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

[Vaalingrade]

No, but it’s about the only one the players are sure to care about. I’ve watched as supposedly “good” PCs torture and kill their own retainers to get a bit of intel.

Not really.

Either they care about it and don't like it or they don't care and will just roll a new character. Either way is a weak stake.

And if the PCs don't care about anything else, that's a player problem or possibly a DM problem because they haven't provided anything to care about so nihilism sets in.

Ha. Uh, nope. Try reading up on the older editions of the game. DM as undisputed ruler of the group was the default throughout TSR D&D and only changed with WotC’s 3X. There was a little shift in AD&D 2nd Edition, but not to the point of the inane “the DM’s just another player”.

It might have been in the books, but I doubt it was a popular thing in the wild because... well... humans. No one wants to have an 'alpha friend' in their groups who thinks they're hot crap and better than everyone.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I wouldn't let forum dwellers get you down. D&D is so popular now that I can't imagine it not being viable to literally interview players to determine if they're going to suit the game you want to run.

This really seems to be a non-issue you guys are going back and forth over.

"Do you accept me as you lord and savior? No? Well move along."

 

[overgeeked]

Not all games and playstyles have the same role and effort for the GM.

It may be that you, with your preferred style of play, do 99% of the work. Don't assume that's universal.

Obviously. But again, the only thing we can really use as a board example that most people will have likely played is D&D. Given the popularity of D&D 5E and how that majority of gamers in the hobby are not only 5E players but also new to the hobby with 5E...it behooves us to speak to the most known game in the industry.

What you say here only holds for prep-heavy games. I have seen plenty of GMs who are very good at running without significant preparation, who honestly don't do 99% of the work, and who have quite satisfied players. Admittedly, there are some experiences they don't provide as well - there's always trade-offs.

I would say it goes without saying, but clearly not. The Lazy DM is quite popular. With good reason. Some simply have neither the time nor the inclination to do lots of prep work.

But, if the situation is that you, as GM, want a particular kind of game, and that means you, as GM, have to do tons of prep... I am not sure why that translates to any responsibility on the player's end. I mean... you're inflicting the style and prep on yourself, at that point. Saying, "I'm doing all the work, so I should get my way," loses power when you are also insisting that you do all the work in the first place.

No DM, no game. Unless the DM's on board with running the game, it won't happen. The rebut is: no players, no game. Obviously. But again, there are 10-20 players per DM. So if this specific player isn't interested, there's the rest of the available player pool that might be. Nothing says that specific player and that specific DM must play together. Every time I've put up players wanted posts or notices I've been flooded with responses. Far more than I can handle even when running West Marches sandbox games. So yeah, I do all the work. If there are players who want to play, they're welcome to. If not, then they don't play. No harm, no foul. But I'm not doing a mountain of work to run a game I've no interest in running.

 

[Campbell]

Here's my perspective as a GM : A quality player is worth their weight in gold. I'm not interested in just filling a seat at the table. Anyone who is playing in our games is there because they have been invited after at least some of us have played with them. They are at least a friend of a friend. Replacing a quality player involves a lot of labor and probably some poor game experiences as we go through people who are not good fits for us.

 

[Oofta]

I wouldn't let forum dwellers get you down. D&D is so popular now that I can't imagine it not being viable to literally interview players to determine if they're going to suit the game you want to run.

This really seems to be a non-issue you guys are going back and forth over.

I moved a couple of years back and had to find a new group. I simply stated some basic preferences, restrictions and style notes. So unless it's a group of pre-existing friends I don't see what the issue is going to be. Even then, sometimes you just have to accept that styles don't match and if there is no compromise you find some other hobby to share.

For example I'm never going to run a "dark" campaign where everyone runs an evil character. I've played games where we had evil PCs in the past and ... no. Just no. Not if they actually play them as evil. If they aren't actually playing them as evil, I don't see the point.

But I digress. My real point is that while I'm flexible on a lot of things, there are other things that as a DM I reserve veto power. If that doesn't work for a player (I think that's happened twice in decades of DMing), no hard feelings and I hope they found a game better suited to them. Sometimes the DM and player just can't come to agreement.

 

[overgeeked]

Not really.

Either they care about it and don't like it or they don't care and will just roll a new character. Either way is a weak stake.

Right. But there's no guarantee they're going to be invested in that War and Peace length backstory either. That's the point I'm making. I've watched players give me epic length backstories only to ignore them the second they become inconvenient. The only think the players are likely to actually care about is their character. Likely. Not guaranteed.

And if the PCs don't care about anything else, that's a player problem or possibly a DM problem because they haven't provided anything to care about so nihilism sets in.

In my experience, both as a player and a DM, that's the majority of players. They don't care. Don't want to be bothered. Don't want obstacles. Just want to kick ass, take names, gather loot, and be told how awesome they are by proxy of their character. Not all players are like that, obviously. But the vast majority of people I've played with in nearly 40 years of playing fit that description to a T. It drops off somewhat when you move out of D&D, but it's still there.

It might have been in the books, but I doubt it was a popular thing in the wild because... well... humans.

I can't speak to all humans, but I can speak to my experience. And yes, that's exactly how most/all DMs I played with run things. "Do you want to play? Here's what we're playing. Make a character that fits these parameters. If you don't like it, leave or run the game yourself." Paraphrasing several DMs I've played with.

No one wants to have an 'alpha friend' in their groups who thinks they're hot crap and better than everyone.

You're ascribing traits that don't follow from what's being said. It's not about being an "alpha" (that whole thing is BS btw), nor is it about ego or thinking their "hot crap" or better than. Only willing to put in work that others aren't willing to put in.

 

[overgeeked]

Here's my perspective as a GM : A quality player is worth their weight in gold. I'm not interested in just filling a seat at the table. Anyone who is playing in our games is there because they have been invited after at least some of us have played with them. They are at least a friend of a friend. Replacing a quality player involves a lot of labor and probably some poor game experiences as we go through people who are not good fits for us.

The thing about precious materials is not everyone gets access to them. Finding them involves a lot of work coupled with a lot of luck. As you say, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[BookTenTiger]

@overgeeked Your experience of the game and players is just very different than my own.

I've been playing with various friends for 20+ years. When we start a new campaign, it's usually because someone in the group (not always the person who will run it) is excited about a new concept.

In our games, the players have a lot of input about where the story will go. Sometimes the players even take turns running sessions!

And when the campaign goes in a direction the players or DM don't like... We talk about it and make adjustments.

I think this is why I find your statements about how power-hungry and selfish players are bewildering. It just doesn't fit my own experience of the game.

 

[Umbran]

Obviously. But again, the only thing we can really use as a board example that most people will have likely played is D&D. Given the popularity of D&D 5E and how that majority of gamers in the hobby are not only 5E players but also new to the hobby with 5E...it behooves us to speak to the most known game in the industry.

Sure. But, the people I'm talking about run D&D! That's why I included both game and style. D&D doesn't have to be heavy-prep.

No DM, no game. Unless the DM's on board with running the game, it won't happen. The rebut is: no players, no game.

Again, whatever happend to negotiation and compromise? Is there some reason the only dynamic available is, "my way or the highway"?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Right. But there's no guarantee they're going to be invested in that War and Peace length backstory either. That's the point I'm making. I've watched players give me epic length backstories only to ignore them the second they become inconvenient. The only think the players are likely to actually care about is their character. Likely. Not guaranteed.

In my experience, both as a player and a DM, that's the majority of players. They don't care. Don't want to be bothered. Don't want obstacles. Just want to kick ass, take names, gather loot, and be told how awesome they are by proxy of their character. Not all players are like that, obviously. But the vast majority of people I've played with in nearly 40 years of playing fit that description to a T. It drops off somewhat when you move out of D&D, but it's still there.

Might this be because certain conditions favor playing for survival at all costs?

Because in my games, I don't try to kill them and don't let the dice just randomly kill them and then I offer things like fun NPCs to hang out with and side projects to do and communities to be involved with and they care about that stuff. I'm in a Kingmaker style game right now and we make choices based on what's right for our people, not just for mere survival, but their relative happiness. The guy running the game gives us stuff to care about and the breathing space to do so and we do.

There's another game I'm in with a relatively new guy who brags about 'letting the dice fall where they may', gets frustrated and has NPCs walk off if we talk to them too much and my Batman-inspired Arcane Trickster has just become a general coward as the only thing to do is not die.

I can't speak to all humans, but I can speak to my experience. And yes, that's exactly how most/all DMs I played with run things. "Do you want to play? Here's what we're playing. Make a character that fits these parameters. If you don't like it, leave or run the game yourself." Paraphrasing several DMs I've played with.

Might be why the game has gotten way more popular once that style fell out of favor.

You're ascribing traits that don't follow from what's being said. It's not about being an "alpha" (that whole thing is BS btw), nor is it about ego or thinking their "hot crap" or better than. Only willing to put in work that others aren't willing to put in.

Ascribing importance to being in power and in charge, scrapping all illusion of choice once they might not get their way? Sounds like every self-prescribed 'alpha' I've ever met.

I'd love to see a real 'alpha', you know, a loving parental figure who provides for the group and makes sure everyone is happy, but there's no greek letter for that.