D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Lanefan]

I think this is where the pushback is coming from you not liking the "leader role" in 4e -

4e "leaders" generally only gave other players free stuff, they never forced you to use your actions in certain ways.

Then why in the nine hells did they call them "leaders" when their role is more accurately described as "supporter"?

They might change circumstances which could change what options you might choose - but so might any other aspect of the game like dms, dice, narrative, etc.

The warlord isn't making you use an action to attack, they're giving you an absolutely free attack. The only possible reason to reject it you don't want the party to win the fight, which in-universe means you don't want the party to live, since all fights have the possibility of death.

Forced movement (push-pull-slide) leaves me with no choice but to accept it, however, should the leader decide to use it on me.

 

[Necropolitan]

It has nothing to do with entitled. As a GM, you should want to include your player's interests.


As I've stated in many threads, all of my assumptions are that the participants are competent adults who can weed out childish morons like the above example. Players have the responsibility to conform to what has previously been decided when they enter a preexisting game.

I want to include what my players are interested in.

But what's being demanded is that DMs not being able to say "No" and have it be final.

 

[Zardnaar]

And to ensure that cohesive group (as best I can, anyway) I'll be a little bit selective about who I invite into the game.

Put another way, as DM I have the right to not invite them in the first place.

Keep in mind, however, I'm talking exclusively about home games here. At con games and the like you're kinda stuck with whoever you get, and I believe (though I stand to be corrected) the same is true of AL games and similar.

AL collapsed here because if tge. Ant exclude ppl rule. All the DMs quit.

Since then every venue has explicitly backed the DMs. One grouo has gone through 5DMs in 2 years. Not sure if thats typical.

A couple of my players are from imploded games. They love my games by comparison it seems. Havent advertised for players in 2 years got 7 last time I did. Filled three groups cut it down to 1.

 

[Lanefan]

Sigh.

What’s unacceptable, or at least considerably problematic, is the idea that the GM’s pregenerated notes about setting take primacy over a player’s specific interests, in the context of a game system (D&D 5e) that is intended to be cosmopolitan and accepting of distinct character vision.

"Intended to be cosmopolitan" is, for some of us, a flawed premise right out the gate. Ditto "expected to be cosmopolitan".

"Capable of being cosmopolitan"? Sure, no problem.

It comes down to whether one sees the collective books (in any edition) as a toolbox from which to select specific pieces that you want to use or a complete entity that you're expected to use all of. For me, they've always just been a toolbox; a great big collection of options out of which I'll pull the pieces I want to see-have-use in this campaign, while the remainder stays in the now-closed toolbox.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Then why in the nine hells did they call them "leaders" when their role is more accurately described as "supporter"?

because people tend to be less interested in playing such a role if you define it as such.

 

[TwoSix]

It comes down to whether one sees the collective books (in any edition) as a toolbox from which to select specific pieces that you want to use or a complete entity that you're expected to use all of. For me, they've always just been a toolbox; a great big collection of options out of which I'll pull the pieces I want to see-have-use in this campaign, while the remainder stays in the now-closed toolbox.

It absolutely depends on the game (or edition for D&D, which I generally see as separate games).

For AD&D, I would broadly agree with you. For 3e, I’m more ambivalent. For 4e and 5e, which were designed for more modern audiences with modern design precepts, I would disagree.

 

[soviet]

I think a key difference here is who your players are and what your relationship is to them.

I play with people that I've known for multiple decades. If I'm GM and they come to me with an idea that's a bit off the wall, I trust them enough to try to give it proper consideration. And if one of them is the GM I trust them to give my ideas full consideration in the same way. Doesn't mean the answer will be yes, but the idea that either of us would walk over the issue is ridiculous.

If other people only play with strangers, or people they know loosely from the gaming store, then maybe that explains it.

 

[TwoSix]

I think a key difference here is who your players are and what your relationship is to them.

I play with people that I've known for multiple decades. If I'm GM and they come to me with an idea that's a bit off the wall, I trust them enough to try to give it proper consideration. And if one of them is the GM I trust them to give my ideas full consideration in the same way. Doesn't mean the answer will be yes, but the idea that either of us would walk over the issue is ridiculous.

If other people only play with strangers, or people they know loosely from the gaming store, then maybe that explains it.

Agreed. Quite a few posters seem to be coming from a background where they design a campaign setting for weeks/months, and then look for players to fill the table.

That’s so outside my wheelhouse I don’t even know how to discuss it properly.

 

[Remathilis]

OK, let's flip-side this: the DM, already using everything in the book, decides to ADD something to the game that you-as-player don't like or disagree with.

What then?

Such as?

I mean, is it affecting my character? I don't know how the DM adding new classes, species or monsters or whatever directly affects me. If he's adding a new rule (such as critical fumbles) that might warrant a discussion, but that's more a rule change than an addition. You're going to have to really stretch to find something added to the game that ruins what I already have.

 

[Yaarel]

It absolutely depends on the game (or edition for D&D, which I generally see as separate games).

For AD&D, I would broadly agree with you. For 3e, I’m more ambivalent. For 4e and 5e, which were designed for more modern audiences with modern design precepts, I would disagree.

For 3e, I used the 3e SRD as the core, and absolutely anything else was an opt-in splatbook, even the Players Handbook and Monster Manual. The only book we did adopt fully was the Expanded Psionic Handbook.

4e said "all rules are core", and we played that way freely incorporating Dragon articles alongside various books.

5e 2014 said only the three books are core: Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and DMs Guide. But we were happy with Xanathars and Tashas and treated those as canon too. We also incorporated the indy class, LaserLlama's Psion, which is excellent.

5e 2024 said only the three books are core: PH, MM, DMG. But these rules force a choice of setting. So we consider the setting book to necessarily be the "fourth" core rulebook. The setting book can be the DMG Greyhawk setting, or Forgotten Realms books, or Eberron, or Magic The Gathering Strixhaven, or a homebrew in progress. But there must be some choice of setting.