D&D 5E A change of perspective: From DM to Player

[MNblockhead]

I wish I could be a player too, but it usually just ends up with me being unhappy about DM decisions. I guess I'm stuck with being DM.

When I play, I put myself in the mindset that the DM is in charge of rulings. My players a great about this and I feel I owe the same to the GM. I can get annoyed when I play by RAW only to fail because the DM interprets a rule "incorrectly" or just doesn't know a rule and makes something up, but I just roll with it.

When I run a game, I don't mind a bit a rules lawyering. I actually find it fun if it doesn't derail things too much. I may say "this is what I rule so we can move on," but I'll usually leave time to discuss after the game or will discuss by e-mail between games. But many, many, many DMs find any hint of rules-lawyering by players to be an affront to their role, a challenge to their rule, and the epitome of poor gaming etiquette; so I generally keep any rules-related disagreements to myself. I always have EN World to scratch that itch.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

My main problem is when the DM intentionally doesn't follow RAW and doesn't consider Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford tweets as how it should be done. Like I'm fine if he makes mistakes when he corrects them after I provided sufficient evidence, but some DMs are like "That ruling is stupid, I'll stick with mine" and that just makes me want to instant quit. For me the DM is basically just another player, he doesn't make the campaign nor the rules.

 

[Kalshane]

I think that optimization is a trap most of the time, as many times the DPR eats up a character potential to be awesome. And I cannot avoid to feel shivers when anyone talk about "builds" instead of characters: as if the characters were a Magic: The Gathering deck prepared to compete. D&D is a cooperation game, you are not competing with anyone in your table, and overspecialization most of the time cripples a character when he doesn't use it's powers. Take for example the Dex fighter in my table: he is very useful to do damage. Not much more. He can pick a lock ok, but he is so straight jacket that when we had to climb a tower I had to save him twice because he "dumped" strength. The same with many characters I see posted on these forums. Many won't survive a night on any of our games. Most multiclassed characters, EG, have not sense (why a paladin would multiclass as warlock?).

We've got a Paladin 2/Warlock 7 in the current game I'm playing in. His backstory is he's the child of a powerful fiend (though he didn't know it originally). He started to train as a paladin before his mother revealed herself to him and offered him power to "keep him safe". He agreed and walked away from his paladin order before taking the oath. He's a bladelock and normally just chops things with his giant pact blade, only using Eldritch Blast when there's an enemy he can't get to in a single round and uses his Warlock spells to supplement his melee ability. All in all, he's a pretty interesting character. So it can be done. (One of these days I'd like to make an elven or half-elven Ancients Paladin/Fey Pact Warlock whose Oath is what ties him to his Patron. Not even sure what levels he'll take in which class, I just like the concept.)

 

[Kalshane]

My main problem is when the DM intentionally doesn't follow RAW and doesn't consider Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford tweets as how it should be done. Like I'm fine if he makes mistakes when he corrects them after I provided sufficient evidence, but some DMs are like "That ruling is stupid, I'll stick with mine" and that just makes me want to instant quit. For me the DM is basically just another player, he doesn't make the campaign nor the rules.

See, I figure its the DM's game, not mine. I'll pipe in and say "I think RAW is meant to be this" but don't generally make a big thing about it. The only time I stood my ground was when the DM was going to nearly TPK us by ruling Cloudkill hits you twice before you can react to it (he was ruling that the creation of the spell counted as first entering the area and then it hits you again at the start of your turn, rather than Sage Advice's clarification that "entering" requires the target to move into it, rather than having it created/moved onto them.)

 

[ccs]

My main problem is when the DM intentionally doesn't follow RAW and doesn't consider Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford tweets as how it should be done. Like I'm fine if he makes mistakes when he corrects them after I provided sufficient evidence, but some DMs are like "That ruling is stupid, I'll stick with mine" and that just makes me want to instant quit. For me the DM is basically just another player, he doesn't make the campaign nor the rules.

Then you'll hate me.
I'm not on FB, Twitter, etc. I never read Sage Advice. So unless someone here is discussing it, I never see whatever Crawford, Mearls, etc has said on a subject. And I don't care.
Because:
1)By the time they've weighed in on the subject? Me & mine have already determined a solution that works for us. And since our happiness is all that matters around our tables.... If we add a new member & they don't like our solution? Then we discuss it as a group. In most cases the newcomer simply has to adapt to how we've chosen to do things. You know, "When in Rome" & all. And we're the Romans.

2) I'll excuse typos & printing errors. Sometimes though those really do need corrected. But beyond that I don't have much respect for designers who constantly need to clarify their work, issue errata, etc.
(You can imagine my disdain for the heaps of errata & clarifications from 3x/4e/PF.)
Sorry, you wrote the book. You had your chance. And you gave me something that I had to fix. So I'm not going to waste my time dwelling upon what else you have to say on the subject as I've already fixed it.

3) I'm not running AL stuff.

4) "While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable - anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee thinks should be changed. This is not to say everything in this booklet should be discarded! All of this material has been carefully thought out and playtested. However, if, after playing the rules as written for a while, you, or your referee (the Dungeon Master)think that something should be changed, first think about how the changes will affect the game, and then go ahead. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."
(emphasis theirs)

This quote comes from page B3 of my Moldvay Basic rule book that started me gaming 36 years ago. It's been serving me well ever since. Read the rules, try the rules as is, change as desired after considering their effects.
Similar advice is found in the 1e DMG.
D&D is MEANT to be changed to suit the individual groups & their DMs.

but some DMs are like "That ruling is stupid, I'll stick with mine" and that just makes me want to instant quit.

"Ammunition (such as arrows, bolts, or sling stones) doesn't come in magical versions. You can't craft (or find) a +1 flameburst arrow or a +3 sling stone."

THIS bit of moronic drivel hails from page 232 of the 4e PHB. This is a stupid rule. A prime example of "Yeah, I like my house rule better. (there were magic arrows in my 4e game).
We are afterall playing D&D where we have everything from glowing rocks on up to flying castles, player controlled black holes, & every other magical thing you can imagine. Including gods & dimension hopping.
So WT9Hells were Heinsoo/Collins/Wyatt smoking when they wrote this rule?

For me the DM is basically just another player, he doesn't make the campaign nor the rules.

I assume by this you only play published adventures? And that the PCs only do actions anticipated by the authors of those adventures?

 

[Rhenny]

It is great that you got the chance to play, especially since you were getting a little burnt out DMing.

I love to play on both sides, DMing some and playing some, and I totally relish the freedom that playing affords.

I've learned a lot by being both a DM and a player. Perspective is a great teacher. When I DM, I worry about too much, and tend to think too critically. As a DM, I'm always worried about if my encounters are too easy, too hard, interesting enough, complex enough, simple enough, inspirational enough and I worry about whether I'm providing ample interaction/roleplaying, exploration and combat. Very rarely do I feel as if I hit it right until my players tell me they've enjoyed the game or they show me through their enthusiasm.

On the other hand, when I play, I become more immersed in my character and I worry less. As a player, I never feel that a combat is too easy, or worry about how much roleplaying, exploration or combat we have. I end up realizing how even small decisions and the fear of a surprise encounter or a sudden twist could change the way the entire session feels/runs. I also realize how much I like to keep the story moving and develop my character through roleplaying and leveling up.

As for optimization, I tend to make bigger decisions about my character concept first (which includes making choices that add to the concept and fun of playing it), but I still optimize within that character concept to some extent - so in a way, I put concept/fun first, but optimize along with that. With 5e it is certainly less important to optimize. Even characters that are a few levels below others in the same party tend to contribute to the party during an average session, and if a DM keeps variety in mind (interaction, exploration and combat) most PCs get chances to shine at different times even when they are not optimized for a particular role/task.

 

[Erechel]

We've got a Paladin 2/Warlock 7 in the current game I'm playing in. His backstory is he's the child of a powerful fiend (though he didn't know it originally). He started to train as a paladin before his mother revealed herself to him and offered him power to "keep him safe". He agreed and walked away from his paladin order before taking the oath. He's a bladelock and normally just chops things with his giant pact blade, only using Eldritch Blast when there's an enemy he can't get to in a single round and uses his Warlock spells to supplement his melee ability. All in all, he's a pretty interesting character. So it can be done. (One of these days I'd like to make an elven or half-elven Ancients Paladin/Fey Pact Warlock whose Oath is what ties him to his Patron. Not even sure what levels he'll take in which class, I just like the concept.)

Absolutely anything can be made our of the blue. It's not that hard, also, but that doesn't mean that is actually a good concept. Yes, I believe that you could actually made a backstory about something weird, but also there is no reason for, other than "I want to have that and that power". If I would DM your character, I would actually rip the paladin's connections to their gods in the very moment that you pacted with a fiend. Archfiends and good gods don't get along. Smiting, Lay on Hands and any aura/ power would be gone. That character will only be a second-class fighter, and a good warlock.

It would be Ok an archfey pact-ancient's oath, from a RP standing point. But, fiend? Nah. I don't really like blackguards unless they were that from the very beginning.

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm glad you found you enjoy playing. I myself enjoy alternating DMing and Playing each week. The downside of DMing a lot is you have to find a DM that's at least comparable to yourself in skill. I've played under DMs who were... less skilled... and found the games to be wanting. Under a DM I consider superior to myself, Playing is the greatest thing ever!

 

[KarinsDad]

My main problem is when the DM intentionally doesn't follow RAW and doesn't consider Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford tweets as how it should be done. Like I'm fine if he makes mistakes when he corrects them after I provided sufficient evidence, but some DMs are like "That ruling is stupid, I'll stick with mine" and that just makes me want to instant quit. For me the DM is basically just another player, he doesn't make the campaign nor the rules.

Not to insult you at all because I know nothing about you, but some of us old time D&D DMs/players (I have been playing for almost 40 years) sees some of this stuff about RAW, and online sources, and such to be part of a societal shift towards player's prerogative that appears to be a bit much. We've played for a long time with "it's the DM's game, he makes the rules". Most of that comes from the extra effort that the DM puts in that other players do not. Granted, any player can quit any game for whatever reason he wants (I quit a few games over the years), but quitting because the DM has some special adjudications or house rules that are not ones from Sage Advice seems a bit excessive. Not agreeing with how the DM adjudicated a ruling is one thing, but not agreeing because of an online authority seems perplexing. I personally disagree with Sage Advice and Jeremy about a quarter of the time.

The Rules As Written just happens to be a set of rules/guidelines that a given team of designers put together. With a different team of designers, an entirely different set of rules would be in play (and still be called D&D). The important thing is whether the players (including the DM) are having fun, not detailed minutia on a few sets of rules out of hundreds or thousands of rules. At least, IMO. The DM is the authority and most DMs are reasonable. In fact, I find most DMs to be more reasonable than some players (but there can be hidebound DMs as well).

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

It is great to spend some time on the other side of the GM screen. I last played D&D in 2E (apart from a bit of time in NWN) and I am really enjoying 5E.

The comments about optimization intrigue me, given that poster's character is above average in five ability scores. I wonder how the experience would have changed if five of them had been below average instead? I'm thinking it would still be positive, since ability modifiers aren't the game-breakers they used to be.