Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ancoulainn" data-source="post: 9869309" data-attributes="member: 7056539">Where in the rules does it say that the creature isn't willing after failing the save? From what passages in the rules or the glossary is any of that?Which is not an argument for your point. They changed and then they changed back. There's nothing stating that they never changed. Quite the contrary actually since it states that their disposition towards you changed. Attitude, thinking, and memory aren't the same.Agreement isn't necessary. We're not playing at the same table nor will we ever. So. you can roll your eyes and laugh as much as you like and so can I. It hurts no one.How do you know? Do you have official statistics or surveyed DnD-groups? All but one group I ever played in loved that kind of stuff, including the DM, and in that one outlier, it was the "I want to do this professionally"-type and that's a red flag to begin with.Why would they not be? It's within the rules. And what is wrong with creativity?If that is established at session zero, it's cool. If you fail at communicating expectations, be it as a player or DM, that's on you. DnD is a collaborative game that builds on communication. If the DM doesn't establish the rules or the player doesn't communicate what they want to do early on, they have nobody but themselves to blame.Of course, somebody can cast Dispel Magic which is generally my solution if players go further than what I deem reasonable for the campaign and they know that upfront that encounters dynamically adjust to them.And of course, you can say that they ran out of material components until Wish opens that door again and then you start over, so thinking ahead is better. If you play to that level, of course.To lay the ground rules, you have session 0. If the DM doesn't do that, then everything in the book is in the game. That's not an assumption, but what playing DND 5.24e means if you're not more specific. Laying out the rules is one of the main jobs of the DM. If they don't do it, that's on them.What I see more here is your expectation that everyone has to think like you or they're not en par. You act like the people who want to play RAW have to clarify, not the people who want to divert from RAW. That's backwards.Having a Fiend pet via Planar Binding is intended. There's a spell for it and the spell says exactly that.Again, the session 0 thing.Again, where is the data?Again, have a session 0, be honest, open, and discuss what everyone expects at the table, so you may be forward knowing whether it's a good fit for everyone. You can openly say that you don't want min-maxers or optimizers at the table. That's entirely ok. You just don't want to advertise your campaign with a long list of don'ts or people might be less likely to sign up. It's better to leave that for session 0 when they could figure out that you're actually a cool guy.And dissenting opinions are great. I produced an argument for your position myself. They just have be founded in the rules or they're worthless.Ultimately, every DM has to develop their own style. Reading in forums on what other people think is pointless. We all have opinions. That's nothing new and you can look up anything and find dissent. But neither popularity nor dissent form the basis for an argument. Learning to make a decision, however, does.A DM who established the rules can "push back" on anything. But if they come back later and use arguments that aren't founded in the rules, that's on them and they're creating the issue, not the player who went with RAW. I could see how an experienced player could take advantage of an inexperienced DM and that's a different story, but when a DM has 10+ years of experience, he needs to know his stuff and establish the rules in session 0. If they don't, everything that fallows is on them.And if it's established early on, it's always fair. If you don't and just come to it after the fact without having anything in the rules to support you, it's never fair. Players build their characters with the mechanics in mind and if you don't tell them before level 10 about your stance on willingness without having anything in the rules to back you up - which you don't - then it's you and only you who's the problem. That's what brings toxicity to a table. Establishing the rules in session 0, whatever they are, avoids that and is key.If inexperienced DMs should learn one thing, then it's having a session 0 and discussing with all the players their expectations openly and honestly and what they want to do to create a culture of communication. If that's done, everything else falls into place, regardless of what rules have been established.</blockquote>

Verification