D&D General IS the 5 min work day a feature or a bug?

[Helldritch]

Sorry, @Helldritch - I usually agree with you on many things but I just gotta call this one out:

The bolded is a classic example of DM favouritism, which IMO is one of the worst things a DM can do. You're not being fair to the "uncaring one", who like it or not is every bit as much a member of the party (and, on a meta scale, the group) as everyone else. Yes you're enforcing against a playstyle you don't like, but at cost of both trust and agency.

Further, as that uncaring PC has now become one of the party's senior characters, in-character that PC will in theory have more of a say over who gets recruited to join, and thus over the general tone of the party. Likely end result: more uncaring PCs, and a different tone of party and of game. That's how it goes sometimes, and the DM kinda has to roll with it.

You got it reversed.
No I am not fair on this one but the uncaring PC is now one of the weakest character not the one with the most seniority.

 

[Lanefan]

You got it reversed.
No I am not fair on this one but the uncaring PC is now one of the weakest character not the one with the most seniority.

An example, to show what I'm getting at:

Characters A,B,C,D,E,F start the campaign. Let's say E here is the uncaring one; and that players generally roll up new characters so as to fit in with the existing party.

A,C, and D die quickly, replaced by G,H,I (and in-character B,E and F get to veto these, as it's their party now; this is reflected by the new ones being rolled up to fit in with B-E-F)

A while later B and F die; replaced by J and K provided E,G,H and I approve of these new recruits.

Party now consists of E,G,H,I,J,K; with E clearly holding seniority as the party's longest-serving member. Further, as E has now had a say in the acceptance of all five recruits, odds are the party's general tone will by now line up somewhat closer with E's way of thinking. Assuming roughly equal treasury and xp division throughout, E is also by now both the wealthiest and most experienced among this crew; which makes it somewhat likely that E is now perceived - at least within the party - as its leader.

Punishing E because you-as-DM simply don't like the character is, while doubtless tempting, IMO flat-out wrong. A DM doesn't get to play favourites.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Punishing E because you-as-DM simply don't like the character is, while doubtless tempting, IMO flat-out wrong. A DM doesn't get to play favourites.

I hate that DMs still think it's okay to 'force' or 'teach' or 'give a hard time to' people who don't play they way they want... so @Lanefan 100% with you here

 

[Lanefan]

I hate that DMs still think it's okay to 'force' or 'teach' or 'give a hard time to' people who don't play they way they want... so @Lanefan 100% with you here

There's also the difference to consider between a jerk player and a jerk character. Jerk players are one thing, but a good player playing a jerk character shouldn't IMO be meta-punished either in-character or out-of-character jsut because the luck of the draw determined the jerk character is the one who survived and-or the DM doesn't happen to like or "approve of" said character.

That's not to say reasonable cause-and-effect in-game consequences can't arise from what said jerk character does just like they would for anyone else; but again, that's a different thing than arbitrary DM favouritism at the meta level.

 

[Helldritch]

An example, to show what I'm getting at:

Characters A,B,C,D,E,F start the campaign. Let's say E here is the uncaring one; and that players generally roll up new characters so as to fit in with the existing party.

A,C, and D die quickly, replaced by G,H,I (and in-character B,E and F get to veto these, as it's their party now; this is reflected by the new ones being rolled up to fit in with B-E-F)

A while later B and F die; replaced by J and K provided E,G,H and I approve of these new recruits.

Party now consists of E,G,H,I,J,K; with E clearly holding seniority as the party's longest-serving member. Further, as E has now had a say in the acceptance of all five recruits, odds are the party's general tone will by now line up somewhat closer with E's way of thinking. Assuming roughly equal treasury and xp division throughout, E is also by now both the wealthiest and most experienced among this crew; which makes it somewhat likely that E is now perceived - at least within the party - as its leader.

Punishing E because you-as-DM simply don't like the character is, while doubtless tempting, IMO flat-out wrong. A DM doesn't get to play favourites.

I agree on everything you say.
But,
The goal is to show E that not caring is not what the others want.
And you apply your rules to my table. In mine, treasure is always divided evenly and magical treasures go to the best in slots/capacity to use it.
Treasures will quickly favorise the "caring" ones and E WILL die and E will be lower level. This is not an eventuality, it is a certainty. Either E quits the table or E amends itself and start caring. And all this will be with the accord of the other players. Remember, at my table, all players have a say in how I handle things. Even E. They can out veto me at any times but they usually do not need to. (I don't remember when it happened that I have been out voted...). But E is but one vote. E has 5 other players and 1 DM to convince that its uncaring way is THE way...

Do you see now the difference?

Edit: And today, I would simply kick that player out if, after a talk, I could not make him change his/her mind. And even then, players would vote on that topic too.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah if a player is a jerk, punt him from the game. Done and done.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is not an eventuality, it is a certainty. Either E quits the table or E amends itself and start caring. And all this will be with the accord of the other players. Remember, at my table, all players have a say in how I handle things. Even E. They can out veto me at any times but they usually do not need to. (I don't remember when it happened that I have been out voted...). But E is but one vote. E has 5 other players and 1 DM to convince that its uncaring way is THE way...

Do you see now the difference?

Edit: And today, I would simply kick that player out if, after a talk, I could not make him change his/her mind. And even then, players would vote on that topic too.

do you see your way is to punish a player you don't like the play style of... that might be why we think there is an adversarial nature...
the fact that you (in theory) let players veto... but kick players out that would use said veto is weird.

We have group Veto power too. and any 1 of us can veto and end the entire thing. we don't do so lightly but I have had players veto DarK sun for years (just 1 is enough) and I veto Forgotten realms.

 

[tetrasodium]

do you see your way is to punish a player you don't like the play style of... that might be why we think there is an adversarial nature...
the fact that you (in theory) let players veto... but kick players out that would use said veto is weird.

We have group Veto power too. and any 1 of us can veto and end the entire thing. we don't do so lightly but I have had players veto DarK sun for years (just 1 is enough) and I veto Forgotten realms.

in @Helldritch's defense the thing he described with holding back magic items worked very well in past editions because of magic item churn & required magic items. If a particular player is causing problems in how they play out their lack of care they will quickly wind up being deeply incentivized to find any reason to care so they can pursue the magic items they need to keep up.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I hate that DMs still think it's okay to 'force' or 'teach' or 'give a hard time to' people who don't play they way they want... so @Lanefan 100% with you here

We're not suppose to use DM empowerment to condition players towards Gygaxian style skilled play??

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, that does seem to be what some people take 'DM empowerment' to mean.

Any DM that tries to 'teach' me something, I just say 'You ain't my daddy.'.