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

[S'mon]

If you get to the point in the game where disagreements about expected level of character survivability are happening, you may have skipped a necessary step before you sat down at the table.

I've definitely had players ignore my campaign intro blurb, then express amazement when they have to eg train to level. A good number of players don't really pay attention to anything outside their turn in combat or when their PC is speaking - sometimes not even then!

 

[S'mon]

The players can all walk away too. Then that Real Ultimate DM power doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Unless the DM recruits different players!!! :-O

 

[S'mon]

If you're playing with your friends, do you really tell them to walk away?

I've definitely had good friends not play a campaign because the concept didn't appeal to them, so I run for people who do like the concept.

 

[S'mon]

First, how does any of that stop you from playing how you like, with like-minded players?

Second, we don't know what the players mean by not wanting character death until we ask them. I've met many who legitimately don't want to lose, and death is seen as the most obvious expression of that idea. Just because someone wants death off the table doesn't mean they're ok with other forms of failure. Sometimes players just want the DM to run them through a power fantasy.

Yes, for some people D&D (especially, but including other RPGS) is more a 'pastime' than a 'game'. There are plenty of 'Sim' computer games that aren't really about overcoming challenges; plenty of people see D&D similarly. I think that's ok if everyone is on board with it. Even in original D&D, players had by default a lot of control over what level of challenge their PCs faced, and some groups spent a lot of time on non-challenging activities.

Personally I've been learning in my sandbox game that one of the player groups trends strongly towards 'pastime' over 'game', and I can enjoy this play mode, mostly by pointing them to less lethal adventures and by emphasising the stuff they enjoy, like social encounters and sim city type stuff like building their settlement and crafting items. The other main group is much more into the challenge and power acquisition.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Did I say anything about novelty? In my opinion, it was offensive then and still offensive now. I don't need a random game designer telling me how I should behave as a human being.

LOL.

This is truly ridiculous. They're not "telling you how should behave as a human being", that's an absolutely laughable reading of what anyone has been saying, let alone me. Giving people advice on how to DM effectively, and suggesting methods to resolve conflicts, work together and so on is absolutely within the remit of a book like the DMG. Suggesting it isn't is absolutely bizarre and means you object to about 98% of TT RPGs that have ever existed, or certainly existed after 1990. Which is wildly eccentric at the very least.

The novelty nonsense was on the post responding to you, which you liked, and which I also quoted. It was the very funny claim that this sort of thing is "new".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Social pressure?

"It says here on the Internet that GMs should do what the players want! Otherwise you're a bad GM!"

It's not a plausible mechanism, as you illustrate. My real question was "has this ever happened". So far no-one has answered in the affirmative (AFAIK), no witnesses in the field as either a player or a DM. I've been doing both for 30+ years and closest thing I've seen is DMs talked into running stuff that they turned out not to enjoy, it certainly wasn't social pressure or them being "outvoted" or "overruled", rather it was the group getting hyped about something, the DM not actually objecting and instead going "Yeah not what I'd normally run but let's give it a go!" and it turning out that he really wasn't the person to be running [insert genre/setting here]. More often though it actually does work out, and that's fundamentally different to what was described.

As for rules, I've seen heated discussions of them, sure, but again, no examples of the DM being "outvoted" or "overruled" or "social pressured" (which implies reluctance only overcome by fear of looking bad, not by logic or consideration/deliberation). I've changed rules after discussion with players but in cases it's because a good argument was made (haven't had to in 4E or 5E, but in earlier editions and other RPGs).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Did I say anything about novelty? In my opinion, it was offensive then and still offensive now. I don't need a random game designer telling me how I should behave as a human being.

I mean it's pretty clear that some people do.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I generally find the best approach when I'm pitching a game is to make clear the non-negotiable bits, and ask for input on stuff that's negotiable. If I don't mention something, then that's open for discussion.

But IME most players don't provide input and don't even really read the game pitch, they just want to play.

Edit: I might well agree to a player-suggested change I was unsure about. But I would never agree to something that I thought would actually decrease my enjoyment in GMing (and NO WAY by 20%!!). Not just for my sake - reducing the chances of GM Burnout is a service to the players, too.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, for some people D&D (especially, but including other RPGS) is more a 'pastime' than a 'game'. There are plenty of 'Sim' computer games that aren't really about overcoming challenges; plenty of people see D&D similarly. I think that's ok if everyone is on board with it. Even in original D&D, players had by default a lot of control over what level of challenge their PCs faced, and some groups spent a lot of time on non-challenging activities.

Personally I've been learning in my sandbox game that one of the player groups trends strongly towards 'pastime' over 'game', and I can enjoy this play mode, mostly by pointing them to less lethal adventures and by emphasising the stuff they enjoy, like social encounters and sim city type stuff like building their settlement and crafting items. The other main group is much more into the challenge and power acquisition.

Exactly. I'm a fan of Quantic Foundry's gamer motivation model, because it's a good reminder that what you're looking for in a game might be diametrically opposed to what someone else is looking for. Plenty of people aren't playing games to be challenged, and that's a totally legitimate (and common!) play preference.

 

[TwoSix]

This is truly ridiculous. They're not "telling you how should behave as a human being", that's an absolutely laughable reading of what anyone has been saying, let alone me. Giving people advice on how to DM effectively, and suggesting methods to resolve conflicts, work together and so on is absolutely within the remit of a book like the DMG. Suggesting it isn't is absolutely bizarre and means you object to about 98% of TT RPGs that have ever existed, or certainly existed after 1990. Which is wildly eccentric at the very least.

Well, it does help that "being a decent human being" correlates quite nicely with "being a better gamer", almost as if not being a giant tool helps out in all sort of social situations.