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

[James Gasik]

And that is exactly what I am doing now. Haven't seen this kind of player in 3 decades.
In the end, it worked out. 40 years ago, I was barely 12... He is still a very good friend but RPGs are not his cup of tea. MTG on the other hand

And I understand the spectator side of things. I do make Friday Night Dungeon exhibits at our hobby store and a few regular come and then some others. A few are to ask questions on "how to" stuff and a few are there only for the fun of watching. There are even some parents that comes to watch to see what it is all about their teenager are talking about and we have a good chat after that. When they hear that I am a power engineer and that I play a "kid" game they are often dumbfounded and they take a whole new approach on how RPGs are working.

If I were truly the adversarial DM that some here are trying to make me appear, I would not do exhibits and I would not have groups that have been with me for 30+ years now. No adversarial DM can keep their players. But sometimes, being stern and holding your ground will be seen as adversarial when all you do is to stand up for what you believe.

Yeah, even if what you did was wrong at the time, it's not like nobody has ever failed to make mistakes as a DM.

We learn and carry on. Matter of fact, I'll share my "bad DM tale".

3.5 game. Had a player decide to make a pretty shabby character concept, a Fighter/Sorcerer who used a double weapon. Stats were ok, but they never seemed to clue in that their character wasn't cutting the mustard. Too used to 2e multiclassing I think.

Now I try to balance AC's of enemies- I figure any character who has a reason to actually be in melee should hit on a 12 at the worst. So if the lowest attack bonus is +6, you're not going to see an AC higher than 18 save for special enemies.

But their bad attack bonus was becoming a problem since I had better melee attackers. They rarely missed, and one was using Power Attack to drop their attack bonus to about the same as the Forcerer's and doing like double the damage.

Plus, the first couple turns of any fight, the Forcerer was buffing themselves.

But after awhile, they seemed to settle into a groove, and I stopped worrying. Then came a fight when the Forcerer was mind controlled by an Erinyes and forced to fight the party.

They singled out the best warrior and started critting on them like crazy- the guy almost died.

Afterwards, another player comes up to me and says "hey man, the Forcerer is cheating. I've been noticing it for awhile, but kept my mouth shut. But those crits against the other PC weren't legit, and that's not cool."

I thought about this and decided to hatch a plot. There was an NPC the Forcerer had already developed an enmity with. In the campaign, there were Hobgoblin poison masters, and the party had already run into some of their foul concoctions.

So an insidious poison was put into the Forcerer's food at the inn (I made a bunch of rolls out in the open and asked everyone to make checks- fake checks for most of them. The Cleric was worried when they rolled a 1, lol).

Then later, after they rested, I had everyone make Fort saves. Again, fake, save for my victim. The poison was a truly terrifying one that lowered your Constitution, but the only visible effects were a slight fever.

Halfway through the next fight, I informed them that their hit point total was lower than they thought, and they died.

I went to all that work to justify "bolts from the blue" or "rocks fall", rather than confront the player. Not my shining moment of glory, and I learned from that.

If a player is a massive jerk, always confront them. Then kick them if they don't change their ways.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You keep only seeing the bad side.

yes I am trying to find a good side to you (IMO Advasarial) punishing a player for not playing how you like... please show me the net positive.

This is an example of treasure. I have 6 players. So if we do like you and assume the worst, 3 players got nothing so bouhouuuuuuu? Come on. Think a bit further and stop taking the worst approach. Again, we are talking about a fringe case, a rare exception where a player absolutely do not care about the game. Why would I want to keep that player? Or why would my group.

I would ask why he wanted to play but didn't care... my guess is he DID care just not the way YOU wanted.

and I can't imagine having 6 players, dropping 7 items in a dungeon and some how 3 got nothing... that seems very odd. but that ISn't the example you gave you said you singled out the 1 player to not get items he could use.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

One possibility do not make it the only way to go thing. Why are you dealing in absolute?

becuse YOU brought up punishing and bullieing a player as an option to make them quite...

Hey do not go faster than the speed limit. If you do, do not be surprised if a police officer gives you a nice bill for doing it. There are consequences to your actions.

but if the cop singles out 1 driver because he doesn't like how he plays a game I will call foul there too

just becuse you CAN abuse your power doesn't make it a good thing to do

So you say.

yup... please defend being adversarial and punishing bullying your way through...

There are adversarial players. Not in groups mind you. But if there were, I would act like them.

because the best way to stop bad behavior is to behave badly...

I HAVE had adversarial players... when I show them there IS not adversary here just a friend and fellow D&D fan they normally calm down... I can't imagine ESCALATING the issue helps at all.

Either they change their way or they find an other table. No loss for me for sure.

and all for the low cost of becoming an adversarial DM...

If push comes to shove... And you keep saying My way. But it the TABLE'S way. A group is group and an individual is part of the group.

yet you are the one choosing who to punish... or do you ask the table "Should I make one of your gaming experience worse to teach you a lesson?" or do you only talk to the ones on your side (very mean girl clicky) or as I suspect do YOU get to make that call?
What would you do if your table was split... you +6 players is 7 people at the table. I assume you and other PC are teh two sides leaving 5 left... is it if 3 side with you or if 3 side with him or do you just make the call?

A last resort, you know that?
Because we are already in the middle. If events go that far it means that one person simply does not want to give some ground.

you do notice YOU are not giving any ground... right? unless there are things you are skipping.

Ouch... This must allow for some pretty wild one way abusive decisions...

not really it just means we all get a vote and we all can veto... we don't all get perfect but none of us have to put up with sitting out a campagin.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If I were truly the adversarial DM that some here are trying to make me appear,

the only person that can make you appear as anything is you

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, even if what you did was wrong at the time, it's not like nobody has ever failed to make mistakes as a DM.

We learn and carry on. Matter of fact, I'll share my "bad DM tale".

I could fill a book with my "I made a bad DM call" moments. I even WAS an adversarial DM for a bit in 2e... what I figured out was there are better ways. some of my stories are bad, some were based on advice I wish the books didn't give, some came from my own bad idea brain. Some were small mistakes, things I just wish I had done a bit diffrent... we all learn and grow.

 

[Lanefan]

In hundreds of players, and groups, this is the first time I see your method of dividing treasures.
Staff of power? Goes to the wizard. Period.
Pearl of wisdom? Goes to the priest. Period.
+1 Long Sword? Goes to the Fighter. Period.

OK, but how does the Fighter get compensated for the fact that the item given him is worth way less than the items given the Wizard and the Priest?

And why do I ask this? Because there's nothing preventing all three of these charcters from turning around and selling the items they've just been given and now own outright. Using 1e pricing (as 5e doesn't have such) a +1 Longsword is 2000, a Pearl of Wisdom is 5000*, and a Staff of Power is 60000 - yeah, that really is an extra zero on the end.

That's one rich Wizard.

* - and is IMO woefully underpriced for what it does, should be 10K at least.

Only monetary treasure is shared equally. Additional magical items, if they are not usable or the receiving character has better will be sold and cash divided equally. A wand of the warmage was found. The wizard already had one. So it was sold and the cash was divided equally.

Things sold by the party as a whole, sure, the cash gets divided equally. But no such restriction, one hopes, exists on what individual PCs do with the items they claim and are given out of treasury, items which they now own outright. So - and I've seen this done - in a system where there's no value compensation "smart" players will claim for value rather than utility, then sell what they claimed, buy what they need, and pocket the sometimes-considerable change.

This is what we have been doing since OD&D. And in 5th edition, the good thing is that within the same rarity, the fact that it is a staff or a sword will mean more or less the same cash. Your method has the merit of making the fighter have a chance to "purchase" equipment, but it does deprive the group of useful magical items if the intended character can't purchase it.

Indeed, and this sometimes forces hard choices on parties, which I don't mind at all. For example, in your three-character party above they'd be hard-put to keep that Staff of Power in the party as there probably wouldn't be enough other value in the treasury to fill out the shares for the non-Wizard characters. A workaround I've seen used is that the item comes out of treasury and remains a party possession (but Wizzy gets to keep using it), which is fine until someone wants to leave the party and looks to be bought out of their share.

Also, if you play 1ed it means that the wizards is stuck purchasing his spells, must have at least one spare spell book and maybe two travelling books. That is a lot of gold to put your money on. As some spells will destroy mundane items on a fail save. The monetary pressure on the wizard will be high...

Ayup - which means the Wizard often wants as much cash as she can get, thus the more items that get sold the better.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, but how does the Fighter get compensated for the fact that the item given him is worth way less than the items given the Wizard and the Priest?

And why do I ask this? Because there's nothing preventing all three of these charcters from turning around and selling the items they've just been given and now own outright. Using 1e pricing (as 5e doesn't have such) a +1 Longsword is 2000, a Pearl of Wisdom is 5000*, and a Staff of Power is 60000 - yeah, that really is an extra zero on the end.

That's one rich Wizard.

in my games we see it as compensation by having more powerful allies.

I had a game (not that long ago) where random rolls got my caster both a staff of maji and robes of my alignment maji... either one of witch was worth more or less everything any 1 other character had and between the two and my rod and ring I most likely was worth more then every other PC put together.

since we were random rolling we also had a bunch of 'junk' items no one could use. We were not allowed to buy or sell items (until like 17th level when we found the magic bazaar)

no one felt 'poorer' becuse the point of the items was to USE them, and to USE them to help the party.


I can not remember a campaign (well I was typeing the end I remembered 1 4e one I played in) where by 5th or 6th level everyone could not retire a landed noble with more money then they could reasonably use.

Money is just never a motivation past the first level or 2 we play

 

[Lanefan]

I always make sure that everyone has a chance to shine. I do not play favorite. But I do manipulate treasure to fit the characters in the group.

Given what you've said earlier around how you manipulate treasure placement to disfavour characters you don't like, these statements seem very much at odds.

An uncaring player as described earlier would not survive the TPK of a group he has caused. If the uncaring player somehow survived. It would simply be the end of the character now. As a full new group would be formed and no one would play with the "jerk" that caused so much trouble.

So if I'm playing character E and my character is lucky enough to be the sole survivor*, I don't get to go back to town and recruit a new party? That seems very - non-continuous, for lack of a better term.

* - note: it's not a TPK as there was one survivor; and that there was a survivor means the party's story can continue, even if it takes a new direction from here.

Yes, group thinking can smother individuality if you are not careful. Just like individual thinking can kill a game. As in everything, a balance must be reached. The voting stuff is usually at session zero where we discuss the game, the tone of the game player wishes to have (so far, the gritty side always win...), the optional rules we will use the campaign world we will use (Greyhawk is a favorite , but Ebberon is a close one and next campaign, I hope to either have Exandria or Theros, but we will see). A vote in game/campaign is usually made if I make a mistake and do not change my ruling. It happened maybe twice in the 30 years, all from a bad description from my part. (even I can make mistakes...)

We all do. Fact of life, I think.

Only disruptive play might end up being voted upon. And by that, we call someone that is actively disrupting and killing the fun out of the game of everyone else. How a character is played is pretty much untouchable as long as that character's actions are not there to willingly ensure the death of the group.

Yet from the descriptions you give of how your table operates (and thanks for those, by the way!), disruptive might be in the eye of the beholder. If, say, I'm a player and someone else doing something rash gets my character killed, it seems I'm able to stop the game and put the rash character's (and maybe its player's) further participation to a debate (i.e. argument!) and vote. This doesn't seem right somehow, and also serves as a great big deterrent to playing rash characters, which comes back to being told how to play. (and as rash characters are always the most fun, it seems counterproductive to discourage them)

Never mind that if I put that character's continuance to a vote and lose, I've just caused hard feelings with its player.

Again in 30 years I have not seen this kind of behavior at my tables. Either I am an extremely lucky DM or I am good at screening my players to make sure that newcomers will fit with the other players.

Or - and I've seen this happen myself - there's a strong underlying peer pressure to conform, strong enough that nobody dares move outside the boundaries. As something of a non-conformist when it comes to D&D, this is the sort of thing I tend to push back against when I meet it.

 

[Lanefan]

in my games we see it as compensation by having more powerful allies.

I had a game (not that long ago) where random rolls got my caster both a staff of maji and robes of my alignment maji... either one of witch was worth more or less everything any 1 other character had and between the two and my rod and ring I most likely was worth more then every other PC put together.

since we were random rolling we also had a bunch of 'junk' items no one could use. We were not allowed to buy or sell items (until like 17th level when we found the magic bazaar)

no one felt 'poorer' becuse the point of the items was to USE them, and to USE them to help the party.

I suppose this also depends on whether your PCs were saving up for anything else beyond the immediate campaign e.g. to build a stronghold or buy a business or become a noble. In these cases, money is important.

And that you weren't "allowed" to buy or sell magic items is, though backed by 5e RAW, IMO poor DMing; as realistically within any typical game world it's very logical to expect at least some sort of magic item trade to evolve even if only between adventuring parties.

I can not remember a campaign (well I was typeing the end I remembered 1 4e one I played in) where by 5th or 6th level everyone could not retire a landed noble with more money then they could reasonably use.

Money is just never a motivation past the first level or 2 we play

Money is always a motivation here. Get rich or die tryin'!

I'll grant that 5e as written has neutered this a lot by making it so hard to spend money, but were I ever to run 5e this is something I'd change without a second thought.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with your separation of player and character is "it's what my character would do ..." Is the battle cry of the jerk player.

So be it, then - I must be a jerk player; because "it's what my character would do" is the mantra I play by and which I expect others to play by as well. Why? Becuase if you're not having your character do what it would do then it's easily arguable you're not roleplaying it with integrity to itself, and thus to the game.

A character heroically sacrificing itself so the rest of the party can live is "doing what my character would do" every bit as much as the character who runs away and hides at the first sign of danger; and it's on the rest of the PCs to deal with these things in-character as they see fit.

If a player introduces a disruptive character to the game, a character that actively disrupts the fun of the other players? It's the player that's the jerk, not the character.

Even if that same player's previous character and next character are models of co-operation? Sorry, not buyin' it.