D&D 5E Bad Wrong Fun

[Oofta]

Please note that I actively encourage it when I DM. It's part of what the blank spaces are for, IMO. There aren't a lot of other opportunities for that sort of thing in D&D, so I see no reason not to. It doesn't mean I don't have limits on that, or that I try to do it as a player.

I'm also specifically not saying that a DM who doesn't do it is Doing Things Wrong.

When I do it, I give an outline of established lore and precedence. I'm the story editor and on things like this that happen off-screen I have final say. But if someone wants to come up with addition lore and story that fits into my world view while giving it more depth? Awesome!

 

[CleverNickName]

1. That's a really annoying, passive-aggressive, anti-collaborative way to present he fact about the setting. It assumes that a new player to your table already knows your houserules and mocks them for not knowing things you haven't told them.
2. "I'm running an existing setting, and they don't exist" is a reason, although why they've been removed is still a relevant detail
3. I don't like goblins. Does that mean the dm can't use them? What about other players? Do I as a player have the right to veto them?
4. If the only reason you can give for an action is "because I said so", you do not have a reason beyond personal preference. But any dm that doesn't care about the fun of the players is - well, that's what I'd call badwrongfun. Not caring about the rest of the tab;es fun.
5. At no point did I say players can have whatever they want, and suggesting that I did is a ridiculous strawman.

You're really...assertive about this issue, aren't you? I'm not sure why this is such a sore subject, so I'll drop my snarky CleverNickName persona and answer as thoughtfully and respectfully as I can.

1. I don't really mind if you think my DM style is annoying or passive-aggressive, etc. Your opinion is your own, and you are entitled to it, and I won't try to change it. We disagree, and that's fine.

2. If the DM has removed something from the game, you must trust her to have a good reason for doing so. She can offer explanations or details if she likes, but she needn't justify it to anyone. (I find that this causes arguments, as players take it as an invitation to change the DM's mind.) But at the end of the day: if you can't trust your DM to make these decisions, you have a much bigger issue on your hands. You might need to find a DM you can trust.

3. Players aren't DMs, and don't have the "right to veto" anything that isn't on their character sheet. That said: if you would like something removed from the game (perhaps you have severe arachnophobia, and you would like the DM to remove spiders from the world. Or perhaps you are a survivor of abuse, and you would like the DM to avoid certain scenes and content), you should absolutely and frequently talk to the DM about it. The DM isn't obligated to oblige, but a good one will. This goes back to trust.

4. No reason is needed at all. Even if a reason was needed, "personal preference" is just as valid as any. I hate to keep hammering on this point, but you really have to trust your DM.

5. My example was anecdotal, and my statement wasn't attributed to you as a direct quote. Also, that's not really how a "straw man fallacy" works.

I think that's all I have to say about the topic. I'll put my sarcastic moogle hat back on now.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

4. No reason is needed at all. Even if a reason was needed, "personal preference" is just as valid as any. I hate to keep hammering on this point, but you really have to trust your DM.

Exactly. If you don't like the DM, find a different game. If there isn't another game, start one and run it the way you want.

 

[jmartkdr2]

You're really...assertive about this issue, aren't you? I'm not sure why this is such a sore subject, so I'll drop my snarky CleverNickName persona and answer as thoughtfully and respectfully as I can.
snip

I sincerely doubt you do any of the things I'm calling wrong - I'm sure that when you make a change from the base game, you both have a reason and generally articulate it, and the fact that you normally do is why your players do trust you when you occasionally say "just trust me, okay?" You've earned their trust, they didn't give it blindly the first time you met them.

I'd say that about every regular poster on this board.

Where I get... shirty, is dms who act like tin gods because they're not just bad for the campaign, they're bad for the hobby. Since by assuming they're always right and rejecting player input out the gate, they drive away players and/or foster adversarial attitudes.

So my experience has lead to to conclude that any dm not willing to communicate what they're trying to do should not be trusted, because the only reason to leave the players out of their thinking is that they don't want input from the players. And this dos not, i my experience, change once play begins - the whole game will run without player input.

I've been burned by this more than a couple times. It adds up. Although I know to watch for it now, I can also see it ruining other people's fun, and that bothers me.

 

[prabe]

When I do it, I give an outline of established lore and precedence. I'm the story editor and on things like this that happen off-screen I have final say. But if someone wants to come up with addition lore and story that fits into my world view while giving it more depth? Awesome!

That's not an unreasonable way to look at it. I kinda prefer more of a Q&A approach:

Is there [thing] near/in [place]? Sure.

Can it be [specific thing]? Probably. Something like [idea]?

It fits the backstory better if [change]. That's maybe a bit far, how about [counteroffer]?

etc.

That's how, for example, the monks in the campaigns I'm DMing ended up with their respective monasteries. The Stonestream Cloister is a series of lava tubes in the Black FIeld (a lava flow outside Embernook) and attracts mainly Small-size monks; the Chiaroscuro Temple is in New Arvai and specializes in training Shadow and Radiant Soul monks.

 

[MNblockhead]

What do you try to avoid as DM that you would put up with as a player? In my games, I strongly believe in letting the dice fall where they may. It has led to some anticlimatic situations that really tested my resolve, making me want to "cheat" on some rolls, add back some HP behind the screen, let a recharge happen without a roll, etc. But I can't bring myself to do it. The unexpected ways the dice can take the story are part of what makes it interesting for me. If I let the dice fall where they may and it leads to a lackluster encounter, I feel the issue isn't with me not ignoring the dice for the the story, but rather that I needed to design the encounter better and improve on my improve.

As a player, I put up with dice rolled behind the screen and DM's using rolls as suggestions rather than determinations. But I'm definitely "putting up" with it. It stops being a "game" for me. If I want a story told to me, I'd read a bot or watch a movie.

It is an example where I'm not going to say that others are doing it wrong, but if just feels bad-wrong-fun for me.

 

[Lanefan]

1. That's a really annoying, passive-aggressive, anti-collaborative way to present he fact about the setting. It assumes that a new player to your table already knows your houserules and mocks them for not knowing things you haven't told them.

The fact that the player's asking why Gnomes aren't allowed kinda says said new player has already read (or been told) the houserules at least that far. As for anti-collaborative - it's the DM's world.

4. If the only reason you can give for an action is "because I said so", you do not have a reason beyond personal preference.

Again, it's the DM's world; thus the DM's preference is going to take priority. Sure, a decent DM is likely to discuss and elaborate on what's behind the "because I said so", but she's not obliged to; and in the end her word is law anyway.

But any dm that doesn't care about the fun of the players is - well, that's what I'd call badwrongfun. Not caring about the rest of the tab;es fun.

Depends. If the DM's up-front about what her game world entails and the players still sign up for it, that sounds like goodrightfun to me. A bait-and-switch, where one thing is promised and another delivered or where the parameters of the game change over time*, is almost always bad news.

* - e.g. major on-the-fly rule or setting or even system changes within a campaign.

5. At no point did I say players can have whatever they want, and suggesting that I did is a ridiculous strawman.

It's almost binary, though: either the DM is empowered to enforce the rules of her game and the parameters of her setting (which means while the players can still have input the DM's word is final) or she isn't (which means the players rule the roost). Given that "something in between" is not a valid answer, which do you want?

 

[Lanefan]

And if you can't deal with other people having preferences different from your own, you probably shouldn't be trying to run a collaborative game.

Where do you get this collaborative game idea from?

Sure, the players-as-PCs are probably better off if they collaborate with each other to overcome the game's various challenges, combats and foes; but it's the DM's job to provide that opposition. Part of that process is designing the setting and its parameters, preferably in a neutral and impartial way and - better yet - without even knowing who the players are going to be.

The prospective players are then presented with the setting and some basics, along with any houserules, and invited in on that basis. Said players have the option of declining that invite but if they accept, they accept it all.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The fact that the player's asking why Gnomes aren't allowed kinda says said new player has already read (or been told) the houserules at least that far. As for anti-collaborative - it's the DM's world.
Again, it's the DM's world; thus the DM's preference is going to take priority. Sure, a decent DM is likely to discuss and elaborate on what's behind the "because I said so", but she's not obliged to; and in the end her word is law anyway.
Depends. If the DM's up-front about what her game world entails and the players still sign up for it, that sounds like goodrightfun to me. A bait-and-switch, where one thing is promised and another delivered or where the parameters of the game change over time*, is almost always bad news.

* - e.g. major on-the-fly rule or setting or even system changes within a campaign.

It's almost binary, though: either the DM is empowered to enforce the rules of her game and the parameters of her setting (which means while the players can still have input the DM's word is final) or she isn't (which means the players rule the roost). Given that "something in between" is not a valid answer, which do you want?

Why isn't "something in between" a valid answer? I've been playing that way for almost 40 years now, except those occasions where a dm decides the players opinions are irrelevant. You just listen to each other and explain why you want to make the changes you want to make. At the end of the day the dm gets final say, but that doesn't empower them to make any decision they want regardless of what anyone else thinks - and if they do, they're a bad dm.

 

[Asisreo]

I've had a player demand I give them this magic item at some point in the game or else they can't play their character to their fullest. Yeah, ok. I actually did add it into my world and was going to introduce it in a natural way later down the line. He couldn't quite understand why he had to wait sooo long for an item that would never break the game!

Uh...yeah, ok. Wasn't doing it to nerf him, I had a certain pace I was trying to keep in my game. He roleplayed his character to be distant until he got the magic item. Okay, cool. But he kept expecting me to have him just find this super uncommon item underneath goblin rubble or something. It rubbed me the wrong way how he thought he was entitled to a magic item because he built his character around it. I can respect having a character that wants something, but when the actual player starts getting mad about it...just no.

It especially got on my nerves that he'd try bringing it up with the other players (the ones who didn't build their character around a specific magic item). He eventually got upset and left the group but, uhm, next time don't do that in whatever other game.you find.