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

[GMforPowergamers]

I suppose this also depends on whether your PCs were saving up for anything else beyond the immediate campaign e.g. to build a stronghold or buy a business or become a noble. In these cases, money is important.

again I can maybe remember a hand full of times in the 20 years since 3e came out where we didn't have enough money to do that anyway at any time... money just isn't a good motivator or first few adventures you just retire rich (IME)

And that you weren't "allowed" to buy or sell magic items is, though backed by 5e RAW, IMO poor DMing; as realistically within any typical game world it's very logical to expect at least some sort of magic item trade to evolve even if only between adventuring parties.

I mean we can just agree to disagree. I have run and played both ways.

Money is always a motivation here. Get rich or die tryin'!

the problem is everyone is rich

I'll grant that 5e as written has neutered this a lot by making it so hard to spend money, but were I ever to run 5e this is something I'd chance without a second thought.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Sorry, I was assuming good and fair DMing here.

My mistake, I suppose.

 

[Lanefan]

You keep only seeing the bad side.
This is an example of treasure. I have 6 players. So if we do like you and assume the worst, 3 players got nothing so bouhouuuuuuu? Come on. Think a bit further and stop taking the worst approach. Again, we are talking about a fringe case, a rare exception where a player absolutely do not care about the game. Why would I want to keep that player? Or why would my group.

There4's a big difference between a) a player who outright doesn't care about the game, ans b) a player who does care about the game but is playing a character who doesn't care about the party.

All along I thought we were talking about b) above. If you've been meaning a) instead, then we're far closer to common ground.

 

[Mort]

Even if that same player's previous character and next character are models of co-operation? Sorry, not buyin' it.

If you introduce a character to specifically (or so likely as to make no difference) to be disruptive and mess with the fun of the others at the table? Yes, you are being a jerk. Whether you were being a jerk before or stopped being a jerk after makes no difference.

 

[Mort]

There4's a big difference between a) a player who outright doesn't care about the game, ans b) a player who does care about the game but is playing a character who doesn't care about the party.

All along I thought we were talking about b) above. If you've been meaning a) instead, then we're far closer to common ground.

Why on earth would you introduce a character that doesn't care about the party exactly?

That's just begging to end up in conflict. But I guess that's the point, just not really my thing.

 

[Oofta]

If you introduce a character to specifically (or so likely as to make no difference) to be disruptive and mess with the fun of the others at the table? Yes, you are being a jerk. Whether you were being a jerk before or stopped being a jerk after makes no difference.

Yeah, we had a player like that. Took the smallest imagined slight and blew it all out of proportion to the point that we had the party about to split and go their separate ways. He had apparently based it on some asinine character in some anime that everyone hated but kept as part of the team. He didn't understand that what made for good viewing didn't translate into fun at the game table.

Problem is, this was the second campaign where he had run basically the same schtick. We ended up moving and cutting the second campaign short but we were on the verge of kicking them out of the group after discussing with all the other players.

 

[Lanefan]

Why on earth would you introduce a character that doesn't care about the party exactly?

Because the character has its own agenda and sees the party as merely a temporary means toward achieving a greater end? [1]
Because the character isn't here by its own choice? [2]
Because the character comes to realize the party, or some members thereof, for whatever reason(s) aren't worth saving? [3]
Because the party are - knowingly or unknowingly - directly acting against the character's interests? [4]

I could go on, but you get the point - there's many reasons a character might come in to a party and yet not care about said party. Examples follow of how each of the above might appear in a game:

[1] - character is seeking a specific ingredient for a magic item and knows it can be found at Dangerous Location X. Character learns the party is going to D.L. X for different reasons, joins up, and tags along without caring about the party (he sees them as merely very talented but expendable bodyguards) or its own mission (in which he has no interest).

[2] - character is a foreigner or alien rescued or found by the party, doesn't know anyone in it, and is more interested in finding its fellow prisoners/survivors/etc. than in helping the party. Or option B: the character has been sentenced or ordered to join the party against its own wishes.

[3] - character is a pacifist, the rest of the party are not.

[4] - character is a staunch royalist, and only learns after joining the party that their mission is in fact to overthrow the crown.

That's just begging to end up in conflict.

For [3] and [4], perhaps. [4] also hints at the classic spy scenario, where the character joins the party specifically to report on and-or disrupt its work agains tthe crown.

For [1] and [2], however, not necessarily so much.

 

[Helldritch]

Given what you've said earlier around how you manipulate treasure placement to disfavour characters you don't like, these statements seem very much at odds.

It might appear so, but we are talking about a fringe case. Last time it happened to me was almost 40 years ago. Time flies doesn't it?

So if I'm playing character E and my character is lucky enough to be the sole survivor*, I don't get to go back to town and recruit a new party? That seems very - non-continuous, for lack of a better term.

* - note: it's not a TPK as there was one survivor; and that there was a survivor means the party's story can continue, even if it takes a new direction from here.

It fully depends on how you died and the circumstances. If you were that disruptive players, I would simply start an other campaign with new characters for everyone. Feel free to brag about being the only survivor...

We all do. Fact of life, I think.

Yep.

Yet from the descriptions you give of how your table operates (and thanks for those, by the way!), disruptive might be in the eye of the beholder. If, say, I'm a player and someone else doing something rash gets my character killed, it seems I'm able to stop the game and put the rash character's (and maybe its player's) further participation to a debate (i.e. argument!) and vote. This doesn't seem right somehow, and also serves as a great big deterrent to playing rash characters, which comes back to being told how to play. (and as rash characters are always the most fun, it seems counterproductive to discourage them)

Bad luck can be seen as we all roll on the open. You might have a crazy plan, but it can fail through no fault of your own. On the other hand, actively helping the foes of the group would trigger that vote (unless charmed) the second you would start acting like that.
Rule one: No evil characters
Rule two: No chaotic neutral characters.
It prevents a lot of troubles.

Never mind that if I put that character's continuance to a vote and lose, I've just caused hard feelings with its player.

Probably. But it is better than the argument you could have and the loss of friendship. When everyone tells you that you did wrong. It might be hard pill to swallow for your pride. But it is the only way to continue and grow.

Or - and I've seen this happen myself - there's a strong underlying peer pressure to conform, strong enough that nobody dares move outside the boundaries. As something of a non-conformist when it comes to D&D, this is the sort of thing I tend to push back against when I meet it.

Again a fringe case. We have our "nutty nuts" characters too. It never goes as far as the case we have been debating.

Edit: Finished my response that got posted with accidental push of the button...

 

[Helldritch]

There4's a big difference between a) a player who outright doesn't care about the game, ans b) a player who does care about the game but is playing a character who doesn't care about the party.

All along I thought we were talking about b) above. If you've been meaning a) instead, then we're far closer to common ground.

I have been talking about "A" since the very start and ever since.
Two years ago, a character simply left the group (with all the treasure and the portable hole) because the characters in the group were always on his back (not the players, the characters). It was a fine RP moment when the group woke up in the morning to find that all their belonging had disappeared along with their cash. With the approval of the player, I made that warlock an NPC bent on the destruction of the group that was soooo much on his back, telling him what to think, do and like. His patron was quite happy with this event as the group was about to attack an ally of the patron of the warlock. This pushed the game in a new direction and it was quite fun.

There is a big difference between the player and the character.

 

[Minigiant]

Sorry, I was assuming good and fair DMing here.

My mistake, I suppose.

I think some dms think their unfair DING is how the game works.

Especially since the power of magic spells outstrip the mundane mundane by so much.

Like the old dchool classic goblin cave doesn't work as an encounter deliver device with goblin shaman or witch doctors as mundane goblins cannot match th power of 5e magic without exceeding numbers that result in TPKs.