about. In which case, what the guy said makes perfect sense.

Example: If everyone gave to charity more generously it would be good. However, a law forcing people to give X amount of their money to charity might in fact bring about unintended harm to, say, people who are themselves already poor or otherwise in need of charity.

 

[Nefermandias]

Just musing on the idea of how the group decides what is happening, I think a lot of the problem here is that many people in the West, especially in the US, are just not familiar with the concept of consensus as a way of making decisions, partly because it's so rarely modelled here.

People are very familiar with strict hierarchies and dictatorial models, with limited decision-makers or just one, and there's a temptation to see things that way. People are very familiar with democracies (whether one-person one-vote or otherwise), and if you reject dictatorship there's a further temptation to see that as the model, and then of course some people reject it as "unfair" or whatever.

Consensus is an alternative to voting or having a single leader, where you work together to agree a mutually acceptable outcome. It's used by some organisations. There are versions where people can be overruled, but there are also versions where they cannot. I think, informally, as I said, most groups do work this way, but if you wanted to understand a formal structure that could be used, there's some details here and lots on the internet:

Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'd particularly say the Quaker method is worth looking at (not for religious reasons obviously, just they have a pretty good way of working it - so long as you're not looking for snap decisions, but deciding what/how to run absolutely doesn't need to be snap).


Honestly, this feels self-contradictory or confused to me. Yes, they're good things in any group activity, but they're more helpful and important in TT RPGs than many others, and you provide no rationale or explanation of why you think they "don't need to be codified in the rules". Obviously they can never be fully codified, but you can have a game where the rules, the language used, the explanations, and so on, all promote the idea of camaraderie and mutual respect and so on, or you can have ones where they don't, and I'm unclear on why you seem to think you should actively avoid promoting something you've yourself just painted as an unqualified good. Can you explain?

It kinda looks like you're saying "The world would be a better place if everyone was kinder and more helpful to each other, but we definitely should not make any laws or engage in any education campaigns to encourage that!". Confusing.

My point is that a game rulebook is no place to tell people to have basic common sense and respect towards other human beings, that's all.

Also, the poster I was responding to sounded like he was suggesting that anyone who doesn't share his views on how things should be handled at an RPG table lacked those basic social skills. That's frankly insulting.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

My point is that a game rulebook is no place to tell people to have basic common sense and respect towards other human beings, that's all.

Also, the poster I was responding to sounded like he was suggesting that anyone who doesn't share his views on how things should be handled at an RPG table lacked those basic social skills. That's frankly insulting.

I don't really understand this impulse to inject moral/ethical life advice into every product/item imaginable - I see it everywhere lately. Maybe this is a sort of collective rejection of the impersonal amorality of capitalism... but this isn't really the spot to discuss that.