D&D General DM Authority

[FrogReaver]

No, no, that part is what I was acknowledging as being entirely legit.

That was more a side comment that if said friend would argue the rule one way when it got his character killed and another way if it hadn't, I can't have much respect for that. As I commented earlier in the thread, your assessment of rules shouldn't be just based on how it benefits you (which doesn't mean it isn't just that for a lot of people, because it obviously is).

Ah, my bad then.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ah, my bad then.

Its kind of a hot thread. Its easy to read things into other people's statements that aren't intended.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That kind of assumes everyone is informed enough to have an opinion on the rules in question, or that the most informed persons opinion only counts as much as the least informed. Or that player Bob has a strong personality and voting against his opinion will make him aggravated at you - especially if it's a 3/2 split decision.

Personally, I think they should generally be informed enough to have an opinion. Sure, some players may not want to learn the rules but that is.. not a good thing. We want our players as informed as possible, and even the worst DnD 5e rules are.... not that complicated.

The most informed person's opinion might carry weight compared to the least informed... but do we want to advocate that the least informed person's opinion does not matter? That doesn't sit well with me.


And finally, if you don't express your opinion because you are worried about upsetting someone else at the table for disagreeing with them... the table has bigger problems than who is making what calls.

 

[FrogReaver]

Personally, I think they should generally be informed enough to have an opinion. Sure, some players may not want to learn the rules but that is.. not a good thing. We want our players as informed as possible, and even the worst DnD 5e rules are.... not that complicated.

Depends on the player. I don't think it's fair to classify that as bad. If they are having fun and at a table that is having fun, how could it be?

The most informed person's opinion might carry weight compared to the least informed... but do we want to advocate that the least informed person's opinion does not matter? That doesn't sit well with me.

Sometimes people realize they aren't informed enough to have a legitimate opinion, or don't care enough to get involved one way or the other.

And finally, if you don't express your opinion because you are worried about upsetting someone else at the table for disagreeing with them... the table has bigger problems than who is making what calls.

Not necessarily. Social pressure is much more pervasive than I think you give it credit for.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Strong words can hurt as much as physical violence depending on cirucumstances and the person receiving them. Verbal and physical violence are not acceptable means of conveying your frustrations. Even more unsettling is the calm voice menacing you. Then you know that the person means serious business.

Except for the one that was in a divorce, the worst I got was about 50 dice thrown at me for rolling three 20s in a row in a critical fight. One of these dice was a d30... Got a lump, but I was laughing a lot as I understood their frustrations. At least I got a few beers for my troubles .

Sure, but there is a lot of area here that you are trying to cover.

I mean. you admitted to "battery" against your person, you were physically harmed in the process. That is physical violence that agree is unacceptable... but it is an amusing story where you were laughing and understood the emotions at play.

And in the calm voice example you use the word "menacing". A calm person "menacing" me is far less acceptable than a person loudly yelling "Oh, come on! Are you serious?!" Even if they slap the table in the process.



There are degrees, and we don't have good words to express those degrees with accuracy. But I am going to say this, I have been in situations where I have had to swallow my frustration and anger, where I have tried to just let things slide. It never helps unless you are never in the same situation again, at a gaming table where you expect to meet on a regular basis? Pretending that you are not upset or angry just to look better is not the right way to do things. Because the person across from you has no idea what you are feeling, and it can't be addressed until you let them know. And if that means you get a little loud and a little forceful with your words? Then so be it. I prefer that to the silence of people just dealing with it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Having no leader can create issues. (It doesn't always create issues, it can create issues.)

Right, and having a leader can create issues. It doesn't always create issues, but it can create issues.

My entire point is that there are pros and cons, and that sometimes leaders are not needed, and sometimes their existence causes more problems than it solves.


Actually, here is a great example to highlight what I mean.

How many bands have a conductor? Most if not all classical large symphonic bands have a conductor, but do Jazz Bands? Rock and Roll bands? Having a conductor can solve many issues, they can help fine-tune the sound of the band for the location, keep people together, act as a focal point for the audience and announce the next piece.... but you don't need a conductor for every single band, and for many bands, having a conductor would be a detriment, not a boon.

I agree with this. 99% of the rules are agreed upon while playing. The initial set of which rules is usually agreed upon naturally too. Most of the time people just agree. But that 1% when there is a judgement call, you want to be able to look at someone and say: "What's the answer?" The primary reason the DM is chosen for this is he is the storyteller. They know the behind the scenes info.
But that also leads to judgement calls, (Can the PC hear this? What DC would this be? Does this thing fall down the cliff when it dies?) which happen twenty times a game at least. You need a person to direct that.

But again, you are making a general statement with specific assumptions.

In a Beer and Pretzel, Hack and Slash game is there necessarily any behind the scenes information? Is there necessarily a single story to tell?

And why can't the table come to a consensus about what the DC might be? We have a scale, Easy: 10, Medium: 15, Hard: 20, Nearly Impossible: 25 and a lot of items and things pre-listed out.


And if anything happens that doesn't make sense... well, they know exactly why it happened. No one at that table is going to be overly upset that they did a listen check, failed because everyone agreed it would be hard to listen through a thick wooden door, and opened it to find the random dice table says Ogres in platemail. The player can say "I totally would have heard that" and everyone else... is likely to agree, but they all know that they made a decision, and that decision was upheld.

I mean, when the group makes a decision, who do you get angry at when the decision turns out differently than you expect? It wasn't the DM hiding information from you for a cheap surprise, you guys made your calls, and the dice made a silly situation, something you knew was possible when you started a game this way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'll put it this way. As a player, I don't want to be put into a position where I have to say, I agree with the interpretation of this rule that means my best friend Bob's PC is dead.

Would you be okay being in a position where following the rules means that your PC is dead?

Why is Bob different in that they don't want to follow rules that would end in their PCs death?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Depends on the player. I don't think it's fair to classify that as bad. If they are having fun and at a table that is having fun, how could it be?

I don't want to say it is bad per se, but it leads to situations that are very much not ideal.

For example, many of my fellow players (and most DMs) do not know how underwater combat works. I can vaguely recall at least one situation where a player dove into the water to fight something, and had it explained that their weapon would be at disadvantage, and their response was "Crap, if I had known that I wouldn't have done that"

And I have heard that response a lot, players getting into situations, and only learning the rules for those situations in that moment, and having regrets because they were ill-informed of the rules. But there is a more insidious version of the same thing. Players being put in situations where they are struggling, because they are not using the rules that actually apply.

I've seen a lot of players have no idea how to deal with an enemy on a rooftop, not realizing that they can climb your average building at 15 ft a turn, which is easily enough to reach the top of most 1 story houses.


I get some people have fun without knowing all of this, but I also don't see a downside in encouraging people to learn the rules, because a lot of the time, knowing what you can do opens up options you wouldn't normally consider.

Sometimes people realize they aren't informed enough to have a legitimate opinion, or don't care enough to get involved one way or the other.

If they don't care, they abstain. Easy enough.

If you feel you aren't informed enough to have an opinion, then I personally see that as a problem, and you should definitely ask to be informed of the situation, rather than sit back and let other people decide for you.

Not necessarily. Social pressure is much more pervasive than I think you give it credit for.

Social pressure is a big deal, I know, but here is the thing social pressure to that extend represents a problem between the group.

If I have to limit myself and be very careful around someone for fear of upsetting them, then I cannot relax and have fun. I cannot make decisions honestly, because I fear for that person's reaction.

And, as I have lived most of my life that way, I can tell you it is bad. Constantly worrying about whether you are going to upset someone just by speaking your mind is a terrible way to live, and no way to have fun. And if someone feels that way at my table, I need to tell them they are wrong. We are all friends, it is just a game, and we aren't going to hold what happens at the table against them.

Because I want them to relax and unwind, and in that situation, they can't.

 

[FrogReaver]

Would you be okay being in a position where following the rules means that your PC is dead?
Why is Bob different in that they don't want to follow rules that would end in their PCs death?

If I believed the correct rule would mean my PC dies I'm fine. If I don't then there's a problem.

But that's the thing, it's a rules disagreement. Bob believes the correct rule means his PC doesn't die.

You are trying to frame this as Bob not wanting to follow the rules and that's not what it is.

 

[Lanefan]

Like, in video games, I can think of two reasons why being overpowered can be fun. In some games there's satisfying visceral feeling of tearing enemies from limb to limb, walking through the game like a god of war -- because videogames have ways to make the most boring things ever into an exciting experience. In others, being overpowered lets you skip boring sections -- like in Morrowind where god mod and ridiculous damage saves you from oh so exciting experience of clicking at the enemy watching dated animations and listening SFX that makes my ears bleed over and over again.

There's a reason why, on the rare occasion I ever play video games, I turn every possible sound effect either off or down to zero.

Maybe the actual reason for the player to want like +100500 magic sword is a desire to just cut out combat out of the game?

I see it more as a desire to cut risk out of the game; because the unspoken bit here is that while the PC has a +100500 magic sword the opponent doesn't have any effective means to counter it (i.e. doesn't have +100501 armour or an equally-powerful weapon), and so the PC can curb-stomp any opposition at no risk to self.

The player still wants the combat and the feel of winning it, only at no risk.