D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Flamestrike]

Look, I hate to break it to you, but 'murder hobos' was a term coined to refer to the standard average trad D&D party, which spends its days wandering the countryside looting dungeons full of monsters and stealing their gold, without seemingly any care or concern or relationship with the world at all. As a rule this meant that PCs might well kill ANYTHING that has treasure, and MANY groups, maybe most at some point or other, did some 'edgy things'.

Yeah. And that's the exact behavior the OP is concerned about and wishes to correct, and the exact behavior that Im talking about, and the exact behavior that I (as DM) correct when I see it.

The stuff you first said 'almost never happens' and now are saying 'more or less happens in every single group at some point or another'.

 

[bloodtide]

So...you also never take into account the things other people like? If you have a lactose intolerant Jewish friend visit, you'll cook the sausage alfredo you were going to cook and if they don't like it they can just leave?

Correct. I would never change a meal just for one person: they need to take personal responsibility for their diet.

If you invite your friends over for movie night, sucks to be them if they don't like horror movies because guess what, it's all horror all night?

Again, yes. If your coming to MY house to watch MY movie....we will watch what I want to watch.

Fun note: I do often hold Movie Nights for gamers as part of me being a Teaching DM. The vast majority of younger gamers have never seen a lot of movies. I aim to change that.

I'm not saying you should let people smoke in your house. That's--rather trivially--a perfectly cromulent thing to simply forbid. But what others explicitly said, and you explicitly rejected, was lifting even one finger to try to embrace the tastes or interests of your players if they don't happen to be 100% perfectly your own tastes. Hence my dismay. Adjusting to the tastes and interests of others when it costs you nothing and does you no harm is not at all like letting people smoke in your non-smoking house. It is, instead, being friendly and positive to others--and an absolute refusal to do those things is only barely shy of open insult.

It does cost me free will.

You never did answer "why should I just automatically roll over for players"? Why should anything they say be more important then what I think?

Do I get ANY say as DM? Or do I just sit there and say "as you command"?

For a game example, a couple years ago in a Star Trek Adventure game, the crew of the USS Palomino were trying to stop a Borg cube. They did the old trick of beeming over to the cube to start trouble. On the cube they passed by one of the Borg Nurseries and I describe the little babies with Borg implants (EXACTLY as was shown in the broadcast of TNG's "Q who"). Two players got all triggered and had to leave the game for the night as that was "so horrible" to them. And they left the game over it.

So even trying to do "PG-13" is a waste of time. I just come right out and say "my game is Unrated 100%. If you ever get offended by anything...my game is not for you."

'The game' extends beyond knowing the rules. It includes not monopolizing table time and letting other players speak, not affecting other players play experience, not being a jerk, paying attention, giving roleplaying your best shot, working with the other players, instead of against them etc etc etc.

Hear, hear! I am exactly this sort of Teaching DM.

 

[Vaalingrade]

'The game' extends beyond knowing the rules. It includes not monopolizing table time and letting other players speak, not affecting other players play experience, not being a jerk, paying attention, giving roleplaying your best shot, working with the other players, instead of against them etc etc etc.

Man, someone needs to teach Daddy DMs this stuff.

 

[Flamestrike]

Man, someone needs to teach Daddy DMs this stuff.

You're not covering yourself in glory with these posts mate.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This sounds great, but how does it work?

So you ask each player what 'rating' they want the game and what they don't like. Then WHATEVER they randomly say, you just say "yes, It will be so"? Why do THEY get that power? Why can they say "we don't want X" in the game? Why does the DM just roll over and say "ok"? And what about the DM? Don't they get a say?

And if you don't want to run that, you just say 'well I'm not good running a game with X or without Y. Is there a compromise we can reach? If not, I'll just not run the game and you can find someone else.

You do not just do what you want anyway because you're the DM and you're going to force them to do what you want.

The MD isn't Daddy. The DM isn't the Alpha of the group. The DM isn't In Charge. They're the player entrusted in running the game for everyone. If they break that trust, they are not worthy of the position.

 

[Flamestrike]

And if you don't want to run that, you just say 'well I'm not good running a game with X or without Y. Is there a compromise we can reach? If not, I'll just not run the game and you can find someone else.

God of Gods Daddy DM!!!

How dare you moral police me! That's not your job to tell me how to engage in the social contract of the table. You're interfering with my agency! All I wanted to do was murder the rest of the PCs and take their loot!

In all seriousness, explain to me now how you doing the above is NOT teaching someone the game?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Example for @Vaalingrade

Assume a group of 4 have been playing together for a year, playing a heroic campaign and working well together. Steve (one of the players) indicates his new GF Sarah would like to join the group. She hasn't played before.

The DM is teaching the game when he sits down with Sarah and runs through how to create her character, and how her class features work, and how the round and turn structure works, and how she can use her skills and abilities, and how general play goes.

Let's assume Sarah creates a LG Paladin (the party need some extra healing and frontline fighting).

During the 1st session, Sarah is on watch while the rest of the party sleep. Sarah turns to the DM and says 'I murder the rest of the party in their sleep and take their stuff'. The other players are shocked and clearly upset by this.

@Vaalingrade you're the DM. What do you do?

Step 1: Don't care about alignment at all.

Step 2: As part of the session 0, explain PvP isn't going to be acknowledged along with any other boundaries the group has previously established to Sarah.

Step 3: If PvP is attempted, don't acknowledge it.

Step 4: If there's a problem, don't try and punish someone in-game and have a discussion outside of game. If the group can't reconcile, the group can decide if someone needs to find another table.

 

[Vaalingrade]

God of Gods Daddy DM!!!

Something something hypocrisy, something something covering in glory.

How dare you moral police me! That's not your job to tell me how to engage in the social contract of the table. You're interfering with my agency! All I wanted to do was murder the rest of the PCs and take their loot!

In all seriousness, explain to me now how you doing the above is NOT teaching someone the game?

Saying I'm not going to do something is neither policing anyone, nor teaching. It's making the choice not to do something. Is not going to a movie teaching people not to make that movie?

 

[Flamestrike]

Step 2: As part of the session 0, explain PvP isn't going to be acknowledged along with any other boundaries the group has previously established to Sarah.

Step 3: If PvP is attempted, don't acknowledge it.

Why?

Explain to me how the above is NOT teaching Sarah about the game or policing the morality of her stated actions (by refusing to even acknowledge them and refusing to let her perform them).

Because sure as heck, Sarah leaves the table with no doubts about the social contract, or what's expected of her in the game.

Step 1: Don't care about alignment at all.

So, if I was playing a mass murdering genocidal torturing psychopath in your games, but had 'LG' written on my character sheet, Youd rule the following game effects targeted me as if I was 'good':


And would also rule I went to the Seven Heavens on my PCs death?

 

[Flamestrike]

Something something hypocrisy, something something covering in glory.

I was being ironic and pointing out your hypocrisy actually.

Saying I'm not going to do something is neither policing anyone, nor teaching. It's making the choice not to do something.

Lol.

Luke Skywalker refusing to strike down his father strongly disagrees with this.

And you ARE teaching. Players look to you as the DM (and to other players) for how to play the game, and for guidance. If you tell them 'X is not allowed in my games, for reason Y' and also ignore players that try and do those things anyway, that's both a rule (X not allowed) and a lesson (The lesson being: The DM can and will ignore or even boot jerks from the game, so dont be a jerk).