D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[Chaosmancer]

Does when a conversation happens affect whether or not we encounter an irreconcilable situation?

If the problem is the conversation taking up game time, doesn't having time for the conversation solve that problem?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the problem is the conversation taking up game time, doesn't having time for the conversation solve that problem?

Not if it's irreconcilable. Then someone has to make a decision, no matter when the conversation happens.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And? I'm the one running the game. I have a handful of house rules and expectations. If you don't like my restrictions, I have plenty of people willing to play. So are you saying that any restrictions, any restrictions at all are verboten?

Read my post again. I was responding to Swarmkeeper taking EzekielRaiden to task for assuming that no conversation would happen. ANd here you are, stating that basically no conversation would happen. You have plenty of players willing to play, so you don't need to compromise with someone who isn't invested. That doesn't mean that any and all restrictions are inherently evil and cannot happen, that means EzekielRaiden's assumption that them not being completely invested in your idea meaning no conversation will happen and you will move on to a different player were correct and taking them to task for making the assumption was wrong.

A player wants to play an evil PC. I don't want to allow an evil PC and I know at least a few of my current players would not want one at the table either. What discussion are we supposed to have?

Depends. What is meant by evil? I'm certain you have a very specific set of character traits you think of as "evil". What if the player's character idea is evil to them, but you wouldn't define it that way? Then do we have a problem? Seems like that is a conversation that could possibly happen.

Maybe there are specific abilities or story beats they want from being evil, and there is a way to work around it. For example off the top of my head, a cute little comic I know of is about a Demon Queen who is defeated by the heroes, and marries the hero, ending up having a family and being cute and lovey-dovey together. What if the player has an idea inspired by this? Maybe you could say "well, you can't be evil and wanting to murder the party, but being a bit of a tyrannical bully with theatrics is fine."

If you start from the position of "it is impossible to find any compromise on this!!" then of course it is impossible, but people don't always say what they mean. That's why one of the first things I do when I get a weird pitch from a player is ask "what do you mean by that?" or "what do you want from that?" because that is a more pertinent bit of information usually.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As referee my word is law and in this instance I choose not to say anything. Fight it out in character, guys, and let me know when you're done.

Nice side-step of the issue.

You know in many groups, that attitude wil lead to a bunch of pissed off people leaving the table and never coming back, right? It won't happen to you, I know, because none of your friends care enough and they all have multiple years of friendship to handle that, but for a group whose longest relationship is a single year of sort of knowing each other? Group will shatter like ceramic.

 

[Oofta]

Read my post again. I was responding to Swarmkeeper taking EzekielRaiden to task for assuming that no conversation would happen. ANd here you are, stating that basically no conversation would happen. You have plenty of players willing to play, so you don't need to compromise with someone who isn't invested. That doesn't mean that any and all restrictions are inherently evil and cannot happen, that means EzekielRaiden's assumption that them not being completely invested in your idea meaning no conversation will happen and you will move on to a different player were correct and taking them to task for making the assumption was wrong.



Depends. What is meant by evil? I'm certain you have a very specific set of character traits you think of as "evil". What if the player's character idea is evil to them, but you wouldn't define it that way? Then do we have a problem? Seems like that is a conversation that could possibly happen.

Maybe there are specific abilities or story beats they want from being evil, and there is a way to work around it. For example off the top of my head, a cute little comic I know of is about a Demon Queen who is defeated by the heroes, and marries the hero, ending up having a family and being cute and lovey-dovey together. What if the player has an idea inspired by this? Maybe you could say "well, you can't be evil and wanting to murder the party, but being a bit of a tyrannical bully with theatrics is fine."

If you start from the position of "it is impossible to find any compromise on this!!" then of course it is impossible, but people don't always say what they mean. That's why one of the first things I do when I get a weird pitch from a player is ask "what do you mean by that?" or "what do you want from that?" because that is a more pertinent bit of information usually.

Sometimes the answer is a simple yes or no. If I've considered something in depth and my answer is no, the answer is not going to change. Sometimes there is no compromise and that's okay. I'm not the DM for everyone and if I change for one person without taking into consideration the other people at the table then there's a good chance I'm making a change that 6 people out of 7 at the table won't like.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I certainly find it somewhat funny that people who have hard time maintaining a stable gaming group are telling those who have managed to do so for decades how they should do things differently to maintain a stable gaming group.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The DM puts far, far more work into the game than anyone else at the table.

This line of argument always annoys me. Yes, a DM often does more "work" than the players. That is what they CHOSE to do. For many that is what they ENJOY doing. This always reads to me like the person who insists on cooking alone, enjoys cooking, then moaning about how "they slaved away at a hot stove" when if they'd just asked for help they could have gotten it.

I do put in a lot of work as a DM. I enjoy that work. I like that work. I like the opportunity to present something I made to my players. And not a single one of them owes me ANYTHING for that opportunity. They do not need to have any sort of lesser stature at the table because I had the opportunity to be creative and present them with something that brings me so much joy as I see them enjoying it at the table.

If you are so aggrieved being a DM that you need special perks and benefits to make it worthwhile? Stop DMing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not if it's irreconcilable. Then someone has to make a decision, no matter when the conversation happens.

And so we get right back to EzekielRaiden's point, the one that they get raked over the coals and lashed with thorns over. Because we have, immediately, from multiple posters, gone to "but what if it is irreconcilable?"

But you know, Oofta just posted an "irreconcilable" problem not too long ago... and I showed how you can have a conversation about that exact issue. In fact, every single time this gets brought up, the player in question who presents this "irreconcilable" problem must be so extreme, so unwilling to change, such a strawman, that it is almost a comedy skit to read. And when we push back and say "most people are not like that, that is a parody of a person" we get the OTHER thing that Oofta and Paul were just saying. "So what? You think everyone agrees on everything all the time?" like we are some naive children living in a world without conflict.

So, literally every single part of the discussion Ezekiel was getting so frustrated about... has happened. Right here.

 

[Oofta]

And so we get right back to EzekielRaiden's point, the one that they get raked over the coals and lashed with thorns over. Because we have, immediately, from multiple posters, gone to "but what if it is irreconcilable?"

But you know, Oofta just posted an "irreconcilable" problem not too long ago... and I showed how you can have a conversation about that exact issue. In fact, every single time this gets brought up, the player in question who presents this "irreconcilable" problem must be so extreme, so unwilling to change, such a strawman, that it is almost a comedy skit to read. And when we push back and say "most people are not like that, that is a parody of a person" we get the OTHER thing that Oofta and Paul were just saying. "So what? You think everyone agrees on everything all the time?" like we are some naive children living in a world without conflict.

So, literally every single part of the discussion Ezekiel was getting so frustrated about... has happened. Right here.

You didn't "show" anything. You just said the DM should change their mind and allow a player to have an evil PC or redefine evil to mean "they have an attitude but aren't really evil".

 

[Chaosmancer]

I certainly find it somewhat funny that people who have hard time maintaining a stable gaming group are telling those who have managed to do so for decades how they should do things differently to maintain a stable gaming group.

It is certainly amusing that people who have dealt with players having cancer, getting into car accidents, dealing with dying family members seem to think they understand how to talk to people and compromise on in-game features like species and homebrew rules.

Why, OBVIOUSLY the two are inherently linked together and MUST be working in tandem!