D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[Oofta]

And how can you know that, if you don't talk to them and see what they mean? If they go "I have an idea for an evil pc I think-" and you cut them off immediately with a "I said no evil pcs. That is no evil pcs. If you don't like it, take a hike" then how can you possibly know if their idea is something you would actually consider an evil pc?



Same question. How can you know this if you don't have the discussion? And is the DM compromising? They are compromising on whether or not a player can consider their PC evil, but not on the behaviors.

When did I ever once state that I don't listen to my players? But someone has to make the final call on all sorts of things, as far as I'm concerned that's the DM no matter which side of the DM's screen I'm on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And so we get right back to EzekielRaiden's point, the one that they get raked over the coals and lashed with thorns over. Because we have, immediately, from multiple posters, gone to "but what if it is irreconcilable?"

But you know, Oofta just posted an "irreconcilable" problem not too long ago... and I showed how you can have a conversation about that exact issue. In fact, every single time this gets brought up, the player in question who presents this "irreconcilable" problem must be so extreme, so unwilling to change, such a strawman, that it is almost a comedy skit to read. And when we push back and say "most people are not like that, that is a parody of a person" we get the OTHER thing that Oofta and Paul were just saying. "So what? You think everyone agrees on everything all the time?" like we are some naive children living in a world without conflict.

So, literally every single part of the discussion Ezekiel was getting so frustrated about... has happened. Right here.

Sounds like a pretty common issue then. Far from "vanishingly rare".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would wager 90% of the time when it is a simple yes or no, it is either a factual matter about the rules (in which case a discussion should be had about the rules so the player understand them going forward) or it is a matter so trivial there is no reason not to say yes.

"Can I re-flavor a battleaxe as a giant meathook" is a simple yes or no question. And the answer pretty much should always be yes, because it is a simple thing with no real issues.

These sort of irreconcilable issues where there is only two possible paths and no discussion can possibly be had.... just are incredibly rare. To the point that literally, your only consistent example is "evil PC" and as I demonstrated, that is not a simple yes or no question, and a discussion can be had about it, and it is very possible to work with a group to make sure all seven of them are pretty excited about that thing.

Quick question: is there any situation where in your estimation a DM is just allowed to make a call, even if not everyone involved agrees with it? Any at all?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's your point? I've been quite popular as a DM, have no problem attracting or keeping players. You have a different approach and that's fine. I'm not criticizing your life decisions or approach to DMing. I'm simply following the guidance that has always been part of the game: the DM makes the final call.

I'd love to hear, straught-out, what @Chaosmancer thinks of that guidance.

 

[Oofta]

I'd love to hear, straught-out, what @Chaosmancer thinks of that guidance.

I tried to ask that of @EzekielRaiden so I'll ask @Chaosmancer . Simple "Do you think a rogue thief should be able to cast any spell from a scroll as a bonus action no matter what the casting time of the spell is." It's a yea or nay answer, there is no room for compromise. I'm not going to discuss it here but I read the text, thought about it and decided that no it doesn't work. Unless the wording of the text changes, I'm not changing my mind. While that particular question has never come up [in my game], it is the kind of thing I'm simply not going to change my mind on unless there's errata.

The only answer I got from Mr. Raiden was a response asking me why I would ask such a question in all caps.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't see how that has anything to do with what they said. We're all only speaking about ourselves and our experience with others. Because that's all all we can speak to.

Of course, because it is utterly impossible to consider a different perspective, that's why all of human history we've never been able to see things or discuss things that we did not personally experience.

You know, conversations would go faster if instead of just trying to sink them at every single opportunity, you engaged in them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What's your point? I've been quite popular as a DM, have no problem attracting or keeping players. You have a different approach and that's fine. I'm not criticizing your life decisions or approach to DMing. I'm simply following the guidance that has always been part of the game: the DM makes the final call.

Because you are utterly unwilling to consider any other possible approach MIGHT be worth considering. Just "this is how it has always been, and it is right and correct and attempting ANY discussions on whether or not it is the absolute best method in all circumstances is a waste of everyone's time"

And, as I said, I get annoyed with the argument "I put in the most work therefore my opinions are the most important". You know, you constantly say that the DM has the be the final authority on all aspects of the game... but that is literally not true.

If the meeting place isn't the DM's house, or the DM isn't scheduling the meetings... maybe someone else is the final authority on the schedule.

If one of the players has far more experience and understanding of the rules than everyone else, DM included.... maybe they are the final authority on rules question.

One of my games the entire group came together to make a homebrew setting together. So who was the final authority on every detail of the setting? We were planning (and may be able to may not) to have rotating DMs, so which person is it? According to you we cannot possibly have a setting where we can all compromise, because we will inevitably hit a yes/no question that no compromise is possible on.

I'm not saying your approach is evil. I'm not saying you are a heartless tyrant who loves putting your boot on the necks of your players, but you just move to shut down any possibility that other opinions about how the role of DM should be looked at, and it kind of infuriates me that any time you get pushback about that, you want to default to "well, I've been a super popular DM for ten years, so obviously my opinion is unassailable." And yes, though I'm sure in person you are a much better person, via text you immediately shutting down all conversation the way you are with constantly asserting reality must be one way with the relationships between people DOES make it seem like you think your opinions are unassailable truth.

 

[Chaosmancer]

When did I ever once state that I don't listen to my players? But someone has to make the final call on all sorts of things, as far as I'm concerned that's the DM no matter which side of the DM's screen I'm on.

By your constant insistence that the answer is no, that there is no discussion, that you have your reasons and that you have considered them and there is no point in having a discussion because you will not change your mind.

What part of that makes it sound like you are willing to hear someone out first?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sounds like a pretty common issue then. Far from "vanishingly rare".

What? I'm describing how Ezekiel was completely correct in predicting how this conversation would go, when everyone told them that they were wrong and no one would take the conversation in this direction.

What part of that makes sense with your statement of this not being vanishingly rare?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Quick question: is there any situation where in your estimation a DM is just allowed to make a call, even if not everyone involved agrees with it? Any at all?

In literally any possible circumstance that could ever be considered? Of course. But I would never make a call without having a discussion, seeing what the goals of the player are, considering those goals and desires, and looking to see how I might help them reach them.