D&D 5E Paladin/Hexblade+Options

Greg K

Hero
(emphasis mine)

Why not? Why are you bent on stopping a player from playing a concept they would enjoy? Why are you only "willing to run" what you want? The game is supposed to be about having fun for everyone, not just the DM.
Because I don't give into the geek fallacy that every person has to game together simply because they like rpgs. I am not going to run a game that I will not enjoy running whether it be flavor element or mechanics just as I don't expect players to play in a game that does not interest them. I offer what I offer and those interested will play . Those that are not don't (and free up a seat for someone else that does). To date, however, it has never come to this, but it come close once with one player who was initially reluctant to be restricted. By the end of campaign, the player was glad that he continued to play. Despite us being in someone else's campaign, he would call me asking when I could pick up the campaign so he could resume playing his character. The character was his favorite in twenty years of rpging and the campaign was also his favorite.
The above does not mean that I will not try to accommodate players to point within whatever confines I have set . For example, at the start of one 3.0 campaign, a player wanted to play a drow, but my setting had no drow (which was known up front). I did, however, have an island of elves whose religion was misunderstood by outsiders (and they did happen to have a spider spirit in their religion). I agreed to change their appearance to accommodate the player provided they still used high elf with the few cultural tweaks for the racial abilities. Spellcasting could be obtained via feat, taking an arcane class, or taking shaman (their religion was shamanistic based). The player was more than happy, because appealed to her about drow was their appearance and being outsiders.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Greg K

Hero
DMs fun outweighs the players.

Player unhappy leaves.
DM unhappy no game.
Exactly. All I need is one player on board, but the only time that I have have less than five regular players have been
  • when guests are over and ask me to run something
  • I had two long-term players move cross country for a job ( once classes are over,I really need to reconsider running onlne so they can play)
Context I've got 5 players, 6 and 7 would be easy enough and I'm essentially getting paid to do it via store credit so I'm getting the books half price/free.

My groups also the most stable one, only one that's lasted over a year. The newbies don't really know how to keep a group together.
Yeah, I don't get paid., but I have a regular group of four players (was six, but two, as mentioned above moved out of state due to the husband getting a job in his field after graduating wth his degre). I also have a few additional potential players that have asked for me to contact them if and when I start running game
As for campaign length and group stability, my longest campaign lasted from 1992-2004. My next longest campaign was a non-fantasy game from 2007-2014 (or 2015). I haven't run/played recently, because I have not worked up the enthusiasm to run online, but I am going to try after the holidays if my players still want me to do so.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
DMs fun outweighs the players.

Player unhappy leaves.
DM unhappy no game.
That is so ignorant. No players--no game either. :rolleyes:

Mine get to pick the theme from a list of stuff I would run.
Again, you are trumping the players fun by YOU deciding the theme or whatever. The table should decide a theme, not the DM.

I'm essentially getting paid to do it via store credit so I'm getting the books half price/free.
No wonder it sounds like you're treating it a "job" instead of fun for everyone.

The newbies don't really know how to keep a group together.
IME that has more to do with younger players than anything else. All of my groups have lasted 5 years or longer, only ending for me because I have moved away. As far as I know, those groups might even still be going. Groups that put the needs of all before the need of any one tend to last longer IMO.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Because I don't give into the geek fallacy that every person has to game together simply because they like rpgs.
No, they don't, but as long as all the people playing together are friends or becoming friends, that is the reason to play--to enjoy time having fun playing a great game with people you like.

If a player is being a problem, that is one thing, but placing arbitrary restrictions on a game because the DM says so is different. Again, if the table decides as a group on themes/restrictions, that is fine to me. Not everyone will be perfectly happy all the time, but at least it was a group decision.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
No, they don't, but as long as all the people playing together are friends or becoming friends, that is the reason to play--to enjoy time having fun playing a great game with people you like.

If a player is being a problem, that is one thing, but placing arbitrary restrictions on a game because the DM says so is different. Again, if the table decides as a group on themes/restrictions, that is fine to me. Not everyone will be perfectly happy all the time, but at least it was a group decision.
This particular poster has strongly defined aesthetic preferences for play (to the point where I know what 3rd party material they were going to mention) and has been a strong proponent of DM ownership over the game in their time on the boards. They aren't going to agree with you on this.
 

The problem here with a "I am the DM and this is my game" is that in many ways it is crap thinking. The table belongs to the DM and the players. Sure, if you are in a place where there are tons of players, the player can move along and find a different DM I guess.

IMO the best way to explain it is the "rules" and rulings belong to the DM to arbitrate, but the setting/theme/whatever belongs to the entire table--including the players.

Obviously, that is just my feeling on the issue. Democracy reigns, and if the group as a whole decides: no tritons, no MCing, no hexblade, etc. then cool.
Democracy is like two lions and a zebra who vote about what's for dinner... (sorry for my bad english).

The DM has reaponsibility to create a satisfying experience for him ad the players. He can and should take player preferences into account, but due to the imbalanced number of players ad DMs you can't have (true) democracy there. Except if you apply for the title of DM and everyone votes who gets to be the DM with his set of rules... but usually there is only one who applys for the job and since they do a bit more work, they should also be allowed to have some creative freedom and veto things he finds disruptive. After all this is important nit only for the DM to have fun, but also for the other players who might be sidelined by a specific combination of class and race in a certain campaign.

So yes. Banning Tritons in a storyline that has the sea as the party's adversary, chosing Triton might disrupt the game.

On the other hand, I could see a Paladin/Hexblade Triton as a fallen Paladin who was disgraced and drove away by the same Tritons who are encountered later. So while the Party doesn't need breath water for the Triton, they might need disguise self...
 


Dragonsbane

Proud Grognard
Personally I agree with OP and Greg. As a DM, I restrict for that particular campaign or just in a general way. Additionally, as my games have RP focus, most of my players have not minded said restrictions. The ones that do moved on.

TONS of players on Roll20. Let PGers or dippers find a DM that fits for them. Get rid of the players that don't fit your style. Too much time DM prepping for peeps that just want a way to be on top with numbers.

And no, as TwoSix said, not gonna agree on this after DMing since the 1980s LOL
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top