D&D 5E Rant about Forced Movement

[Maxperson]

There’s a way to say your ruling is final without coming off as a tyrant, and it could be just that in order to move the game along, you’re making this ruling for the time being and the group can revisit it after the game is over.

As for a player getting hot at the table, I’ve seen players do this and always that person needs to check themselves and maybe leave the table. It’s a game, and getting riled up around one particular ruling, especially when you have so many other options as a player at your fingertips to impact the game - it’s just not a good look.

Yep, though I'd add the caveat of "Unless the ruling will cause a PC to die or has a high likelihood of causing a PC to die." Then it really needs to be hashed out then.

 

[Maxperson]

Pretty sure this is a discussion forum and trying to chase people out of the game with a rake doesn't work.

Yep. It's probably why @DEFCON 1 didn't do that. If someone comes here upset with D&D because he wants to play a game that is designed around playing smurphs, someone saying that D&D isn't designed around being smurphs at all and if that's what they are looking for, they will have to look elsewhere, isn't chasing them out of D&D(or a discussion forum). It's giving them solid advice pertaining to their stated goal.

D&D isn't written in precise language. Not even close. Someone who wants to play a game that is written precisely will indeed have to look elsewhere to find it, as they won't ever find it in 5e or 5.5e. That isn't telling them to leave. That isn't telling them not to post. It's just good advice pertaining to their stated goal.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yep. It's probably why @DEFCON 1 didn't do that. If someone comes here upset with D&D because he wants to play a game that is designed around playing smurphs, someone saying that D&D isn't designed around being smurphs at all and if that's what they are looking for, they will have to look elsewhere, isn't chasing them out of D&D(or a discussion forum). It's giving them solid advice pertaining to their stated goal.

D&D isn't written in precise language. Not even close. Someone who wants to play a game that is written precisely will indeed have to look elsewhere to find it, as they won't ever find it in 5e or 5.5e. That isn't telling them to leave. That isn't telling them not to post. It's just good advice pertaining to their stated goal.

Yep!

The problem though is that people here don't actually want good advice, they want to vent and vent and vent without anyone telling them why their vents have no point. And they don't like it when they can't get that.

 

[Maxperson]

A loooot of people take it there though.

And frankly, thinking of it as 'your' game when there's 1-7 other people there also isn't the best thing to be doing either.

It's not your game, but it is your world, the DMG even says that straight out. The DMG also gives the DM the authority to change rules, set limits, change rules, override rules, etc.

So yes, it is a shared game and the DM shouldn't be a douche, but neither should the players. Disrupting a game over a ruling that isn't going to kill off a PC is not a good look.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

So your games don't look like this?
View attachment 378717
with the DM ruling over his players???

Huh...?

And if not, why the heck not?

 

[SteveC]

Oh this issue! This has been a huge issue for one of the DMs I play with. What fixed it for him is playing Baldur's Gate 3. He saw how it works there and came to terms with it for his game. But before that every time our cleric did Spirit Guardians we got a "here we go again." And he did Spirit Guardians almost every combat.

For me, it doesn't bother me, but it's one of those rules that brings me back to "this is a game."

 

[TiQuinn]

Personally, I wouldn't have a game at all without players, so I consider it to be somewhere between "joint custody" and "visitation rights". I don't particularly care to rid myself of my players, so I attempt to be as open as possible to compromises to make sure everyone is having fun.

Now I'm not speaking to anyone who has a firm hand on their game and don't have any problems, but I personally know a few "my way or the highway" GM's.

They currently have no players and no games. It's kind of sad watching them lurk around the FLGS, putting up the occasional post on the bulletin board in an attempt to recruit gamers, and sharing tales of the "good old days" with anyone who will listen, all while griping about the "entitled modern gamers".

I've tried to play with them in the past, but the combination of byzantine house rules and draconian tactics spoils the fun pretty quickly. I still recall the time I joined a 1e AD&D game one individual (we'll call him "Ken") was running. I made a Half-Orc Fighter.

Halfway through the first session, I was accosted by the town guard, refused service at the inn, and spit upon by local kids. I ended up being lynched by an angry mob when the party Thief committed a crime and it was immediately assumed that the "orc guy" must have been responsible!

When I finally asked why I was being targeted, he scoffed and said "You said you've played AD&D before. Everyone knows that Half-Orcs are universally hated!"

Again, not saying that anyone who has a firm hand on their game is anything like that! Bad GM's and bad players aren't to blame. But that's pretty much my motivation for being as accommodating as possible with my players.

That sounds like an absolute nightmare scenario. I’ve seen DMs like that in the past but luckily they’re increasingly uncommon from what I’ve seen. I will say though it’s why I sometimes get a little nervous around some OSR DMs who are just a bit too down on modern games.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Heh heh... you really seem to want to think people are trying to drive you from your land. Like you're outside yelling "Get off my lawn!" to all the people who are merely driving by on the street.

You literally told people to go to another game and I'm the one telling people to get off my lawn?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Disrupting a game over a ruling that isn't going to kill off a PC is not a good look.

Neither is disrupting a game to defend a dumb personal ruling.

 

[ezo]

Halfway through the first session, I was accosted by the town guard, refused service at the inn, and spit upon by local kids. I ended up being lynched by an angry mob when the party Thief committed a crime and it was immediately assumed that the "orc guy" must have been responsible!

When I finally asked why I was being targeted, he scoffed and said "You said you've played AD&D before. Everyone knows that Half-Orcs are universally hated!"

This is a pretty extreme example IME...

But I get it. I warn players that Half-Orcs, Dragonborn, Tieflings, and others sometimes will have to deal with some animosity occasionally, at least distrust and caution. But that is also because I personally don't like the Cantaina-approach to races in D&D. To me part of the challenge of playing those races is how you choose to deal with those issues.

However, it is off-topic to the thread in general, so I'll leave it at that.