D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Vaalingrade]

Then they wouldnt be Lords for long. It's literally the role of the Lord to investigate and bring the offenders to justice.

Ignoring this to your own ends is the point of the feudal system.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You're wholly wrong. Teaching the game is one of the DMs primary responsibilities

Teaching the game.

 

[bloodtide]

As @Lanefan said - this wasn't your game.

Oh, ok, if you want to say for this one and only time and reason. As a general way of life, I will never adjust for others.

But my problem here wasn't even about that. It was about a targeted hit job on the PCs with the express purpose of killing the characters for the simple reason that they deviated from the plot you had set out (or whatever the reason was). I honestly don't know ANY players that would like that. Certainly not a casual group at a rec center who are just exploring their interest in D&D.

Targeted hit job? I don't agree that anything not a positive thing the players will like is against the players. Too many DMs see even things like a locked door as something "attacking" the players.

It's not like I cared about the game plot.....it's not my plot. In the first game I just followed the game notes.

Also I don't see "The Multuniversal Hit Squad" to be ANY different a consequence then Bounty Hunters or Guards from the City coming after them. It's Exactly the Same Thing. The alt PCs did not "just" kill the PCs in one second....the players fell for the false story, let their guard down and then acted like idiots when the attacks happened in the game.

I don't play the game you are thinking. If I just wanted to kill the PCs, I'm this type of guy: First minute of the game "All your characters are dead as the whole world explodes. Game cancelled. Bye".

You're "more regular" players know your style and have stuck with it - so sure, maybe they'll have fun. But these were not those players. Again, casual, new to D&D players just looking for a standard experience.

You yourself have stated, multiple times, your style is not for everyone. So you shouldn't spring it on people without warning. Certainly not in someone else's game.

Very few players are just randomly "my type" of player. Nearly all my good players were made by me. It's really part of what I always say: You have to make the players you want. You can't just "hope" random people or your "best friends" are exactly the types of players you want in a game.

For example I want players that role play a character being a follower of a power, not just cheery picking them for abilities and then acting however they want. I do this by house rules, in game, where a clerics power micro manages the clerics spell use. If you follow the powers faith, your power will add boons; if you go agianst your powers faith you can expect your spells to be diminished. If you really go wild, you can expect a more extreme response. It's a great way for players to learn all the ins and outs about their characters chosen power and role play them right.

So, enter my Spelljammer game.....made up of people that are not my type of players. But they agree to follow my house rules as they really want to play Spelljammer. Enter poor Sue who was all upset as she wanted to be a cleric, but hated my houserules. So she does make a lizardperson cleric, of Ka (the dinosaur god of good and life) because he is a multi sphere power(I use the 2E Spelljammer faith rules). She discovers quick that all she has to do is act like a good caring person and Ka had very little problem with her. And more so if she helped others, protected life and nature and did good things....she even got boons and special powers. So she found my "horrible house rule" was not so bad and has tons of fun trying to figure out what her god might want.

And that is just one example, as she is just one of five players. Though they are now five players I would game with in the future, as they are my types of players........now.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Imploding a game in two session is kinda impressive though.

I don't think this is the kind of impression one wants to make, generally speaking.

You're wholly wrong. Teaching the game is one of the DMs primary responsibilities, and that includes getting bad players to pull their heads in.

If you dont like it, go disrupt someone elses game.

Really? It's one of the primary responsibilities of DMs to be the players' surrogate parent and teach them moral lessons?

Really?

Oh, ok, if you want to say for this one and only time and reason. As a general way of life, I will never adjust for others.

This just seems like such a terribly wasteful attitude. Adjusting for and with others--and likewise, expecting them to adjust for and with you--is the foundation of human society. It is only because we can adjust for and with one another that we are able to have this conversation now. If we lacked that capacity, humanity would never have developed language, much less TTRPGs or an internet to discuss them over!

 

[Flamestrike]

Ignoring this to your own ends is the point of the feudal system.

No, it's not.

A Serf who has been wronged goes to the local Lord (or his delegate) and pleads his case. It's literally the Lords job to sort those things out.

In exchange for the Lords protection, the Serf works his lands.

That's the whole point of the Feudal system.

 

[Flamestrike]

Teaching the game.

'The game' extends beyond knowing the rules. It includes not monopolizing table time and letting other players speak, not affecting other players play experience, not being a jerk, paying attention, giving roleplaying your best shot, working with the other players, instead of against them etc etc etc.

 

[Flamestrike]

Really? It's one of the primary responsibilities of DMs to be the players' surrogate parent and teach them moral lessons?

Yes. Teaching the game is one of the DMs primary responsibilities. It literally says so in the DMG.

 

[bloodtide]

Because they're the views of other humans being in a collaborative game.

This sounds great, but how does it work?

So you ask each player what 'rating' they want the game and what they don't like. Then WHATEVER they randomly say, you just say "yes, It will be so"? Why do THEY get that power? Why can they say "we don't want X" in the game? Why does the DM just roll over and say "ok"? And what about the DM? Don't they get a say?

Because you are a guest.

Do you go to other people's houses to a party, whip off your pants and rummage through your things, then get mad when they don't appreciate how you've ;/'helpfully' rearranged their pantry? I'm going to guess 'no'.

Well.....I'm a Party Animal!

This just seems like such a terribly wasteful attitude. Adjusting for and with others--and likewise, expecting them to adjust for and with you--is the foundation of human society. It is only because we can adjust for and with one another that we are able to have this conversation now. If we lacked that capacity, humanity would never have developed language, much less TTRPGs or an internet to discuss them over!

Right, this sounds good in a vague general sense....but does not quite work out in real life.


My house in a non smoking house. You come over to play a game: you smoke outside. I will never "adjust" and say "sure come on it and light up and fill my house with your stinking smoke".

Same way I don't put up with personal attacks, bullying or hitting on players during the game, even "as a joke". Again, I will never "adjust" and say "oh sure go ahead and attack and insult Bob all you want".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. Teaching the game is one of the DMs primary responsibilities. It literally says so in the DMG.

"Teaching the game" is completely different from "teaching moral lessons." Which is what was explicitly said, both in my post that you just quoted, and in several posts before that which you have responded to, with explicit references to parents and moral teaching.

So, I ask you again: It's one of the primary responsibilities of DMs to be the players' surrogate parent and teach them moral lessons?

I am not using that phrasing accidentally. Are you genuinely claiming that one of the primary responsibilities of DMs is to teach moral lessons? To be absolutely unequivocally clear, "moral lessons" means things like "do not steal," "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "if you can't say nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all," "say please and thank you," "be a polite guest," "get permission before taking shared resources," etc.

 

[Flamestrike]

Same way I don't put up with personal attacks, bullying or hitting on players during the game, even "as a joke". Again, I will never "adjust" and say "oh sure go ahead and attack and insult Bob all you want".

You're teaching the game right there.

The game goes beyond just the rules of how things interact; there are social norms, and a social contract as well.

Example for @Vaalingrade

Assume a group of 4 have been playing together for a year, playing a heroic campaign and working well together. Steve (one of the players) indicates his new GF Sarah would like to join the group. She hasn't played before.

The DM is teaching the game when he sits down with Sarah and runs through how to create her character, and how her class features work, and how the round and turn structure works, and how she can use her skills and abilities, and how general play goes.

Let's assume Sarah creates a LG Paladin (the party need some extra healing and frontline fighting).

During the 1st session, Sarah is on watch while the rest of the party sleep. Sarah turns to the DM and says 'I murder the rest of the party in their sleep and take their stuff'. The other players are shocked and clearly upset by this.

@Vaalingrade you're the DM. What do you do?