Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5518267" data-attributes="member: 6668292">You describe certain posters differently that I would, the majority of the time I see them post.It does have to do with trust. I once ran a game where the players wrote down their stats, class, level, and equipment. The bard asked what he should write for abilities, and I told him not to write anything down. When asked what he could do, I told him "bard-like stuff." We played the entire game with only a pool of d6s. Players would say "I want to swing at the undead wyvern's throat." I'd say "roll 1d6" or "roll 3d6" or whatever felt right. They'd roll, I'd call the events. The players felt extremely immersed in the game. They didn't even know the rules. It was all arbitration, and I made all the "mechanical" decisions. If I felt something was within their power, I let them have it. If it wasn't, then I didn't.It's not about power. I wouldn't stop them from doing what they wanted anymore than not having level 9 spells stops you from having level 9 spells. It definitely takes a lot more trust, however, to play that style of game. Now, it's not my preferred play style, but it's definitely exceptionally enjoyable, if everyone can trust the GM, and if everyone is relaxed enough to let the GM handle the details. All the players have to do is focus on their character, and everything else is taken care of.As far as a shared storytelling experience... well, I'm very against the narrative style of play. That's not to say I'm against plot or setting or political intricacies or anything else. I'm very into a story being discovered by player and GM alike. However, the GM, in my opinion, deserves much more control over the story than the players. If nothing else, a huge perk of being the GM is letting your creative juices fly, and that includes weaving an interesting and enjoyable setting for the character.It does not mean that you railroad your players. It does mean, however, that while you aren't working against them, you shouldn't be working for them, either. Not if you're actually fair, anyways. I know a lot of people here will disagree about the enjoyment that can be found, and they're right, because it's subjective. My group enjoys the playstyle I describe, and your group likes the way you play. And that's amazing, really. We can describe such sharply different preferences within such a similar system (3.x with houserules), and still enjoy ourselves. Because really, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Nope, I wouldn't allow my players to name their bonus. But again, I'm pretty against a narrative style of play. However, your "if you let players decide, you may as well not have rules!" is an extremely weak argument. Do you think rules should matter? Then you better not houserule anything ever, and you better not ever let someone do something not described in a book, or you may as well get rid of all the rules!However, as I do consider myself in charge of the game (it's up to me to keep the pacing reasonable, the story and plot and setting interesting, and it's up to me to tell the players how they fair when they try to kick some butt), it's really up to me how something happens. I try very hard not to make arbitrary decisions, but it's still me making the decision, not the players. If I decide that attacking from a 1.5-ft. high platform doesn't count as high ground, then it's my call. If I said it did, it'd be my call. The difference between a circumstance bonus for high ground or for parrying is conceptually nil.I try to follow the RAW as closely as I can, but I definitely break them to follow the RAII (rules as I intended... you see, I wrote the book we play from). To that end, if I say there's a certain circumstance bonus or penalty in play, it's not a "right" or "wrong" call objectively. Subjectively, it definitely is. Don't play it if you don't like it, for sure. I totally agree that it sucks if you play with it, if you dislike it. And again, it's amazing we can have totally different play styles, and each get our way. The hobby truly is amazing in that regard <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's awesome for your group. I don't do it in my game, either <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />However, I do have a "Hit Chart" that we roll on every single hit in combat. 1-100, with certain numbers being expanded (for example, if you roll Face Wound, you roll another d10 to see the effect, or if you roll Head Wound, you roll another d6). It makes combat amazingly unique. Every single hit that lands, I have excited players. It's no longer just "HP" damage ("You see the number twelve appear above his head. It's red, two-dimensional, and rises quickly up towards the sky, disappearing after about half a second."). PCs and NPCs alike can roll any number of effects: opponent stunned, wound becomes infected, gain bonuses this encounter as you get into the groove of combat, deal a mortal wound, hamstring the opponent, etc.One of my players once dueled a man who was leading a force that had imprisoned the party and the prince and his forces. The player hit, rolled on the chart "critical damage this round and next round, due to blood loss." With a successful Assess check (unique skill to my game), he knew the man wasn't going to live through the damage next round, and since the man had been hamstrung previously in the fight, the player turned and walked away. The man tried to follow him, but fell, dying from the blood loss.And wouldn't you know it, the next time he dueled someone (a demon commander who had taken over the prince's fortress in his absence), he rolls the exact same two rolls, and nails his Assess check. Again, he turns and walks away, and the demon can do nothing but try to follow and die.That's pretty much impossible in any game unless you either make rulings, like the OP, or if you get really lucky rolls on a chart of some sort, like my player. However, since then, the other players give his character props for his "signature killing move" that he's used against two NPCs. If it had just been HP damage, the players would still remember that time when he beat the commander, but it wouldn't be nearly so fondly remembered.Maybe that's something most groups wouldn't like. I don't know. I know my players were wary of the Hit Chart at first, but they love the thing now, even if occasionally it does really hurt them, or even kill them. To them, it gives combat a lot more flavor, and we like it. So, the lesson here is, play what you like, and don't get on someone else for playing what they like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification