D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Clint_L]

Except it can render threads like this nonsensical, where those posters are posting heavily and triggering others to respond.

Hard disagree. For me, anyway. YVMV. I make extensive use of the ignore feature, and it prunes threads nicely. I can tell from the responses that most of what I am missing is just the same point being belaboured, which is fine, but does not require my active participation.

My personal rule for that feature is: is my interaction with this poster making me feel better or worse? And is it making the forum better or worse? If I'm making the forum worse, I probably should step back, and since I don't always have the self-control to do that on my own, the ignore feature is my friend. Also, I have a writing style that can come off as condescending. It is not intentional, and I swear I try to avoid it, but I know it can rub some folks the wrong way. So the ignore feature is their friend, too.

Those with better discipline than me likely don't need it as much.

 

[Parmandur]

Except it can render threads like this nonsensical, where those posters are posting heavily and triggering others to respond.

Actually I am not having much trouble following the conversation here at all! But a judicious use of Ignore might have made the whole thing way more mellow.

 

[Oofta]

We have discussions like this:

"Hey, DM, I was working on a new character concept, I was using this particular set of rules to try out class X."

"OK, I see, what you're going for. I'm a little worried that class feature Y might cause friction with other player's character, and it overlaps with some NPCs I'm planning on using, and might weaken their impact if you have that ability too."

"That makes sense. Let me work on another concept then."

"No, wait, hold on. If we just adjust this class feature Y to work more like Z, I think we can make this work. Let me check something..."

Both parties are willing to accommodate the other person's ideas, and are willing to change their ideas if it might cause unneeded friction.


If people are actually digging in their heels about a certain game element, then the table is already way too contentious for me.

Player: I want to use X.
DM: I don't allow X [insert reason]. What are you trying to accomplish?
Player: I think X is really cool.
DM: You can't you X, have you considered Y?
Player: I want to use X.

Sometimes compromise simply isn't an option, several choices are simply binary. I don't allow evil PCs for example and I don't really see a lot of in-between with that one, either your PC is evil or they aren't. So having a shady past? Realizing that you wittingly or unwittingly did evil in the past and are trying to make up for it? Cool. Continue to be evil? Nope.

If that means the game is "too contentious" because the DM is trying to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table, including the DM, then you need to find a table that will better suit your needs.

 

[TwoSix]

Player: I want to use X.
DM: I don't allow X [insert reason]. What are you trying to accomplish?
Player: I think X is really cool.
DM: You can't you X, have you considered Y?
Player: I want to use X.

That player doesn't exist at my tables. Period. If I somehow ended up with someone like that as a friend, I simply wouldn't play with them.

Of course, I wouldn't say "I don't allow X" because I allow pretty much everything.

 

[Oofta]

That player doesn't exist at my tables. Period. If I somehow ended up with someone like that as a friend, I simply wouldn't play with them.

Of course, I wouldn't say "I don't allow X" because I allow pretty much everything.

I've had players quit my game because they wanted to run an evil PC. So ... I guess I can also state that the player doesn't exist at my table.

 

[TwoSix]

I've had players quit my game because they wanted to run an evil PC. So ... I guess I can also state that the player doesn't exist at my table.

And that's probably for the best! If my DM says, "Hey, I've had bad experiences with players playing evil PCs in the past. I also like to run games that kinda depend on your PCs being at least somewhat altruistic, so an evil PC would really cause a problem in this campaign.", and the player says "Yea, but I'm gonna be evil anyway.", they'd be out. Do not pass Go, don't collect $200, you're just out.

I don't play with people who think their personal aesthetic preferences trump the overall desires of the group.

 

[FrogReaver]

And that's probably for the best! If my DM says, "Hey, I've had bad experiences with players playing evil PCs in the past. I also like to run games that kinda depend on your PCs being at least somewhat altruistic, so an evil PC would really cause a problem in this campaign.", and the player says "Yea, but I'm gonna be evil anyway.", they'd be out. Do not pass Go, don't collect $200, you're just out.

I don't play with people who think their personal aesthetic preferences trump the overall desires of the group.

I cannot reconcile how this and your earlier position of ‘let the players play whatever they want’ work together.

 

[TwoSix]

I cannot reconcile how this and your earlier position of ‘let the players play whatever they want’ work together.

I, personally, as a DM, would not impose a restriction on evil PCs. I don't have a problem with it.

I, personally, as a player, would respect that the DM has a vision, and will work within the boundaries the DM has established.

To me, it's a simple principle of respect and accommodation. If there's something you want to try as a player, I respect that. If I have a concern that a certain choice you're making might cause a conflict in the game, I expect the player to reciprocate my respect and accommodation with their own.

I don't have restrictions based on a certain vision of how the game is "supposed to" be played. The fact that I'm willing to accommodate all sorts of crazy ideas means that if I do restrict something based on a specific thematic or balance concern, I expect that my decision will also be respected, even if that means the player might not be able to do something. I hardly ever do it, so if I do, the player should understand and accept this is something that I've deemed quite important.

 

[tetrasodium]

We have discussions like this:

"Hey, DM, I was working on a new character concept, I was using this particular set of rules to try out class X."

"OK, I see, what you're going for. I'm a little worried that class feature Y might cause friction with other player's character, and it overlaps with some NPCs I'm planning on using, and might weaken their impact if you have that ability too."

"That makes sense. Let me work on another concept then."

"No, wait, hold on. If we just adjust this class feature Y to work more like Z, I think we can make this work. Let me check something..."

Both parties are willing to accommodate the other person's ideas, and are willing to change their ideas if it might cause unneeded friction.


If people are actually digging in their heels about a certain game element, then the table is already way too contentious for me.

I can't help but notice your example has the "compromise" as the gm completely lifting the restriction on a binary yes/no. That's capitulation not compromise.

Definition of CAPITULATE

to surrender often after negotiation of terms; to cease resisting : acquiesce; parley, negotiate… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Clint_L]

I've had players quit my game because they wanted to run an evil PC. So ... I guess I can also state that the player doesn't exist at my table.

Actually, yeah, this is one rule I set up at session 0: I don't do gratuitously evil campaigns. I'm fine with edgy, and characters sometimes making morally dubious choices. But if you want to RP a psychopath, find a DM who enjoys that.

My #1 priority is that the game has to be fun for me. I don't mind doing 90+% of the work, which is what DMing is, but only if I'm incentivized by getting to have a good time, too. So if I'm not having fun, the campaign will fall apart.