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

[Mournblade94]

Im turning g people away in my games grouos full. I coukd fill another grouo easily enough.

One pkayer is afk until May so I've got 5.

Right now the hard lines are flyers and twilight clerics things like that.

I'm not going to have anyone refuse to okay because ive banned those things. If they would refuse I dont want them.

Compromise on Twilight domain is 3pp moon doman. Flyers are Aasimar.

Just had 4 0eople drop $50 each to play and looks like im invited to another game (assuming it hapoens).

I told you a long time ago to train your DM. You didnt want to do that. Your choice.

Two of my players are dipping their toes in DM pool. A 3rd has DMed previously.

Im turning players away atm and of got 5 regulars and a 6th currently in Japan (via Malaysia).

We've got connections over 3 or 4 stores only way in is via grandfather clause. That being if a previous player we liked comes out of the woodwork. Friend of a friend wont get you in.

Grandfather clause has been relevant twice in recent years.

I've also got enough connections built up I get game invites. I've inherited entire groups when they've self destructed (not involving me).

That game I'm potentially playing in was self destructed. DM quit, second one is leaving and my players stepping in for new game.

This is why we're not worried about recruitment. Join our groups you can be in it for years. Word gets around. I'll probably get you to level 9-13 which is usually higher than every other group.

ENworlds always nitpicking about stupid crap. D&Ds primarily a social game. Best edition is what you can find players for. Best games and campaigns are best DMs and players combined.

Out in the wild players dont generally care if a DM restricts stuff. Restricting PHB might but I had little issue running OSR games which nukes half the pbh option in modern D&D.

Oh definitely. Its like the internet makes people forget how the real in person world works. But even in my online games where I am still running the campaign I'm invested in, I can't remember a player that started playing and left due to the restrictions. Its all blown way out of reality.

 

[tetrasodium]

Oh definitely. Its like the internet makes people forget how the real in person world works. But even in my online games where I am still running the campaign I'm invested in, I can't remember a player that started playing and left due to the restrictions. Its all blown way out of reality.

I think there are some people who only play online expecting that experience to be universal rather than hard to grasp too. The ease overabundance of available players to choose from has been mentioned multiple times by multiple posters throughout the thread, here is one from me taking about throwing out stale unused waiting lists & I'm sure it's not an unusual thing.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm turning people away in my games groups full. I could fill another group easily enough.
I'm not going to have anyone refuse to okay because I've banned those things. If they would refuse I dont want them.
I'm turning players away atm and of got 5 regulars and a 6th currently in Japan (via Malaysia).
We've got connections over 3 or 4 stores only way in is via grandfather clause. That being if a previous player we liked comes out of the woodwork. Friend of a friend wont get you in.
Grandfather clause has been relevant twice in recent years.
This is why we're not worried about recruitment. Join our groups you can be in it for years. Word gets around. I'll probably get you to level 9-13 which is usually higher than every other group.

Sorry, I trimmed out all the irrelevant tangents.

I find it funny that you responded EzekielRaiden's post about the idea of the DM owing something to his players with "players are expendable, I have a wait list." This is the most Post-Capitalist mindset I can imagine. "I don't have to take care of my customers, they will take what I give and if they don't like it, they will be replaced with a new one." is why so many companies enslopifies their products and services. And the notion that players will put up with it isn't the point. The point is even if you are honestly a good person, this type of rhetoric reads that individual players aren't important to you and that they are so replaceable that there is no need to cater to them.

That is something bigger and more important than restrictions, its a feeling that if players are disposable, there is no reason to treat them as anything but.

Out in the wild players dont generally care if a DM restricts stuff. Restricting PHB might but I had little issue running OSR games which nukes half the pbh option in modern D&D.

I might not bounce because a few optional rules aren't available, but I'm sure as hell bouncing if have the PHB is gone!

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry, I trimmed out all the irrelevant tangents.

I find it funny that you responded EzekielRaiden's post about the idea of the DM owing something to his players with "players are expendable, I have a wait list." This is the most Post-Capitalist mindset I can imagine. "I don't have to take care of my customers, they will take what I give and if they don't like it, they will be replaced with a new one." is why so many companies enslopifies their products and services. And the notion that players will put up with it isn't the point. The point is even if you are honestly a good person, this type of rhetoric reads that individual players aren't important to you and that they are so replaceable that there is no need to cater to them.

That is something bigger and more important than restrictions, its a feeling that if players are disposable, there is no reason to treat them as anything but.


I might not bounce because a few optional rules aren't available, but I'm sure as hell bouncing if have the PHB is gone!

As a "customer".... how much do you typically pay the gm on average? Is the rate a per campaign per session per turn or something else?

I suppose this also deserves an answer from the other folks who have been arguing that the gm must never say no to players too

 

[AlViking]

Sorry, I trimmed out all the irrelevant tangents.

I find it funny that you responded EzekielRaiden's post about the idea of the DM owing something to his players with "players are expendable, I have a wait list." This is the most Post-Capitalist mindset I can imagine. "I don't have to take care of my customers, they will take what I give and if they don't like it, they will be replaced with a new one." is why so many companies enslopifies their products and services. And the notion that players will put up with it isn't the point. The point is even if you are honestly a good person, this type of rhetoric reads that individual players aren't important to you and that they are so replaceable that there is no need to cater to them.

That is something bigger and more important than restrictions, its a feeling that if players are disposable, there is no reason to treat them as anything but.


I might not bounce because a few optional rules aren't available, but I'm sure as hell bouncing if have the PHB is gone!

My preferences are not going to match up to what everyone wants. At the same time I have no issue filling my table with players that like or at the very least perfectly fine with my preferences. Why would I add people to my table who don't want what I and the other players want? I already have as many players (and groups) as I can want and can handle.

Should I allow a player who wants to run an evil PC even though I and no one else at the table wants that?

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not included in that everyone?

This. The idea that the DM should be subservient to the players and sacrifice his fun is absurd. Nobody is above any other with regard to enjoyment of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Surely, but the issue keeps coming down to your happiness seems to trump anyone else's.

No. It comes down to the DM's happiness isn't trumped, either.

 

[Maxperson]

Really what it comes down to is this. If the DM's fun would be negatively impacted by a player playing a tortle PC, some sort of compromise should be attempted. If a compromise can't be had, like say the player insists on playing the tortle and won't accept anything less, then someone needs to change his mind.

The DM will lose enjoyment of the game guaranteed if the tortle is played. The player, though, will also enjoy playing some other race, like an elf, goliath or dwarf. There is only one outcome where both sides don't lose out on enjoyment of the game, and that's if the player just plays something else.

I suppose there could be a few players out there who can only ever have fun with one race, but I've certainly never met one.

This isn't a case where the DM is insisting on his fun over the player. It's a case where the only way both get to have fun is if the player just picks something else. Assuming a compromise couldn't be reached.

 

[Maxperson]

It's very clear at this point that no one is winning anything here.

Psh! Such a pessimist. We still have a shot at winning the longest thread title.

 

[Scott Christian]

Why does your example assume the player is a complete random stranger?

Why does your example assume the GM is playing host?

Why is the GM's pitch so wafer-thin and yet apparently completely immovable?

Why have you skipped all possible discussion and context before a decision must be made?

The reason I stated the premise like this is because in my experience that is generally how new people are brought into a group. Basically an established player meets or knows someone that wants to play, there is an opening in the campaign (like starting a new campaign or a great spot to enter a campaign), and then they invite them over.

But all of that is beside the point. I have seen this example happen, and I have also been the person brought in. I have never, in my 40 years of being a DM or player, not seen at least one limitation set by the DM. Sometimes it's about backstory, other times it's about not allowing spells or classes, other times it's about not allowing a species, and other times it is about not allowing a certain rule. I have seen the reverse true too, giving players extra additions to their backstory, extra spells, extra classes, extra species, etc.

But this example is just a common way people join a gaming group. The host and DM are different people. It is a simple yes or no. There is no judgement on my part. I just want to see what people think.