D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Remathilis]

Then just find another group. When during covid the current in-person game broke down because of LAW, I found an online game in like two hours to get my D&D fix.

The Campaign I'm DMing also only runs once a month, because I have two small kids and don't have more time right now. All my players also have other games that they are playing regularly.

"Sorry guys, I would rather play online with a bunch of strangers than play Spelljammer with you." is probably a good way to make sure you don't get pinged when the next game rolls around!

But then again, I would rather not run Spelljammer than run something so odious that a player (a friend of mine) would prefer to bail than play. Because again, I see game as an activity between friends first and an artistic endeavor second. Which is why I won't propose something people aren't interested in and if there is enough opposition, I move on to a different idea rather than forcing ultimatums.

 

[AlViking]

Yeah, they do. The DM is building a playground for the players. They have a responsibility to them. If they want to world build purely for their own amusement, that’s fine, Tolkien did it, but they are not entitled to have other human beings perform in it for their entertainment.

I've used my world for many different campaigns, several different groups. I'm not building it for an individual, I'm building it for dozens of players that may filter in and out over time. So if my world building doesn't fit for you exactly we'll see if we can make it work but if we can't it's not for you.

The successful DM building a world only for their enjoyment is a strawman.

 

[AlViking]

What are you limits atm?

Mine are no flyers, silvery barbs, twilight clerics.

5.5 PHB, Xanathars (ask for classes though) and Mordenkainens multiverse are generally fine. Artificers fine.

I have a list of species allowed. Other than that there's not a lot. Banishment doesn't send an extraplanar creature back home unless they were just summoned, long distance teleportation can be a bit wonky and you don't automatically learn the sigil patterns with teleportation circle. I don't have the Strixhaven book so silvery barbs isn't a thing. Other than that I don't currently have any munchkin players so I haven't had to ban any subclasses. The players know that no matter what they do I can and will counter their power creep so it hasn't generally been an issue.

For some things I just rely on detente. They start spamming counterspell, I'll just add more NPCs that can counter their counterspell and things like that.

 

[AlViking]

I find it interesting that you respond to hypotheticals as attacks.


much of this debate I've noticed is not framed as a social activity between equals, but on the context of a manager hiring players. A lot of the language used is that akin to hiring an employee rather than people deciding what to do on a Saturday night. There is no "what do you want to do?" "I dunno what are you up for?" Style of back and forth. There is pitch, offer, negotiate terms, and either accept the terms or move on to the next candidate.

I'm pretty sure that's because a group of friends deciding their Saturday night plans is made amongst equals (or near equals, depending on the ride situation) with a lot of compromise and concessions (we'll see a movie this week, but next let's go to the bar). Whereas the DM is hiring his players for an explicit activity (are you interested in my Dragonlance game?) and there is no expectation of reciprocity (sure, but how about we run Eberron next time?) there is only accepting the terms or not. And how much you can negotiate your salary (can I play a Tortle?) depends on who is hiring.

As someone who DMs primarily and plays occasionally, I see this from both sides. I feel though that the corporate hierarchy way of running the game is not as good as a more equitable method (Marx would have a lot to say on how D&D is run, but I don't want to run afoul of the politics rule). So suffice to say that for most of this conversation, the Tortle isn't the issue, it's the nature of power between DM and player that has been the core of this and I find it no surprise the argument has gone down the way it has.

It's more like your buddy at work saying "Hey, I'm going to Quiznos to grab lunch. Want to come?" When you get there the buddy says "Can you take me to to Subway instead?" Which, if Subway is right next door, not a problem. If it's out of your way or you don't have time or you're not sure you have enough gas or you just really, really hate Subway you have the right to say no because you're the one driving and your buddy knew where you were going.

It's not about "corporate hierarchy", it's different roles in the game. I don't tell the players what they think or do and while the players determine the direction of the campaign they interact with and change the world through their character.

 

[AlViking]

Players give feedback on the proposal. DM adjusts their ideas based on feedback.

Doesn’t build world until the players are agreed.

Or you have several players propose a campaign, the players vote on which idea they like best, and that player becomes the DM.

Players give feedback on guidelines, and they are modified if necessary.

Or they suggest what changes they would like.

The DM gives feedback on the proposed character, and suggests altererations that might make that character work better, or background details that can better connect them to the campaign world.

The difference between democracy and dictatorship is respect for others.

That's one way of doing it but it's a fairly uncommon one as far as I've seen. Most worlds are not built for a specific campaign or even for a specific group of players. Either it's a DM's homebrew or a published setting like FR or Eberron.

 

[Remathilis]

Other than that I don't currently have any munchkin players so I haven't had to ban any subclasses.

Interesting. I would have expected that a setting with such a sharp and defined vision would have had a at least a few "this can't work in my game" subclasses based on flavor/lore. That means I could play a wild magic barbarian, a clockwork sorcerer, a soulknife rogue or a samurai fighter with no issue?

 

[TwoSix]

Thats not the reality of DMs I've encountered. Half come with complete worlds and settings and adventures. Hell, every published WotC adventure is basically this and it is bad sport for players to purposefully break the restraints of a published adventure, because why run Waterdeep Dragon Heist when you plan to just leave the city to become a pirate? And the quality of WotCs published adventures is worse then most homebrewed campaigns I was part of.

You don't want to know my opinion on pre-published adventures.

I'll tell you anyway. I think they're the worst, because they're predicated on centering the importance of a plot over the player characters and their needs.

 

[M_Natas]

"Sorry guys, I would rather play online with a bunch of strangers than play Spelljammer with you." is probably a good way to make sure you don't get pinged when the next game rolls around!

But then again, I would rather not run Spelljammer than run something so odious that a player (a friend of mine) would prefer to bail than play. Because again, I see game as an activity between friends first and an artistic endeavor second. Which is why I won't propose something people aren't interested in and if there is enough opposition, I move on to a different idea rather than forcing ultimatums.

Look, if only D&D is holding your friendgroup together, then there is something wrong.
I also do other stuff with friends, even if we don't play the same D&D game right now.

You seem to have a very specific table relationship and based on that social construct you now want to force all other DMs here to act as if they same specific table relationship applies.

 

[TwoSix]

I've used my world for many different campaigns, several different groups. I'm not building it for an individual, I'm building it for dozens of players that may filter in and out over time. So if my world building doesn't fit for you exactly we'll see if we can make it work but if we can't it's not for you.

The successful DM building a world only for their enjoyment is a strawman.

Yea, that's so different from my experience I can't comment on it. We've always built a game for the group, not a group for the game.

 

[Remathilis]

Look, if only D&D is holding your friendgroup together, then there is something wrong.

No, but when everyone has work and family obligations it's often the easiest way to get everyone in one place.

You seem to have a very specific table relationship and based on that social construct you now want to force all other DMs here to act as if they same specific table relationship applies.

Yes, it's called "equality." As in I don't feel the need to put my own needs above those of my players. I am the facilitator and host, not their boss. They sacrifice a little of their autonomy to heed my calls, and I in turn make sure their needs are covered. I don't treat them as commodity and I don't expect I can easily replace them with the next Joe who comes down the road.

Radical, I know.