D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Enrahim]

If the DM killed of your level 1 characters with an ancient red dragon in any edition they were being an a-hole in my book.

Even if the campaign was supposed to be based on the Hobbit, with the opening scene set in Long Sea during Smaug's attack to establish some cool context?

If the players somehow manage to find an exploit in my descriptions that allow them to get in position to fire off something that actually do damage, while actively delaying Bard (rather than assist as anticipated), I would really struggle to see what would even motivate me to search for a way to save them ;P

But yeah, as a general principle with possible exceptions I guess I agree with your statement.

 

[Faolyn]

No one said ghost the DM. You tell him you don't want to continue on in his campaign. The person I replied to just assumed the ghosting.

That's why I included "If you do X" and "If you do Y."

And for the GAME of D&D, I don't find talking things out with the group to be very fruitful most of the time.

That's a big shame. One of the great things about my group is that we will talk our problems out. Sometimes that means talking about it later; other times it means putting the game on pause. It depends about the nature of the problem. As a result, we actually have very few issues.

It sure is a time sink though. You can turn a long planned Saturday into a complete waste of time. It can wait till later and maybe a discussion by phone some evening you aren't playing. Even then be prepared to be told no by the DM. See I recognize two things. A DM is over his or her campaign and I am free to play or not play (if invited of course) in that campaign.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the DM killed of your level 1 characters with an ancient red dragon in any edition they were being an a-hole in my book.

This seems to assume no responsibility on the players’ part. If PCs encounter and are killed by a red dragon at level 1, it’s certainly possible that the GM is being an a-hole, as you put it. But it could also happen because of poor decisions by the players.

I think the 2024 book does a better job than the 2014 books, but both talk about the game being fun for everyone. Most complaints I hear is that 5e and it's guidance on encounters is that it's "too easy".

The guidelines in D&D ave just as much ability to enforce good GMing as any rules in any other game. Approximately 0.

Enforce? No, probably not… but who’s talking about enforcing rules? Of course a book can’t do that. What it can do is provide the rules, describe them, and explain them. It can instruct people on the rules and on best practices.

Some books do that better than others.

 

[AlViking]

Even if the campaign was supposed to be based on the Hobbit, with the opening scene set in Long Sea during Smaug's attack to establish some cool context?

If the players somehow manage to find an exploit in my descriptions that allow them to get in position to fire off something that actually do damage, while actively delaying Bard (rather than assist as anticipated), I would really struggle to see what would even motivate me to search for a way to save them ;P

But yeah, as a general principle with possible exceptions I guess I agree with your statement.

Having a scene where the dragon destroys the home town of the heroes and there's a scramble to escape and save those that they can, cool. But walking down the road and you get turned into ash? No thanks. There used to be a style of tournament play where the odds of your survival were extremely low. It was fine, even fun now and then as long as you knew what to expect going in. But if you have a DM that has you write up two characters and then proceed to kill the entire party off one by one? That's what we called a 1-time DM.

 

[AlViking]

This seems to assume no responsibility on the players’ part. If PCs encounter and are killed by a red dragon at level 1, it’s certainly possible that the GM is being an a-hole, as you put it. But it could also happen because of poor decisions by the players.

Technically correct I should have stated "With no way to avoid it". Better? Because as I just posted above I had a DM 1 time (and by that I mean they only DMed 1 time) where they had us all roll up 2 characters and then killed every last one of them by the end of the first session. Nope. Not gonna waste my time doing that again.

Enforce? No, probably not… but who’s talking about enforcing rules? Of course a book can’t do that. What it can do is provide the rules, describe them, and explain them. It can instruct people on the rules and on best practices.

Some books do that better than others.

I think the 2024 DMG does a decent job, it talks quite a bit about how to run a game that works for people and how to run a good game. But there's really only so much a book can tell you, the only real enforcement is the social contract, the expectations of the people at the table.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. When it comes to declaring what is in the world, the DM is always right. If players want to discuss the rules of D&D after the session is over and how the DM is applying those rules, that is fine. The DM may have made a mistake according to the rules but no we aren't going to stop and debate it all night. I'm not going to have a rules lawyer try to overrule what is happening.

Might not need a rules lawyer, though.

@EzekielRaiden 's statement that the DM is always right is valid, but only to a point. Where even an I'm-god-and-what-I-say-goes DM can be wrong is when saying something that directly contradicts something he's already said.

Trivial example: he narrates the wall as white then when next asked he narrates it as dark gray.
More relevant example: he first narrates the opponent as only carrying light weapons yet when said foe attacks a round later she does so with a greatsword.
Silly example: he narrates the sun rising in the east every morning until one day to get the right lighting effect he has it rise in the west.

These sort of mistakes shouldn't need a rules lawyer to correct, and a DM who insists on doubling down on them on a regular basis (as opposed to rare one-time magic effects) is IMO unfit for the chair.

 

[Lanefan]

This is why a discussion can happen after the game is over. An hour long debate which in all honesty is never going to make much of a difference other than waste everyone's time does hurt the game. It hurts it far worse than a bad DM call here or there.

The DM then can adjust if he feels the player made a good case. I'm not doing that during the game. Most of the time the players honestly don't make a good case. They think they know something when they don't. But I welcome all discussion because on rare occasions they are right but we do that after the session is over.

The problem with that is by the time that after-game discussion takes place you've already made the bad ruling and moved on. Overturning the bad ruling later means having to retcon everything that happened afterwards. Not overturning it later means you've set a precedent for the rest of the campaign.

Whcih means, even if it takes an in-game discussion or argument, getting it right (as far as you can) the first time is paramount.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Have they? I'd need actual quotes to believe that.

They have not said so here. But they have said so. Bloodtide, Max, and some I have ignored as a result of interactions in this thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Might not need a rules lawyer, though.

@EzekielRaiden 's statement that the DM is always right is valid, but only to a point. Where even an I'm-god-and-what-I-say-goes DM can be wrong is when saying something that directly contradicts something he's already said.

Trivial example: he narrates the wall as white then when next asked he narrates it as dark gray.
More relevant example: he first narrates the opponent as only carrying light weapons yet when said foe attacks a round later she does so with a greatsword.
Silly example: he narrates the sun rising in the east every morning until one day to get the right lighting effect he has it rise in the west.

These sort of mistakes shouldn't need a rules lawyer to correct, and a DM who insists on doubling down on them on a regular basis (as opposed to rare one-time magic effects) is IMO unfit for the chair.

One of my greatest frustrations with the "traditional GM" role as described by several people here and elsewhere (meaning both in other threads on this forum, and in other places on the internet, e.g. links people give me about "FKR" stuff) is that this is not only not mentioned, I see things which seem to blatantly indicate its exact opposite.

That is, the assertion that not only is it fine to do this, the GM must do this some of the time, and any player who ever complains is a Problem. I have been referred to as, IIRC, a "saboteur" for taking umbrage with this level of deference, or something like that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am speaking it aloud before any play begins, but then probably not in the moment.

For example, I generally reserve the right to occasionally fudge dice rolls. I do not generally announce when I am doing so in play.



Occasionally, but most often not. They allow me my judgement. I have built trust in my intentions, and do not violate that trust.



Well, there's been a couple of times when I've told the players that there were rules in play that that aren't in the book, but that they didn't know. So, the presence of such rules was known, but not the details.

Well, while this would very much not be my cup of tea, you have at least made it clear and gotten your players' explicit consent to occasionally deceive them, which removes a significant part of the sting. It wouldn't be for me, but that's irrelevant.

If your base complaint is about GMs who don't have the wisdom to run a proper Session Zero... that's not really a game design, or even a playstyle issue, to my mind. That has nothing to do with the game, and is about not knowing how to work with groups of people, in general.

That is not my base complaint. It does help, I certainly grant that. But it is not my base complaint.