Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rya.Reisender" data-source="post: 6811590" data-attributes="member: 6801585"><p>Regarding Sage Advice:</p><p></p><p>It was said that Sage Advice does never change rules but only clarifies how rules has been meant. For me that means if you think that Sage Advice is a houserule, it just means that you interpreted a rule wrong and have a hard time admitting it. </p><p></p><p>If the question doesn't even come up during play it doesn't really matter, so it's no problem if DMs don't actively keep up with Sage Advice.</p><p></p><p>For me Sage Advice is more of a tool to settle discussions globally once and for all. Often when I ask SA to clarify a rule, this comes from page-long discussions on forums how a rule is meant in which people just couldn't agree on something. SA is basically a judge that says which one of the two+ possible interpretations is the correct one. A DM intentionally going against that consequently is a killer for me, because in the end I want to rely on a global understanding of the rules and not re-learn the interpretation per DM.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Regarding the examples given for "Too strict" and "Too much railroading", I see there are quite some different levels here.</p><p></p><p>1. Not allowing alternative solution and making up weird explanations why they don't work --> This one I can understand as long as the explanations really don't make sense. This really shouldn't happen. A DM should be able to work with the ideas players have as long as they are reasonable and possible. On the other hand, players also have to accept that when they have bad ideas, they might actually get a disadvantage rather than the advantage they hoped for.</p><p></p><p>2. Forcing certain locations --> This I would do too to some extend myself. At the very least players need to stay in the scope of the adventure. And the adventure paths actually encourage steering the PCs into the right directions, e.g. they might say something like "If the PCs don't dare care of the threat, make it become more and more horrifying until they can't ignore it anymore". I wouldn't see this a bad railroading, just as making sure the players go somewhere they actually can have fun in.</p><p>Honestly, this almost NEVER comes up in my own games because my PCs voluntary want to go to the right places if I narrate it properly.</p><p>As for choice of the location... it depends on situation! Sometimes players might have the free choice whether to go to Dungeon A or Dungeon B or return to turn, but sometimes, no going from B directly to C can cause the whole campaign to not end well. When players neglect the warning signs and just stay in town all day or mess around, they can't complain when they get swarmed by an army of dragons or elementals or whatever with no chance to survive.</p><p></p><p>3. Making sure on the hand rules --> That's also something I would do myself. Rules are rules. If it was established that you hold a torch and a sword when initiative is rolled you can't start the combat with a shield. Even worse, you need to use a whole action to equip the shield, so you are probably better off not using a shield this combat at all. That should just be a lesson learned and next time the groups gets the Wizard or someone else who doesn't use shields to hold the torch.</p><p>On the other hand, if it wasn't established at all what the character is holding, then I would also find it annoying if the DM just decided that. Holding a torch is a very special case, this establishes what the character is holding. On the other hand, if it wasn't established (e.g. group did a long rest and didn't say that equip their armor and shield after rest), I usually allow the PCs to decide themselves what they are holding and wearing and won't force them to start combat naked (I usually ask my players to tell me what their default equip setup is and then usually roll with that).</p><p></p><p>4. The examples from Ruin Explorer are just horrible DMing. I'd go so far and say a heroic DMPC is already a deal breaker in itself. Sure it's tempting to put yourself into the story like "The group finds a boy, I'll play the boy and at the end the boy casts a holy spell that is the only way to save the world", but I realized that it messes up the decisions I do as DM. I prefer to stay neutral, don't fudge dice and give players a real challenge in which they could actually die and that works best without me playing anyone on the "good" side.</p><p>The orc babies can be more difficult. In that particular situation I would have allowed the players to do it. But I often also find my group wanting to recruit everyone they meet that can hold a sword and I really am against DMPCs, so I often either just OOC tell my players "For your own good, don't do this." or make the NPC make up a reason why he can't join (or usually both).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rya.Reisender, post: 6811590, member: 6801585"] Regarding Sage Advice: It was said that Sage Advice does never change rules but only clarifies how rules has been meant. For me that means if you think that Sage Advice is a houserule, it just means that you interpreted a rule wrong and have a hard time admitting it. If the question doesn't even come up during play it doesn't really matter, so it's no problem if DMs don't actively keep up with Sage Advice. For me Sage Advice is more of a tool to settle discussions globally once and for all. Often when I ask SA to clarify a rule, this comes from page-long discussions on forums how a rule is meant in which people just couldn't agree on something. SA is basically a judge that says which one of the two+ possible interpretations is the correct one. A DM intentionally going against that consequently is a killer for me, because in the end I want to rely on a global understanding of the rules and not re-learn the interpretation per DM. Regarding the examples given for "Too strict" and "Too much railroading", I see there are quite some different levels here. 1. Not allowing alternative solution and making up weird explanations why they don't work --> This one I can understand as long as the explanations really don't make sense. This really shouldn't happen. A DM should be able to work with the ideas players have as long as they are reasonable and possible. On the other hand, players also have to accept that when they have bad ideas, they might actually get a disadvantage rather than the advantage they hoped for. 2. Forcing certain locations --> This I would do too to some extend myself. At the very least players need to stay in the scope of the adventure. And the adventure paths actually encourage steering the PCs into the right directions, e.g. they might say something like "If the PCs don't dare care of the threat, make it become more and more horrifying until they can't ignore it anymore". I wouldn't see this a bad railroading, just as making sure the players go somewhere they actually can have fun in. Honestly, this almost NEVER comes up in my own games because my PCs voluntary want to go to the right places if I narrate it properly. As for choice of the location... it depends on situation! Sometimes players might have the free choice whether to go to Dungeon A or Dungeon B or return to turn, but sometimes, no going from B directly to C can cause the whole campaign to not end well. When players neglect the warning signs and just stay in town all day or mess around, they can't complain when they get swarmed by an army of dragons or elementals or whatever with no chance to survive. 3. Making sure on the hand rules --> That's also something I would do myself. Rules are rules. If it was established that you hold a torch and a sword when initiative is rolled you can't start the combat with a shield. Even worse, you need to use a whole action to equip the shield, so you are probably better off not using a shield this combat at all. That should just be a lesson learned and next time the groups gets the Wizard or someone else who doesn't use shields to hold the torch. On the other hand, if it wasn't established at all what the character is holding, then I would also find it annoying if the DM just decided that. Holding a torch is a very special case, this establishes what the character is holding. On the other hand, if it wasn't established (e.g. group did a long rest and didn't say that equip their armor and shield after rest), I usually allow the PCs to decide themselves what they are holding and wearing and won't force them to start combat naked (I usually ask my players to tell me what their default equip setup is and then usually roll with that). 4. The examples from Ruin Explorer are just horrible DMing. I'd go so far and say a heroic DMPC is already a deal breaker in itself. Sure it's tempting to put yourself into the story like "The group finds a boy, I'll play the boy and at the end the boy casts a holy spell that is the only way to save the world", but I realized that it messes up the decisions I do as DM. I prefer to stay neutral, don't fudge dice and give players a real challenge in which they could actually die and that works best without me playing anyone on the "good" side. The orc babies can be more difficult. In that particular situation I would have allowed the players to do it. But I often also find my group wanting to recruit everyone they meet that can hold a sword and I really am against DMPCs, so I often either just OOC tell my players "For your own good, don't do this." or make the NPC make up a reason why he can't join (or usually both). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much
Top