D&D 5E Bad Wrong Fun

[Musing Mage]

I've noticed a trend I've luckily not yet had happen to me personally - that being players dictating to the DM how the game should be run. So that's a big no-no for me.

There are certainly ways to talk to a DM about their game if it's not fun, or if the DM asks for input, and certainly you should be able to ask if something you want to try is okay if it falls outside of established parameters... but to DEMAND things out of someone else's game is entitlement at its worst.

On the PvP front, I am cool with it as both DM and Player with the caveat that as long as any conflicts are purely 'character' conflicts and not player conflicts. If everyone at the table is on the same page then all is well.

 

[Shiroiken]

It really depends on how you view badwrongfun. To me it's a style of play, not just a person (player or DM) being a <insert expletive of choice>. Inter-party conflict can be good IME, so long as everyone accepts it's only in the game, not bringing it into real life. That was the style of gaming I grew up with, and honestly my current group's communist treasure style bugs the crap out of me. Lots of this type of stuff is fine, so long as everyone understands up front. Changing rules mid-campaign isn't fair to players, nor is it to the DM to derail the campaign just for fun.

For me, the style of play that's badwrongfun is the over the top anime style, where everything's hyped to a 1000%. Mechanically it can be exactly the same, but it just bugs me. I had an argument about it back on the old WotC forums, where one DM thought that letting a PC literally jump up to the moon was a cool idea, whereas that makes my teeth itch. I've got no problem with people who want to play that way, but I detest people who want to make that the default.

 

[prabe]

"Because I don't like them" is the precise amount of explanation required. No more is needed: it's the DM's world and if you don't like what she's done with it then sure, ask questions (gawd knows I do, often enough!); but in the end you're stuck with whatever the answer is.

If the DM sees Dragonborn as monsters first and PCs never (and that'd be me, by the way), then trying to play one is either going to be met with a flat "No" or a warning that you're giving yourself a severe challenge and to have a second character on standby for when - not if - the Dragonborn gets killed either by the party or the locals.

If the DM doesn't like a character option (folk, class, subclass) then I'd argue it's better to disallow them than to allow a player to make, e.g., a dragonborn, and then punish that character for existing. The warning seems like a reasonable approach, though I'd like to think it might take the form of some discussion--I'd be curious to know why something was being disallowed or discouraged (and the fact I'd be curious about the thought process doesn't mean that "because I don't like them" isn't reason enough)..

 

[Lanefan]

If the DM doesn't like a character option (folk, class, subclass) then I'd argue it's better to disallow them than to allow a player to make, e.g., a dragonborn, and then punish that character for existing.

I agree, flat-out banning is the better option.

But, if someone's hell-bent on doing it anyway (or during char-gen the randomness of the dice gives something truly bizarre as a PC; it happens now and then when someone chooses to roll for 'race' and gets the wacko end of the table) then after the warning, let 'em have at it.

I ran into this from the other side during my 3e-playing days: someone brought a Half-Dragon into the party. I kid you not, my PC's immediate in-character reaction on seeing it went: "I've spent half my adult life training up on how to kill things like this and now I'm expected to run with one? You're kidding, right?". But, even after a start like that, in it came.

Numerous in-character arguments followed, but it soon became clear arguing was all we could do: this Half-Dragon (something of a powergamer's dream) could have single-handedly squashed half the party on a whim had we ever decided to fight it. Our only chance would have been to hit it with a save-or-die; and its saving throws were stupendous assuming one could get past the MR in the first place. And - dammit! - my character was far too noble to let the monsters kill it....

 

[Wishbone]

I ran into this from the other side during my 3e-playing days: someone brought a Half-Dragon into the party. I kid you not, my PC's immediate in-character reaction on seeing it went: "I've spent half my adult life training up on how to kill things like this and now I'm expected to run with one? You're kidding, right?". But, even after a start like that, in it came.

Numerous in-character arguments followed, but it soon became clear arguing was all we could do: this Half-Dragon (something of a powergamer's dream) could have single-handedly squashed half the party on a whim had we ever decided to fight it. Our only chance would have been to hit it with a save-or-die; and its saving throws were stupendous assuming one could get past the MR in the first place. And - dammit! - my character was far too noble to let the monsters kill it....

If the player was being fair about it it sounds like that provides a lot of opportunity for run roleplay from how you described the character dynamics.

 

[Lanefan]

If the player was being fair about it it sounds like that provides a lot of opportunity for run roleplay from how you described the character dynamics.

Oh it was. Went on for a year or so, then things escalated: the Half-Dragon killed my other PC during an in-party brawl then turned his back on a gauntlet thrown at his feet (yes, literally!) by another PC. There was, I gather, some quiet rejoicing when said Half-Dragon perished vs a monster an adventure or so later; but I wasn't there by then as I'd left the game, not due to this but more because I needed the time to develop and boot my own campaign (in other words, I was on my way out anyway); which started a few months later.

 

[R_J_K75]

One guy has no interest in anything so the whole time we drag him along (ugh).

The rest of the party should just kill him outright, thatd be "Great Right Fun". Kidding aside if this person showed up to play at my table with that attitude Id just ask them to leave and dont come back. Thats why I generally only play with friends and people I know to avoid this problem.

 

[MNblockhead]

Whatever other people do in their games is no business of mine.

If I join a new group, I have two main criteria for whether I will keep playing with them. (1) The game must be funny. (2) The game must be productive. If those two things are true, then I'm in and I don't particularly care how we get there (within reason).

Do you ever play at least one shots that are more serious? I generally like my games to have humor in them, but I find constant slap stick tiresome. Playing the game like a comedy improv event can work when trying to entertain an audience (e.g. Acquisitions Incorporated or Dragon Friends) but other than systems designed for it (e.g. Paranoia), I've never particularly enjoyed tables that play this way.

 

[R_J_K75]

I agree, flat-out banning is the better option.

But, if someone's hell-bent on doing it anyway (or during char-gen the randomness of the dice gives something truly bizarre as a PC; it happens now and then when someone chooses to roll for 'race' and gets the wacko end of the table) then after the warning, let 'em have at it.

I ran into this from the other side during my 3e-playing days: someone brought a Half-Dragon into the party. I kid you not, my PC's immediate in-character reaction on seeing it went: "I've spent half my adult life training up on how to kill things like this and now I'm expected to run with one? You're kidding, right?". But, even after a start like that, in it came.

Numerous in-character arguments followed, but it soon became clear arguing was all we could do: this Half-Dragon (something of a powergamer's dream) could have single-handedly squashed half the party on a whim had we ever decided to fight it. Our only chance would have been to hit it with a save-or-die; and its saving throws were stupendous assuming one could get past the MR in the first place. And - dammit! - my character was far too noble to let the monsters kill it....

How did the DM even let this character in the game. I agree with your initial reaction to the half-dragon. Sounds like complete nonsense.

 

[Campbell]

Anyone (including the GM) who does not see the other players as creative peers worthy of respect and callobaration. The GM generally goes first. They absolutely should have a creative vision of the game they are proposing to run. However if I am going to be part of the game everyone at that table should be expected to creatively contribute and value other people's contributions.

Not respecting people's boundaries. We all have emotional and creative boundaries. Regardless of who sits where those boundaries should be respected. It might be the case that sometimes we have irreconcilable differences or that a given game might not be one we should play together, but respect for each other should be non-negotiable.

Not approaching the game as a curious explorer of the fiction. We (including the GM) should be playing to find out what happens. Ideally the GM is responsible for framing (setting the initial situation) ,players decide how their characters respond, and the game decides what happens. When any player (including the GM) decides what another players' character should do (how they should respond to the framing) or what should happen and tries to manipulate the game to achieve those results I am not having fun.

Likewise when I am the GM if I present a situation I get fairly annoyed when other players try to determine what I want them to do instead of just playing their characters to the hilt. I am not a fan of plot coupons on either side of the screen.

Being a passive player. This is probably going to sound harsher than I mean it to. We all came together to play a game. My personal expectation is that any player at the table should put real effort into being a fan of all the players' characters, understanding what is happening in the fiction, and playing their character. I grade based purely on effort here and will help anyone who is putting in genuine mental energy. I just think you have to try.

Not being a fan of all the characters. I have mentioned this elsewhere, but it is that important to me. Role-playing games are collaborative. We should honor and take an active interest in each others contributions. I should be excited when the spotlight is on your character because I want to know what they'll do and how it turns out. Same thing in reverse. Otherwise we are playing Solitaire.