D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[Minigiant]

In my experience it was more DMs not wanting to deal it. Usually because thier ego's didnt like player putting important things to the plot i to the game. Or just not wanting to deal with follower's, income, etc

and not being able to screw with the player stuff easily.

Optional Subsystems have to make both players and DMs care.

When I introduced crafting to my game, the players loved partnering with the friendly potionmaker for potions per week.
And I got a carrot to threaten with kidnapping and a goldsink for them via bodyguard since they wouldn't clean up the city.

Blaming choices you disagree with on "ego" is insulting. Even if you were only insulting a handful of DMs.

It's more than a handful. It's noticeable.
But it's no way the majority.

Railroading wannabe novelist DMs is an insult for a reason. Because there are a lot of them

 

[Oofta]

and not being able to screw with the player stuff easily.

Optional Subsystems have to make both players and DMs care.

When I introduced crafting to my game, the players loved partnering with the friendly potionmaker for potions per week.
And I got a carrot to threaten with kidnapping and a goldsink for them via bodyguard since they wouldn't clean up the city.


It's more than a handful. It's noticeable.
But it's no way the majority.

Railroading wannabe novelist DMs is an insult for a reason. Because there are a lot of them

All I can say is that most truly bad DMs are either inexperienced and need guidance or are not DMs for long. Egotistical control freak DMs fall into that latter category.

Obviously there are horror stories, but I can't imagine many people putting up with those DMs for long.

There are of course also DMs that simply don't run the kind of game I want, but that's a different issue.

 

[Minigiant]

All I can say is that most truly bad DMs are either inexperienced and need guidance or are not DMs for long. Egotistical control freak DMs fall into that latter category.

Obviously there are horror stories, but I can't imagine many people putting up with those DMs for long.

There are of course also DMs that simply don't run the kind of game I want, but that's a different issue.

Not much anymore but they used to last long by being one of the few DMs in an area.

 

[Umbran]

The problem with being insulted by other people's observations is you are insulting them by assuming they were wrong and doing so while throwing a narcissistic fit over whether or not you know what I experienced better than I do.

Mod note:
So, doubling down on having no responsibility for the impact your words have is perhaps not the best plan you've ever had.

We expect you to show a minimum of respect for others. If you're not up to that, you may retire from this conversation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

All I can say is that most truly bad DMs are either inexperienced and need guidance or are not DMs for long. Egotistical control freak DMs fall into that latter category.

Obviously there are horror stories, but I can't imagine many people putting up with those DMs for long.

There are of course also DMs that simply don't run the kind of game I want, but that's a different issue.

I have had few bad DMs myself. I usually take pains to filter out ones that give bad vibes, or that demonstrate decision-making I find suspect.

But there are a lot of DMs that fall into one of those two categories, and I have personally helped rescue friends from DMs I've never met, but who did do some terrible things. Shown them that RPGs can be awesome and not terrible. At least two players of mine have learned that their past experiences were because of bad DMs (one who was new...the other wasn't, very unfortunately), and that they actually love tabletop gaming.

The only way "Bad DM -> not a DM for long" happens is when you're exclusively looking at either a friend group (who can thus use peer pressure or group rejection) or a small community where everyone knows everyone else. Anything else, there's not enough repeat interactions to develop social reputation. No social reputation, said bad DM can simply keep moving on to new pastures indefinitely. The neverending DM shortage ensures that anyone willing to offer will get plenty of interest, even if they're not being a DM in good faith.

 

[MNblockhead]

A couple of points, It is not all that crunchy. My two gripes with it are: if one is not using the mini wargame I see little point to it and it (like other third party efforts and somewhat in the Bastion System) it assumes that each player is interested in domain management. In my experience the party may be interested in the idea of a stronghold but for the party and they want it to provide research/magic items/healing or something like that.
That is why I liked the herb garden idea from the Bastion system. A stronghold that supplied the party with a reasonable number of potions per adventure with out a shopping episode is a good idea in my opinion.

For me, the mini wargame is the least inspired part of the book. I really like the rules for building strongholds. You can have followers that will give additional resources and benefits, from research to material needs. The strongholds themselves give additional abilities to the characters which I found to be flavorful, useful, and not unbalanced. It has some simple henchmen rules that are very workable. Even if you ignore the rules related to attracting, hiring, and maintaining troops, there is still a lot of good stuff in that book. While we didn't make use of the mini-wargame rules, other than a one‑shot to try them out, we did use the rules for hiring/attracting and maintaining troops so that the party to hold area they cleared, provide protection to their strongholds (even if we don't war game, having to ensure you have the muscle to protect your stronghold and assets can be still be made important), and protect other interests.

It isn't for every group of players for sure, but for those who want to establish a home base and have something to spend money on, they provide relativity light rules to do that that are flavorful and support the main goal of making the characters more interesting to play.

 

[MNblockhead]

What has this to do with anything. It is just a mode of play that Stronghold and Followers does very little for. Other versions of stronghold rules may be better or suit more playstyles. I made no claims about what D&D should be. Just that the Strongholds and Followers books is best suited to those that want domain management in the context of kingdom level diplomacy and war.]
Just because I only mention one playstyle in a discussion about a supplement does not mean that I advocating that D&D should be only that thing or that I am not aware of other playstyles.
I find the implication that I have been advocating a singular play style both irritating and insulting.

Just a minor correction, Strongholds and Followers is very much zoomed into the level of supporting players playing typical DC. The stronghold-management rules are pretty light and very local focused. The second book is focused on crunchier wargame rules and Kingdom / domain management.

Strongholds & Followers stronghold rules can easily fit into any D&D game where the PC regularly return to a home base.

 

[MNblockhead]

Using a VTT for mass combat could potentially make it less expensive.

I'd say DEFINATELY less expensive.

 

[MNblockhead]

As a longtime DM I want my players to have impact on the world and they often do. Sometimes in ways I never expected, which is awesome.

I've never done domains because they've never been anything my players asked for and we'venever had a good system for it. It's insulting to DMs everywhere to imply we don't want to give players nice things or that we're all control freaks. It has nothing to do with "ego".

I didn't read his comment as casting shade on DMs. I think that it hard to argue that DMing can require a big investment of time and attention and at some point most DMs will hit a limit on how much book keeping they want to do. The DM has to have fun too. I really enjoyed running my 5e campaign I just wrapped up, but I certainly introduced a lot more moving parts with stronghold rules, factions and reputation rules, downtime, creature component and alchemy rules, etc. It worked for me because I only run one session a month and it gives a between-session play-by-e‑mail side game of sorts. Some DMs just want to run simple games and there is nothing wrong with that, or with observing that this is the case for many DMs (I would guess most, but that's just a guess).

 

[GuardianLurker]

Out of curiosity, has anyone done high-level play where Wish was simply not a thing? If so, how did it go?

Yep. My 5e campaign - which ended with the characters fighting Tiamat herself in Avernus - didn't have any. Now, it did have extremely high-level magics thrown around for specific effects. But not Wish itself.

It worked just fine.

I've also played high-level games where Wish was used. I've found the single biggest technique to keep it from being a problem is to make the rules binding the Wish clear. If your players are blue-booking their wishes, and working up standardized wish templates, I'm pretty sure wishes are being handled right.

*Edit: Wow. How did I end up missing 30 pages of conversation? Gah! *

Eh. Being a Bad GM is (IMO) only a problem if they stay that way. I'm certainly had my period where I tried to be a railroading wannabe author GM. I learned and outgrew that. I had my monty-haul period. I outgrew that, too. (Mostly.) The problem isn't the error, it's refusing to correct or learn from it.