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

[Filthy Lucre]

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

Why are you trying to debate his personal choice? Why is this conversation even happening? You guys don't agree and you, more importantly, you don't have to agree.

The answer to your question quoted above can simply just be, (from his perspective), "Because thats what I want to do".

 

[overgeeked]

@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.

Sure. At no point do I assume my experience is universal. I'm thankful it's not, honestly. But it's still an experience that some have, myself included. If the hobby wasn't so much fun when it actually works, I'd have bailed decades ago.

The power hungry thing started with my first D&D game and has existed / lasted through to my most recent games. Almost 40 years. It never goes away. There's always several in every game I play or run, genre, style, and game system don't matter.

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.

Obviously.

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

Negotiation and compromise have limits. If the DM doesn't like superheroes and the players all want a superhero game...what compromise is there to be made? If the players want a fantasy game and the GM doesn't like fantasy...what compromise is there to be made? Same with so many other preferences, styles, and modes of play.

It seems a lot of people are starting from the assumption that a set group of people are predestined to play together and that must be maintained at all costs, that everything else is secondary. That's not my experience. The people interested in this game are the ones who play it. A set group doesn't talk it out until everyone's marginally agreeable but ultimately dissatisfied with the results. Anyone who's interested in this particular game plays, those who aren't interested don't play. Those people either do something else or start games of their own. There's (generally) no hurt feelings involved. People are generally self-aware enough to recognize they're not interested in a given game or group and simply don't play as a result.

 

[overgeeked]

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

You'd think, but you'd be wrong. It's almost all due to Critical Role. Whatever game they played was going to be wildly popular. That style fell out of favor with WotC taking over. 3X did not have 5E's popularity. Clearly.

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.

Again, you're adding in judgement and loaded language that wasn't in the original.

 

[Oofta]

You'd think, but you'd be wrong. It's almost all due to Critical Role. Whatever game they played was going to be wildly popular. That style fell out of favor with WotC taking over. 3X did not have 5E's popularity. Clearly.

I think you're overemphasizing the impact of CR. I'm the only one who watches out of the dozen people I play with. It's not clear how much of an impact the show has had.

Oh, and the style of the games I play and run hasn't changed much for decades with a couple of rare exceptions. It may be different for you, your experience is hardly universal.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

This. It's easy to find players. It's much harder to fill a group with funny, interesting, creative, and rules-savvy players.

 

[TwoSix]

It seems a lot of people are starting from the assumption that a set group of people are predestined to play together and that must be maintained at all costs, that everything else is secondary. That's not my experience.

To be fair, that's exactly the experience a lot of us have. D&D is what we play in our social groups, but we'd still have the same social group if we weren't playing D&D. If any person isn't on board with a campaign or game idea, we try something else.

Honestly, if my groups fell apart for some reason I'd just stop RPing. I'm too old to go looking for new groups.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As a point of clarification the saying is generally not be a fan of your players (although you generally should like the people you play with). It is generally be a fan of the players' characters. Mainly that as a GM you should be emotionally engaged in play with the player characters and should care about them the same way you would characters on your favorite TV show. You should like them, care about their struggles. and be curious about them. Curious about who they really are. Curious about how they will respond to events. You should be on the edge of your seat to see what happens when the spotlight is on them.

It's really about valuing the creative contributions of the people you play with. Wanting to see more from them.

What if someone is playing a character you personally find really annoying?

 

[Bolares]

The value of a good session 0, where everyone tells their expectations for the game, including character death, is underestimated.

 

[Campbell]

What if someone is playing a character you personally find really annoying?

Then we have a discussion. It's likely to have come up during character creation, but we have ongoing discussions about this sort of stuff all the time.

 

[Bolares]

Then we have a discussion. It's likely to have come up during character creation, but we have ongoing discussions about this sort of stuff all the time.

yeah, even if we have a session 0 (we should always have one) the discussion about the game can continue. If some character rubs you the wrong way, there should be a discussion about it. The most common wrong thing to do here is be passive agressive about it.