D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Oofta]

Can you give an example in your game where a players authority won out over yours? Not a compromise, but a case where you are 100% are against a decision they enforced but have to abide by it?

Umm, no. When it comes to world building through background and history I reserve veto power. When it comes down to what the PCs do in world it's up to them. I have had to remind people now and then of my no evil policy and that a PC that crosses the line becomes an NPC. They could have proceeded but chose not to.

I have certainly had players do things I thought were incredibly stupid, even with my making it clear how dumb it was. It ended up with a dead PC.

I have discussed possible background or story arcs that involved sensitive subjects and been told no. If I have an idea that could cross the line of what the player would enjoy I may discuss it with them offline. In one case I'm thinking of it was an NPC female obsessed with a PC and I checked with a player about a scene where his PC would not be in control, he said no so it didn't happen.

But I don't expect the DM to change their decisions for the player no matter which side of the DM screen I'm on.

 

[Helldritch]

Which is why character sheets stay here betwen sessions. That way I don't need to keep a mirror copy as I always have access to the original if I need it.

But your players do have their own copies don't they? Otherwise, how can they plan their levelling, character's progression and put things in order for the next game?

 

[Helldritch]

Can you give an example in your game where a players authority won out over yours? Not a compromise, but a case where you are 100% are against a decision they enforced but have to abide by it?

I can't speak for @Oofta but I can give many examples.
At session zero, players and DM votes on which optional rules and homebrew (if any) we will use for the campaign. It goes as far as to adopt some "interpretations" of some rules. If the players votes in favor of something I do not want, I have no power to counter their view. They voted, they won and thus, I have to abide. Most of the time, it is only a matter of continuity but once in a while, they want to try something else.

During play, I can be outvoted when I err on a rule interpretation. We do discuss and if a rule is interpreted in a "new" way, it is written down and put in our homebrew sheet (about one and a half page long). One such interpretation was for heavy armor mastery. I always ruled that it would never reduce damage received to zero (but to a minimum of one). Players decided that it was not written in such a way and now the feat reduces damage to zero if the attack qualifies as a piercing, blunt or slash damage from a non magical weapon. I am still against that rule. But I abide by it. It was the players' decision to apply it as such.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

got to ask do you take requests?

Yes, I do commissions sometimes. Send a PM if you're interested. Though I have to say I'm a tad busy at the moment.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I can't speak for @Oofta but I can give many examples.
At session zero, players and DM votes on which optional rules and homebrew (if any) we will use for the campaign. It goes as far as to adopt some "interpretations" of some rules. If the players votes in favor of something I do not want, I have no power to counter their view. They voted, they won and thus, I have to abide. Most of the time, it is only a matter of continuity but once in a while, they want to try something else.

During play, I can be outvoted when I err on a rule interpretation. We do discuss and if a rule is interpreted in a "new" way, it is written down and put in our homebrew sheet (about one and a half page long). One such interpretation was for heavy armor mastery. I always ruled that it would never reduce damage received to zero (but to a minimum of one). Players decided that it was not written in such a way and now the feat reduces damage to zero if the attack qualifies as a piercing, blunt or slash damage from a non magical weapon. I am still against that rule. But I abide by it. It was the players' decision to apply it as such.

What you describe here is what the "player advocate" people in this thread are saying makes for a better game. Not letting them run roughshod all over the game, but having some power to alter the game to fit what they are wanting from it. I commend your style and have a similar one myself.

 

[Helldritch]

What you describe here is what the "player advocate" people in this thread are saying makes for a better game. Not letting them run roughshod all over the game, but having some power to alter the game to fit what they are wanting from it. I commend your style and have a similar one myself.

I'd say both yes and no.
Although I run a very democratic game. My games have a lot of restrictions, all of these were voted upon by the players. So in essence, if a new player wants to play a "bunny people" that person is almost 100% guaranteed to get a simple no as an answer. Unless the campaign specifically calls for a cantina type of campaign (which happens once in while), then that person looking for special "considerations" is likely to be quite disappointed.

Once the premises of session zero are voted upon. I apply all rules with rutheless efficiency. It takes quite the unanimous vote of the 12 players (two groups of 6) to change a campaign as the three campaigns can be played by both group. (When one player is missing, he/she can be replaced by a player of the other group, a rare event, but it happens in the group playing Friday Night dungeons once or twice per month at our hobby store.)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Umm, no. When it comes to world building through background and history I reserve veto power. When it comes down to what the PCs do in world it's up to them. I have had to remind people now and then of my no evil policy and that a PC that crosses the line becomes an NPC. They could have proceeded but chose not to.

I have certainly had players do things I thought were incredibly stupid, even with my making it clear how dumb it was. It ended up with a dead PC.

I have discussed possible background or story arcs that involved sensitive subjects and been told no. If I have an idea that could cross the line of what the player would enjoy I may discuss it with them offline. In one case I'm thinking of it was an NPC female obsessed with a PC and I checked with a player about a scene where his PC would not be in control, he said no so it didn't happen.

But I don't expect the DM to change their decisions for the player no matter which side of the DM screen I'm on.

I'm not seeing in your descriptions anywhere where the players have any sort of power over you.

Your first paragraph says you have complete control over world building but let the players decide their own actions. Except you also state that if they do something from the naughty list in which case you take control from them, so you have a curated ubset of approved actions.

Your second paragraph says you let players do things that are dumb....but that's just restating that you let the players control their characters as long as dumb does not equal evil.

Your third bit is the part where you do cede some bit of power to the player. I can't tell the extent to which you allow a player to worldbuild via their backsstory but that is an avenue they may have to do so. Do you, for example, allow them to create a town they are from and it's major NPC or do they have to pick a spot on the map? Can they create a noble family for their noble background? Can they invent a military or mercenary organization they trained with? How about a high level wizard tutor?

Lastly you mention the equivalent of using an X-card system for plot points and here is where there is some power fully in the hands of the players to affect the game.

I'm not calling out your game or your style. As has been said before hundreds of times, if everyone is having fun it's working.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'd say both yes and no.
Although I run a very democratic game. My games have a lot of restrictions, all of these were voted upon by the players. So in essence, if a new player wants to play a "bunny people" that person is almost 100% guaranteed to get a simple no as an answer. Unless the campaign specifically calls for a cantina type of campaign (which happens once in while), then that person looking for special "considerations" is likely to be quite disappointed.

Once the premises of session zero are voted upon. I apply all rules with rutheless efficiency. It takes quite the unanimous vote of the 12 players (two groups of 6) to change a campaign as the three campaigns can be played by both group. (When one player is missing, he/she can be replaced by a player of the other group, a rare event, but it happens in the group playing Friday Night dungeons once or twice per month at our hobby store.)

The voting requirement is very harsh. I do get that if you are running 3 games you need an even playing field to make it work.

Theoretical question: If you just only ever had one game of 6 players do you think your game would allow more player input during it's lifetime?

 

[Maxperson]

I can't speak for @Oofta but I can give many examples.
At session zero, players and DM votes on which optional rules and homebrew (if any) we will use for the campaign. It goes as far as to adopt some "interpretations" of some rules. If the players votes in favor of something I do not want, I have no power to counter their view. They voted, they won and thus, I have to abide. Most of the time, it is only a matter of continuity but once in a while, they want to try something else.

I do the same thing, though I basically act as Vice President and vote only to break ties. Some ties I vote yes for if I really wanted that house rule. If I don't care, though, I'll vote no since half the players didn't want it.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not seeing in your descriptions anywhere where the players have any sort of power over you.

Well, the first two words in response to your question were, "Umm, no."

It's not surprising that none of what followed showed a yes.