D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[Neonchameleon]

It certainly can be boring (and a symptom of bad GMing), if the game is meant to be one in which loyalty and faithfulness and the like are meant to be interesting focuses of play.

In its original Gygaxian manifestation, I think it was just meant to be another part of the challenge framework: good PCs are under restrictions that evil PCs are not, but they get access to bennies (reaction rolls, and friendly NPCs who might heal them) that evil PCs don't.

But that approach to play is pretty far from the contemporary mainstream.

My fundamental problem here is that I have a very different understanding of "good" than EGG; he advocated that it was entirely in line with Lawful Good to make prisoners convert them kill them before they could backslide. (Source)

And given that Gygax' understanding of Lawful Good is close to my understanding of Lawful Evil I'd rather that he doesn't get a veto on me playing my lawful good character "wrong" even through divine intervention of his invented gods.

 

[Belen]

For me, I don't see the character's personal faith to be something I need to okay, same as I don't need to okay their physical appearance or family.

Like I said before, if they want to work with me to make it a bigger thing in the game I'm happy to, but I don't need to give permission for them to not interpret their god's tenets the way I do. That's what I consider mutual respect.

Not do I dictate their faith yet if they are worshipping a god of healing but start causing disease in local villages then I will be unhappy.

You seem to be interpreting it always as adversarial bad dictator DM wants to control players. I do not nor do any DMs I have encountered.

I do think it is very good guidance for settings to provide guidance and boundaries for classes like clerics of what the deity or religion believes and that a god could choose not to respond to the prayers of a cleric.

The guidance should set a tone but not one that empowers a DM to purposely interpret things just to screw with the player.

If a player wants to make changes etc, then cool. Talk to the DM. A DM should be told to listen, consider, and work with the player as long as both are acting in good faith.

This new rule seems meant to curb bad DMs but since it is only aimed at DMs, then it will be exploited by toxic players, in my opinion and experience.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not do I dictate their faith yet if they are worshipping a god of healing but start causing disease in local villages then I will be unhappy.

You seem to be interpreting it always as adversarial bad dictator DM wants to control players. I do not nor do any DMs I have encountered.

I do think it is very good guidance for settings to provide guidance and boundaries for classes like clerics of what the deity or religion believes and that a god could choose not to respond to the prayers of a cleric.

The guidance should set a tone but not one that empowers a DM to purposely interpret things just to screw with the player.

If a player wants to make changes etc, then cool. Talk to the DM. A DM should be told to listen, consider, and work with the player as long as both are acting in good faith.

This new rule seems meant to curb bad DMs but since it is only aimed at DMs, then it will be exploited by toxic players, in my opinion and experience.

It's not necessarily a question of a bad DM, but a human one working with a bad rule.

The issue is that if the game tells you that it's okay to ruin a character if they don't interpret their character's faith exactly as you do then... well that's what you're going to do. Because the rules are telling the DM to do something that can completely screw the game and cause intra group drama for no good reason.

The guidance sets traps for inexperienced DMs to destroy their games and empowers bad ones.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Not do I dictate their faith yet if they are worshipping a god of healing but start causing disease in local villages then I will be unhappy.

You seem to be interpreting it always as adversarial bad dictator DM wants to control players. I do not nor do any DMs I have encountered.

I do think it is very good guidance for settings to provide guidance and boundaries for classes like clerics of what the deity or religion believes and that a god could choose not to respond to the prayers of a cleric.

The guidance should set a tone but not one that empowers a DM to purposely interpret things just to screw with the player.

If a player wants to make changes etc, then cool. Talk to the DM. A DM should be told to listen, consider, and work with the player as long as both are acting in good faith.

This new rule seems meant to curb bad DMs but since it is only aimed at DMs, then it will be exploited by toxic players, in my opinion and experience.

Then the DM can refer said toxic player to this part of Chapter 1:

"Antisocial Behavior

People often play D&D because it lets them, through their characters, do things they can’t do in real life—fight monsters, cast spells, and so on. However, for some players, this means wreaking havoc in towns or betraying their allies. What they want in the game has nothing to do with heroic adventure, but with using the game rules to act out antisocial fantasies.

If this behavior comes up in your game, it might be time to reopen the conversation about the kind of game you want to play. If it’s just one player causing the trouble, it’s perfectly appropriate to issue an ultimatum: an out-of-control player who wants to continue playing with the group must stop being disruptive and play as part of a team. Don’t let players get away with being jerks to the other players using the excuse, “that’s what my character would do.”"

Honestly, there's a lot of guidance in the first 3 chapters of the DMG, concerning both DM and player behavior, that people should read before continuing in this thread...

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then the DM can refer said toxic player to this part of Chapter 1:

"Antisocial Behavior

People often play D&D because it lets them, through their characters, do things they can’t do in real life—fight monsters, cast spells, and so on. However, for some players, this means wreaking havoc in towns or betraying their allies. What they want in the game has nothing to do with heroic adventure, but with using the game rules to act out antisocial fantasies.

If this behavior comes up in your game, it might be time to reopen the conversation about the kind of game you want to play. If it’s just one player causing the trouble, it’s perfectly appropriate to issue an ultimatum: an out-of-control player who wants to continue playing with the group must stop being disruptive and play as part of a team. Don’t let players get away with being jerks to the other players using the excuse, “that’s what my character would do.”"

Honestly, there's a lot of guidance in the first 3 chapters of the DMG, concerning both DM and player behavior, that people should read before continuing in this thread...

Oh indeed. And if the DM uses divine intervention to cripple a character by taking away their spellcasting then they should re-read that section and realise that Being God and being on a power trip is something they can't do in everyday life. And by doing it in game they are the ones leading the antisocial behaviour - and even if the player is also committing antisocial behaviour two wrongs don't make a right.

There is a reason that 5e has dropped the actively toxic "paladin falling" rules. And being the DM means that you have more responsibility than anyone else not to be toxic.

There is a good reason that the sections on mutual respect and respect for the players come before respect for the DM in the DMG. And the section on respect for the players starts with the paragraph below.

Respect For The Players ​

Your players need to know from the start that you'll run a game that is fun, fair, and tailored for them; that you'll allow each of them to contribute to the story; and that you'll pay attention to them when they take their turns. Your players also count on you to make sure an adventure's threats don't target them personally. Never make the players feel uncomfortable or threatened.​

Stripping away a characters abilities is stripping away their ability to contribute to the story. Taking their character's powers away because you have a different understanding of fictional theology is targeting them.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Oh indeed. And if the DM uses divine intervention to cripple a character by taking away their spellcasting then they should re-read that section and realise that Being God and being on a power trip is something they can't do in everyday life. And by doing it in game they are the ones leading the antisocial behaviour - and even if the player is also committing antisocial behaviour two wrongs don't make a right.

There is a reason that 5e has dropped the actively toxic "paladin falling" rules. And being the DM means that you have more responsibility than anyone else not to be toxic.

There is a good reason that the sections on mutual respect and respect for the players come before respect for the DM in the DMG. And the section on respect for the players starts with the paragraph below.

Respect For The Players ​

Your players need to know from the start that you'll run a game that is fun, fair, and tailored for them; that you'll allow each of them to contribute to the story; and that you'll pay attention to them when they take their turns. Your players also count on you to make sure an adventure's threats don't target them personally. Never make the players feel uncomfortable or threatened.​

Stripping away a characters abilities is stripping away their ability to contribute to the story. Taking their character's powers away because you have a different understanding of fictional theology is targeting them.

The entire "Ensuring Fun For All" section of Chapter 1 really lays out the social contract involved between players and DM in a very thoughtful and thorough manner, probably the best written statement of it in any D&D book.

Really, 99% of the "What if...?" conversations here, where people are coming up with "problems" that are really just the result of anti-social behavior and refusing to follow the D&D social contract, are easily resolvable by just reading that part of the DMG. Or really just: "Talk to each other like adults!" and "Don't be a jerk!"

 

[TiQuinn]

Some for sure. A lot? No. I played 1e and 2e here in Los Angeles where there were tons of D&D players. I went to game conventions and played with strangers. I talked to people about D&D. Not once did I encounter someone or even hear about someone who quit over bad DMs or bad rules. We just ignored or changed the bad ones.

If there were lots of players that quit over those things, I'd have heard something from someone somewhere.

Okay.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure they are. They are OPTIONAL rules, unlike the 5.5e core books which are DEFAULT rules. You're comparing apples(Xanathar's) and oranges(5.5e core books). That doesn't work.

You using the Xanathar's optional rules doesn't alter that with two different default sets of core rules, we have two different editions. Both cannot be 5e.

Whatever dude. I don't have time for semantic word games. Go play Riddles in the Dark with someone else.

 

[Remathilis]

Not do I dictate their faith yet if they are worshipping a god of healing but start causing disease in local villages then I will be unhappy.

Question: how does the God of healing know?

It's not a gotcha, it's a fair inquiry. Is the God of healing able to keep tabs on every one of their priests all the time? Are they literally omnipotent and know every transgression as soon as it happens?

And if they do know, how quick are they to send their displeasure to the priest? Days, weeks, months, or maybe only minutes after the event?

I only ask because I tend to find deities are amazingly obtuse when it comes to divination magic, but can summon a hoard of angels instantly if a PC goes off script from his faith...

 

[TwoSix]

whatever that was, I would hesitate to call D&D, it clearly resembles no official version

Well, it used the races, skills, backgrounds, ability scores, feats, spells, monsters, and resolutions systems of 5e. It’s certainly a big divergence, but it would consider it still 5e at its core.