D&D 5E Do PCs at your table have script immunity?

[Neonchameleon]

Trouble is...there’s at least 10-20 players per DM. The DM puts in 99% of the work.

Both of these are very situational dependent on both your system and your group. I mean it's one thing I noticed both moving from 3.5 to 4e and then in the other direction moving from 4e to 5e. 3.5 was massively detailed and prep intensive, but come 4e with its vastly improved DM tools there were in my experience about an average of three DMs per table. 5e either weakened or destroyed almost all the practical DM tools so although it didn't drop back to the 3.5 ratio in my experience it's still nearer 10:1.

I guess the people I play with most be GM hoarders.

In my D&D group 3 of out of 6 are GMs. Used to be 4 of 7.
In my Exalted group 4 out of 5 are GMs.
In my Infinity group it is 2 out of 4.
In my Vampire group it is 3 out of 4.

When I ran Lancer, Apocalypse Keys and Scion it was 3 out of 5.

2 of us crossover in last 3 games. We try to encourage everyone to try their hand behind the screen. Those of us who aren't GMs certainly could be and I am certain eventually will be. Our players definitely do a good deal of work, especially in the setup phases.

And these are all much lower prep than D&D with much lighter rulesets and I'm not surprised the ratios are vastly higher.

 

[overgeeked]

Or you (general you) could give players some leway and adapt a portion of the game idea, genre, tone, concept, etc, to try and accomodate everyone. Session 0 doesn't need to be a job interview. I think it's better to play 80% of everyones favourite game than not play 100% of my favourite game.

Every DM is different, every player is different, and every combination of players and DM at a given table is different. But, for me, if I'm going to be spending hour after hour prepping a game and hours on end playing with people, I want to enjoy myself. That means curating the content as well as the players. That's not a moralistic judgement about them or their playstyle, simply an acknowledgement that I cannot stand certain styles of play and certain kinds of players. At no point will I ever run an evil campaign. Not going to happen. So if some player absolutely insists on playing an evil character, they can find a different table. I don't see how having preferences or being slightly picky is a bad thing. If that makes me some kind of stubborn, intractable monster, oh well. I'll be over there having fun with the dozen or so players who want to play the same game and style as I do.

Or ideally, they get on board and be enthusiastic because compromise makes the world go around.

In some areas yes, but not in all. Compromise can also mean that no one's happy with the result. When you have literally millions of players world wide to draw from...several thousand on any given decent-sized forum or VTT site...there's no reason to compromise unless you have to. Wait an extra week or two and you'll have players interested in your game. To use an odious finance phrase, it's a DM's market. DMs are in such short supply people are literally paying them to run a game.

No DM has ever run a game that's 100% taste to my taste...

Find better DMs or run the game you want to run yourself.

just as no restaurant has ever served a meal 100% to my liking...

Find better restaurants. There's some amazing food out there. If you're in a less foodie city or state, learn to cook.

and no movie has ever been something I've 100% enjoyed.

Do you not have a list of 10 perfect movies floating around in your head? I do. Most people I mention that to have said similar. Maybe not 10, but five at least. Note here that simply because I think they're perfect I'm making no claim that they're objectively perfect, only that they're perfect in my eyes.

Things become more fun when we choose to enjoy them, despite not being perfect.

Things don't need to be perfect to be enjoyed. But if you're not interested in say horror movies, there's no amount of compromise that's going to get you to go watch one. Unless there's a bribe of some kind.

That applies to both players and DMs. DMs should be willing to be flexible with their vision, likewise, players should be flexible in helping the DMs to realize their vision.

Again, it's a DM's market. When I have to choose between not playing anything or playing something I'm not that interested in, I might change my tune. So far, there's no shortage of players interested in the game I'm running, so it's not an issue. I'll burn that bridge when I come to it. (Yes, that's intentional.)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I voted: No (mostly). PCs can die, even if it is just bad luck, but they have chances to reverse it.

As a DM, I am a fan of the players. That said, we're running a West Marches style campaign in Barovia (and greater Ravenloft) and there are areas which will be above the pay grade of certain APLs (average party levels). I telegraph dangers as best I can so the players can make informed decisions for their characters, but sometimes those decisions just aren't... wise? We just had the first cleric in the character pool reach fifth level so now Revivify is on the table as soon as the group can find some 300gp diamonds. There's also the Ravenloft lineages but that's as much as I'll say about that in case a player stumbles across this post...

 

[overgeeked]

Both of these are very situational dependent on both your system and your group. I mean it's one thing I noticed both moving from 3.5 to 4e and then in the other direction moving from 4e to 5e. 3.5 was massively detailed and prep intensive, but come 4e with its vastly improved DM tools there were in my experience about an average of three DMs per table. 5e either weakened or destroyed almost all the practical DM tools so although it didn't drop back to the 3.5 ratio in my experience it's still nearer 10:1.

If you're willing to home brew you can recreate most of the 4E tools, the useful subsystems not the digital tools. Though you sort of can with Excel or similar programs for some of it. 5E Monster Manual on a Business Card from blog of holding goes a long way to getting the hardest part sorted. I still use the monster roles, mixed groups of monsters, minions, bloodied, and more from 4E. It's mostly DM-side stuff anyway.

And these are all much lower prep than D&D with much lighter rulesets and I'm not surprised the ratios are vastly higher.

Exactly. The heavier the rules, the fewer DMs willing to run them.

 

[Blue]

So, it seems D&D 5e is the first game I know of where you have to negotiate with the players beforehand if they are allowed to lose. Maybe it's time to take the "G" out of RPG and everybody will be happy.

Back in the 80s I was playing superhero games where death wasn't on the table as a regular threat, yet there still was real stakes and failure. Look at the dramatic death rules of 7th Sea (1ed), published back in 1999. Full of fantastic swashbuckling adventures, and casual and accidental death was just off the table.

Your statement isn't indicitive of the state of RPGs, just betrays a shallowness of knowledge about what's out there.

 

[Nefermandias]

Back in the 80s I was playing superhero games where death wasn't on the table as a regular threat, yet there still was real stakes and failure. Look at the dramatic death rules of 7th Sea (1ed), published back in 1999. Full of fantastic swashbuckling adventures, and casual and accidental death was just off the table.

Your statement isn't indicitive of the state of RPGs, just betrays a shallowness of knowledge about what's out there.

Not really. I've ran a pretty lengthy M&M campaign myself and death just isn't a thing in that game (damage is non-lethal by default). I'm just really amused how the "killer DM" has become a stigma in the D&D community as o late.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not really. I've ran a pretty lengthy M&M campaign myself and death just isn't a thing in that game (damage is non-lethal by default). I'm just really amused how the "killer DM" has become a stigma in the D&D community as o late.

The superhero genre is inherently non-lethal (unless it's the 90s). You have to make a point of it, preferably complete with giant square-barelled guns and too many pockets, to change that default. Delving into holes in the ground to fight giant spiders and too many skeletons is thematically a different beast.

 

[Blue]

Not really. I've ran a pretty lengthy M&M campaign myself and death just isn't a thing in that game (damage is non-lethal by default). I'm just really amused how the "killer DM" has become a stigma in the D&D community as o late.

Got it. You knew it wasn't true when you posted it -- but hey, it made a good quote. You may want to work on making sure things come across as humor as opposed to your stance if that is what you are intending.

 

[Oofta]

Not really. I've ran a pretty lengthy M&M campaign myself and death just isn't a thing in that game (damage is non-lethal by default). I'm just really amused how the "killer DM" has become a stigma in the D&D community as o late.

There have been killer DMs forever. I had one that ran a session where he did "creative" things like having a giant hand come out of a wall to smash a random PC flat with no roll other than to see which PC would die. He only ran one game.

But it did teach me a lesson, sometimes you just have to say no to specific DMs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Find better DMs or run the game you want to run yourself.

Find better restaurants. There's some amazing food out there. If you're in a less foodie city or state, learn to cook.

Do you not have a list of 10 perfect movies floating around in your head? I do. Most people I mention that to have said similar. Maybe not 10, but five at least. Note here that simply because I think they're perfect I'm making no claim that they're objectively perfect, only that they're perfect in my eyes.

Just philosophically, I find chasing perfection to be a waste of time.