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

[Lanefan]

Bad luck can be seen as we all roll on the open. You might have a crazy plan, but it can fail through no fault of your own. On the other hand, actively helping the foes of the group would trigger that vote (unless charmed) the second you would start acting like that.
Rule one: No evil characters
Rule two: No chaotic neutral characters.
It prevents a lot of troubles.

Prevents a lot of fun, too; and very directly tells players how they are to play their characters.

Probably. But it is better than the argument you could have and the loss of friendship. When everyone tells you that you did wrong. It might be hard pill to swallow for your pride. But it is the only way to continue and grow.

That depends on how everyone defines "did wrong" and whether those definitions in the least bit agree.

 

[Lanefan]

I have been talking about "A" since the very start and ever since.

Where I've been talking about B, hence perhaps some of the confusion.

Two years ago, a character simply left the group (with all the treasure and the portable hole) because the characters in the group were always on his back (not the players, the characters). It was a fine RP moment when the group woke up in the morning to find that all their belonging had disappeared along with their cash. With the approval of the player, I made that warlock an NPC bent on the destruction of the group that was soooo much on his back, telling him what to think, do and like. His patron was quite happy with this event as the group was about to attack an ally of the patron of the warlock. This pushed the game in a new direction and it was quite fun.

This is great! (yet from how you've put things earlier, is also exactly the sort of thing that would threaten to prompt a vote on whether that player can continue...glad to see that's not the case)

The only thing I'd have done different would be to have left control of the warlock in the player's hands rather than making it an NPC, and let the player plot against the party - which would incude plotting against himself once his replacement PC came in! I have no problem with a player running more than one character at a time, provided they're able to keep the two as separate entities; IME most players can.

There is a big difference between the player and the character.

Agreed.

 

[Helldritch]

Prevents a lot of fun, too; and very directly tells players how they are to play their characters.

And yet, we do have our "wild" campaigns once in a while where all characters must be "evil". But during these, everyone knows what to expect from each other and it works out. These campaigns are relatively short however as evil often turns upon itself and backstabs are quite the norm in these games.

But in a sense you're right. We chose this way a long time ago exactly because of the potential for arguments and accusations that could fly. But in no way do we force players to play their characters without personality.

That depends on how everyone defines "did wrong" and whether those definitions in the least bit agree.

Those are defined right from the bat at session zero with new players.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Prevents a lot of fun, too; and very directly tells players how they are to play their characters.

That depends on how everyone defines "did wrong" and whether those definitions in the least bit agree.

our group normally agrees to begin with on 'house rule what is allowed' and sometimes that means drastic "no casters" but most times it means "Everyone has to play someone that will work with the party" but we also often limit someone on how far they can go with gore or violence or betrayals... @HammerMan uses those cards I hear about all the time so those things are more at the table in the moment (tagging him cause he is only name I remember talking about the show a card thing in a positive light)

so YES we directly tell players "this is a good game" or "this is an evil game" or "this game has intrigue" but the WE is the table by popular vote (although a single PC can veto any campaign.

 

[Oofta]

Prevents a lot of fun, too; and very directly tells players how they are to play their characters.

As DM I'm a player as well. If I can't get behind a campaign theme, I don't see how I can run an effective or enjoyable game. While I don't ban CN characters like @Helldritch , I do point out that chaotic insane is not an alignment and that I expect people to bring characters who are willing to work with the group.

That depends on how everyone defines "did wrong" and whether those definitions in the least bit agree.

Which is why I make all this clear when recruiting/inviting people to play my game. My idea of fun doesn't include PCs backstabbing each other or being the bad guys. I've never had an issue finding or retaining players, so I'm going to run a game I have fun running. If that means I'm not the right DM for every person that's fine. Some DMs haven't worked for me in the past either.

 

[Helldritch]

As DM I'm a player as well. If I can't get behind a campaign theme, I don't see how I can run an effective or enjoyable game. While I don't ban CN characters like @Helldritch , I do point out that chaotic insane is not an alignment and that I expect people to bring characters who are willing to work with the group.

The reason we banned CN was that many people do not understand the point you make in your second paragraph. A lot of people simply take CN to do whatever they want, whenever they want. They do not realise that while CN is all about freedom, it is not about killing, murdering and backstabbing innocent bystanders and to accept collateral damages without remorse. This is the province of Evil.

Which is why I make all this clear when recruiting/inviting people to play my game. My idea of fun doesn't include PCs backstabbing each other or being the bad guys. I've never had an issue finding or retaining players, so I'm going to run a game I have fun running. If that means I'm not the right DM for every person that's fine. Some DMs haven't worked for me in the past either.

And again, many that takes the CN were hoping just that. Hey! I am not evil. But I can act like one if needed of if it suits my current mood...

With such stable groups as I have now, I might and probably should reconsider my/our stance on CN. It might add a few more RP opportunities. I'll sure bring the topic for the next campaign.

 

[Mort]

The reason we banned CN was that many people do not understand the point you make in your second paragraph. A lot of people simply take CN to do whatever they want, whenever they want. They do not realise that while CN is all about freedom, it is not about killing, murdering and backstabbing innocent bystanders and to accept collateral damages without remorse. This is the province of Evil.


And again, many that takes the CN were hoping just that. Hey! I am not evil. But I can act like one if needed of if it suits my current mood...

With such stable groups as I have now, I might and probably should reconsider my/our stance on CN. It might add a few more RP opportunities. I'll sure bring the topic for the next campaign.

Too many bad experiences with CN here as well. I would much rather have a LE PC with good ties to the group and reason to be there than a CN character - if it came to that.

But my group has been together long enough that it's not even a ban really, no one takes CN characters - just not their play style. The one guy who pushed for a CN character (years ago) lasted about 2 sessions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I've solved this particular issue a long time ago.

"What's your character's alignment."
"I don't do that."
"You have to."
"Okay, Virgo in the Third House or something. Maybe the one where all the planets are in a straight line and that's supposed to mean something. Whatever. I don't care. Let's play."

 

[Helldritch]

Too many bad experiences with CN here as well. I would much rather have a LE PC with good ties to the group and reason to be there than a CN character - if it came to that.

But my group has been together long enough that it's not even a ban really, no one takes CN characters - just not their play style. The one guy who pushed for a CN character (years ago) lasted about 2 sessions.

Here as well. As I said earlier, I might (or should I say We as the tables reigns supreme in my games) consider that it has been long enough that everyone understands the style we play. One thing for sure though, no E. Not even LE as evil will turn upon the group if it suits its needs and the gain is very very tangible and tempting. In a campaign style it might work though. As the players and their characters are supposed to be in to "beat" the BBEG. But in an episodic style campaign, where the goals shifts from one adventure to the next... not really. The LE will find someway to the backstab tune to its fullest.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why don't people say 'no self-destructive idiots' instead of 'no evil'? Because plenty of evil people manage to get by without random murder and betrayal.