The more power in the DMs hands to make up things as they happen, the greater the percentage that a player will get screwed over somewhere. I've seen plenty of DMs screw over players in 5e already watching streams and such.
D&D 5E High-level no-save spells in practice
- Thread starter kerbarian
- Start date
The more power in the DMs hands to make up things as they happen, the greater the percentage that a player will get screwed over somewhere. I've seen plenty of DMs screw over players in 5e already watching streams and such.
What do you mean by "screw over?" Killed? Or just prevented their strategy from working using an arbitrary ruling?
I agree with DaveDash's comments overall. There has to be a point with rules interpretations in general where a DM can not come up with any justification they see fit to avoid a players action from doing something they do not like. There has to be something in place to keep everyone honest at the table, and the rules are a good starting point.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Oddly enough, I agree with that too. I just don't think that following the text of Forcecage is an arbitrary ruling. In other words, even as a player I would be disconcerted if Forcecage worked on ancient dragons: reading the spell text leads me to believe it shouldn't, that it is intended for smaller game. If the DM took Dave's approach of making all dragons shaped like cubes it would damage my suspension of disbelief. I would not play in Dave's game for that reason, which is fine, but it's not because of different attitudes toward player agency: it's because I'm simulationist and he is apparently gamist.
Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2
Uller
Adventurer
I am generally in favor of rules being fair and consistent wherever possible to avoid "DM, may l?" situations. But there is also something to be said for teusting your DM to be fair and impartial. The concept of something happening at my table that I "don't want" is alien to me. I want the PC's actions to combine with the rules and the dice to make interesting things to happen. If the players make good use of a spell and that neutralizes an important NPC or monster good for them. A couple sessions ago they got the jump on my bbeg, he tried to dimension door away and was stopped by couterspell and was promptly slain. Leading to a rather anticlimactic end of the adventure. Oh well...my players trust that if I told them the giant isn't susceptible to forcecage it isn't because that's what I want it's because that's how I interpret the rules. Besides...my players dont have the MM in front of them. They don't know about size categories or the rules surrounding them. So it wouldn't even occcur to them to use that as a measurement. My wizard player would see the 20' cube requirement and ask if the dragon would fit. If I said no he'd pick a different spell.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
If you can't trust your DM, find a different DM. If you can't find ANY DMs you trust, you might be better off never playing, or finding a different hobby.
Ot you can fall back or true tried and tested conventions that were put in earlier editions of the game for a reason.
I see people running streams on 5e a lot now, which is great, but I also see a lot of DMs mucking rules up, nerfing things they consider "overpowered", and not getting a handle on the ruleset.
Some of them are bought back in line by the chat in twitch, others use this whole rulings not rules matra as a shield to protect their toys (ie - Dragons).
I know its all the rage to have this freedom again as a DM, but really, I consider it a design flaw.
I will never agree with it, ever. I will agree it's perfectly valid, there's no right or wrong way to play, but for how I like to play the game, how I've seen the game played by others, and how my tastes in gaming have evolved over 20+ years, I consider it a big no no.
Which is interesting because I see you arguing very gamey tactics in other threads when your theorizing what is possible with spells.
This is why you have consistent rules that are a little more gamey and abstract, because humans are not consistent across all things.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I'm not sure to what you're referring, but as a simulationist I do expect that professional killers will plan ahead and talk tactics with each other offscreen. As a player I may express it in shorthand as "Pass Without Trace + Dancing Lights = NARC Beacon for missile fire" instead of bothering to translate it into words a PC would use (does he even call it Pass Without Trace? I've no idea), but a PC would absolutely be aware of the fact that shooting orcs in the dark is a smart tactic.
In short, I don't think I present any tactical ideas that are gamist in nature. And "gamist" isn't an insult, BTW, it's just a description of playstyle.
Edit: another example of the simulationist/gamist difference. We had a disagreement about Planar Binding at one point. You think it's weak, I think it's awesome, because you find the idea of a rich and powerful bad guy binding 40-odd Air Elementals or Invisible Stalkers using 10% of his net wealth and sending them after someone who really annoyed him to be ludicrous, presumably since it's so far outside the "normal" D&D threat parameters. To me, that's precisely why the bad guy would do it that way: he isn't sending out his minions to lose in an entertaining fashion, he's sending them to kill the enemy. And the more force you use, the fewer losses you take. That's a gamist/simulationist divide right there: fairness and fun vs. verisimilitude.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
