D&D General IS the 5 min work day a feature or a bug?

[AnotherGuy]

A Bug

 

[Helldritch]

do you see your way is to punish a player you don't like the play style of... that might be why we think there is an adversarial nature...
the fact that you (in theory) let players veto... but kick players out that would use said veto is weird.

We have group Veto power too. and any 1 of us can veto and end the entire thing. we don't do so lightly but I have had players veto DarK sun for years (just 1 is enough) and I veto Forgotten realms.

D&D is a cooperative game. If one person is ruining the fun of others there are only two choices available.
1) Kick out the problematic (a few ways, none really satisfying.)
2) Discuss and make the player change his/her ways.

#1 Can be traumatic for some. Both on the kicker's end and to the one being kicked out. Sometimes, a softer approach is to do as I did. The best way of course is not to have these kind of players in the first. The fact that I have not done it in 30 years (out of 40 as a DM) probably means that this kind of player is really rare. I mean, very very rare. Or that I have been one of the luckiest DM ever for not having seen this kind of behavior in 30 years...

#2 Means that the DM must take the lead and actually talk with the person about to be kicked out. But there might be problems. Maybe that one is a friend and it could mean an end to a friendship. If talking succeeds, no problem. This was the goal all along. If the talking fails, and kicking out the person is out of the question what does that leave us?

The softer method of treasure punishing. Yes it might be seen as adversarial. But at the same time, souring the play for the one not caring and sweetening the play of the others might slowly make the uncaring one change his/her play or simply make the uncaring one leave on his/her own. This might preserve friendship IRL. It is not the best solution, but it might be the best of the worst outcomes.

As for the bolded part.
You got confused. This is not a veto where one person can change an outcome because he has veto.
It is a vote. Democratic vote. One player (or DM) can not force the others to do as he/she likes. The majority is always applied.

 

[Helldritch]

Only if the DM gets to decide how the party divides its treasure; but from what I gather it's almost universal that treasury division is left in the hands of the players/PCs, and in past editions where magic was required it could usually be purchased with cash somehow if it didn't appear in treasury.

Thus, even if the DM doesn't directly place magic suitable to a given character, assuming an even-by-value treasury split that character would still be able to keep up via the cash-and-purchase route.

In hundreds of players, and groups, this is the first time I see your method of dividing treasures.
Staff of power? Goes to the wizard. Period.
Pearl of wisdom? Goes to the priest. Period.
+1 Long Sword? Goes to the Fighter. Period.
Only monetary treasure is shared equally. Additional magical items, if they are not usable or the receiving character has better will be sold and cash divided equally. A wand of the warmage was found. The wizard already had one. So it was sold and the cash was divided equally.
This is what we have been doing since OD&D. And in 5th edition, the good thing is that within the same rarity, the fact that it is a staff or a sword will mean more or less the same cash. Your method has the merit of making the fighter have a chance to "purchase" equipment, but it does deprive the group of useful magical items if the intended character can't purchase it. Also, if you play 1ed it means that the wizards is stuck purchasing his spells, must have at least one spare spell book and maybe two travelling books. That is a lot of gold to put your money on. As some spells will destroy mundane items on a fail save. The monetary pressure on the wizard will be high...

 

[Helldritch]

Which means, in theory, E will be just as often that "best in slots/capacity" as any other character, right? If not, you're playing favourites; and I'd further posit you're pulling an end run around your group's democratic process by arbitrarily doing so.

I always make sure that everyone has a chance to shine. I do not play favorite. But I do manipulate treasure to fit the characters in the group.

Why would E be lower level, unless you're giving xp for treasure? E has been around longer than any other character in the party.

And by "E WILL die" do you mean you'd unfairly pick on E during the run of play?

An uncaring player as described earlier would not survive the TPK of a group he has caused. If the uncaring player somehow survived. It would simply be the end of the character now. As a full new group would be formed and no one would play with the "jerk" that caused so much trouble.

I see the difference but it's not something I'm really on board with in any version. Sure, the idea that you have a democratic way of doing things is great, but all you end up with is individuality being stifled - at the player level but more sadly at the character level - in favour of groupthink.

Yes, group thinking can smother individuality if you are not careful. Just like individual thinking can kill a game. As in everything, a balance must be reached. The voting stuff is usually at session zero where we discuss the game, the tone of the game player wishes to have (so far, the gritty side always win...), the optional rules we will use the campaign world we will use (Greyhawk is a favorite , but Ebberon is a close one and next campaign, I hope to either have Exandria or Theros, but we will see). A vote in game/campaign is usually made if I make a mistake and do not change my ruling. It happened maybe twice in the 30 years, all from a bad description from my part. (even I can make mistakes...)

It also sounds like a breeding ground for arguments if all it takes is one player saying they don't like how another player's character is being played to put that character's (and that player's?) continuance to a vote. End result: in effect the players end up getting told how to play their characters - albeit by the whole table rather than any one person - which is the antithesis of player agency.

Only disruptive play might end up being voted upon. And by that, we call someone that is actively disrupting and killing the fun out of the game of everyone else. How a character is played is pretty much untouchable as long as that character's actions are not there to willingly ensure the death of the group. Again in 30 years I have not seen this kind of behavior at my tables. Either I am an extremely lucky DM or I am good at screening my players to make sure that newcomers will fit with the other players.

 

[Mort]

There's also the difference to consider between a jerk player and a jerk character. Jerk players are one thing, but a good player playing a jerk character shouldn't IMO be meta-punished either in-character or out-of-character jsut because the luck of the draw determined the jerk character is the one who survived and-or the DM doesn't happen to like or "approve of" said character.

That's not to say reasonable cause-and-effect in-game consequences can't arise from what said jerk character does just like they would for anyone else; but again, that's a different thing than arbitrary DM favouritism at the meta level.

The problem with your separation of player and character is "it's what my character would do ..." Is the battle cry of the jerk player.

If a player introduces a disruptive character to the game, a character that actively disrupts the fun of the other players? It's the player that's the jerk, not the character.

 

[Minigiant]

Which are things* the players can figure out through their PCs without resorting to metagame tactics, by simply doing some in-game scouting and info-gathering which might even include a few probing raids or sorties into the place.

* - e.g. the relative size and-or population of the adventure or dungeon, what that population consists of, how it tends to fight or otherwise conduct itself, what some weaknesses might be, etc.; on which cumulative knowledge the PCs can base their strategies, recruitment of NPCs, resource load-out, initial approach, and so forth. No metagaming required.

But those same things you do to get infomation to act the way the DM wants is the same things the DMbans or makes difficult when you do tactics the DM doesn't like.

In this thread: Suddenly there are 20 more goblins and then turned the cave into a fort... in a day.
In this thread: Suddenly 2 "random" wandering monster encounters

Like i said, it's all info. Info many DMs only lets you get if the use the tactic they like. It's still metagaming.

 

[James Gasik]

Is knowledge of prime numbers really something we'll consider OOC knowledge? In the real world we've known about them for millennia, and if D&D is tech-equivalent to the Roman Empire, the middle ages, or the Renaissance then society must surely know roughly comparable math. (Just after a fall of empire or apocalypse might make for an exception, depending on just how much was lost.)

So shouldn't any reasonably knowledgeable character be aware of what prime numbers are and what they mean?

You'd have to ask my DM at the time. He seemed pretty irritated when the player of the character with the lowest mental stats blurted out the answer. Either way, since puzzles like this have no set way to ensure you are using your character's mental faculties or knowledge to solve, it seems the intent is for the player to do it for their character.

Well ok, you could assign an ability check DC, but the adventure doesn't do that. I had a post about metagaming from months back where I think I called stuff like this a "necessary evil"- it's metagaming, but it's metagaming that's needed to move the plot forward, and it's why I've never liked riddles or puzzles in my D&D. The only way to ensure the character is the one engaging with the puzzle would be die rolls, which wouldn't be fun for anyone. So you challenge the player. Of course, if the player is a 20 Int Wizard or a 18 Wis Cleric, and they don't get it, that's not exactly fun for them either...

It's a Catch-22.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You'd have to ask my DM at the time. He seemed pretty irritated when the player of the character with the lowest mental stats blurted out the answer. Either way, since puzzles like this have no set way to ensure you are using your character's mental faculties or knowledge to solve, it seems the intent is for the player to do it for their character.

Well ok, you could assign an ability check DC, but the adventure doesn't do that. I had a post about metagaming from months back where I think I called stuff like this a "necessary evil"- it's metagaming, but it's metagaming that's needed to move the plot forward, and it's why I've never liked riddles or puzzles in my D&D. The only way to ensure the character is the one engaging with the puzzle would be die rolls, which wouldn't be fun for anyone. So you challenge the player. Of course, if the player is a 20 Int Wizard or a 18 Wis Cleric, and they don't get it, that's not exactly fun for them either...

It's a Catch-22.

True it’s kind of unavoidable if ‘the wrong character’s player’ figures out the solution, my preferred resolution to this would be to have them explain the solution out of character to the other players and have one of the more suited characters ‘figure it out’

 

[delericho]

You'd have to ask my DM at the time. He seemed pretty irritated when the player of the character with the lowest mental stats blurted out the answer.

Ah, that explains a lot. My suspicion is that had it been the player of the wizard it may not have been the same issue...

Either way, since puzzles like this have no set way to ensure you are using your character's mental faculties or knowledge to solve, it seems the intent is for the player to do it for their character.

Agreed.

Well ok, you could assign an ability check DC, but the adventure doesn't do that.

I presume this was a 5e reprint of the adventure?

I had a post about metagaming from months back where I think I called stuff like this a "necessary evil"- it's metagaming, but it's metagaming that's needed to move the plot forward, and it's why I've never liked riddles or puzzles in my D&D. The only way to ensure the character is the one engaging with the puzzle would be die rolls, which wouldn't be fun for anyone. So you challenge the player.

Yes. Puzzles like this are very much about challenging the players, not the characters. The way I'd usually handle them would be to have the party as a group work through the problem, and then assume that the answer came from the most appropriate character, regardless of which player provided it. (Ideally, I'd persuade the players to report their answer through the player of that character, but such things are never perfect...)

That said, my preference for "challenge the players" type puzzles is to avoid outright puzzles, and instead build the puzzles into the dungeon - perhaps there are repeated motifs they can observe and work out, perhaps there's a gap in the map that points to the existence of a secret door, or whatever.

(But, by and large, I do take the view that "challenge the player" puzzles are a valid form of challenge in the game. YMMV, of course - some people prefer all challenges to be character-based.)

 

[James Gasik]

That certainly works from a narrative perspective, but you're still left with the players brains being the ones to tackle your puzzle. I used to play with a guy who was very good at puzzles, and anytime an adventure said "present this puzzle", he'd look at it for a few seconds and go "oh, we do this!".

Kind of made me wonder why we even bothered, lol. Me, I tend to overthink riddles and puzzles, so I'm notoriously bad at them. Despite the fact that I go out of my way to play decently intelligent characters.