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

[Micah Sweet]

Well, there's your problem then.

Or yours, depending on point of view.

 

[Lanefan]

Given we've had at least two in this thread that outright said they don't consult with their players about them...

When playing with friends who are forever-players, it can easily reach the point where you can fairly accurately predict what they're going to say if-when consulted with: almost invariably amounting to nerfs = no, boost = yes, neutral = who cares.

Those players who are also DMs will, IME, usually give a more balanced take; as they know to look at the long-term benefits/drawbacks/effects to the game as a whole rather than just through the lens of "How does this affect my character?".

 

[Lanefan]

I agree, especially something like chain mail shouldn't have that much of a penalty. Even plate armor could have special padding or felt added to reduce noise without significantly reducing effectiveness.

My rule of thumb is the more metal the armour has, the noisier it's likely to be; not just from clinking against itself but from things like the wearer's weapon scabbards (or worse, exposed weapons on a belt or across one's back) and other gear knocking into it, interaction with any obstacles, and so forth.

Meanwhile I make mithral armor readily available.

That's generous of you.

 

[Umbran]

I've had far more problems with fellow players than DMs. It's simply a numbers thing, ther are typically 6 players to 1 DM.

If I don't trust the DM to make decisions they won't be my DM for long.

If you mostly play with strangers at conventions or your FLGS, I suppose this can be an issue.

If you play with folks you know... the trust part should not just be for the GM. If you can't trust your players to not try to abuse things, why are they at your table?

 

[AlViking]

If you mostly play with strangers at conventions or your FLGS, I suppose this can be an issue.

If you play with folks you know... the trust part should not just be for the GM. If you can't trust your players to not try to abuse things, why are they at your table?

I've played and DMed a lot of public games over the years. I've also had to start up new groups a few times because of moving. Starting up a group after college almost always included at least a few people I had never met. It's been a great way to make new friends.

Trust until proven otherwise has always gone both ways for me. Fortunately the vast majority of people I've played with over the years have been great fun.

 

[pawsplay]

There's a lot to be said for classicism. Honestly, the more D&D drifts from its original lore and aesthetics, the more I am inclined to play something else instead. Not out of hate. It's just, if I'm going to have non-chromatic dragons and a customized magic system, why wouldn't I just play Fantasy Hero or Savage Worlds or something?

 

[Lanefan]

If you mostly play with strangers at conventions or your FLGS, I suppose this can be an issue.

If you play with folks you know... the trust part should not just be for the GM. If you can't trust your players to not try to abuse things, why are they at your table?

My take: it's better to trust that the players will try to abuse things at some point, even if unintentionally. That way you're ready and prepared to deal with it if-when it happens, and if it doesn't happen then all is well and nothing is lost.

 

[Faolyn]

Since when is a preference a problem?

If I'm playing I don't want to do any world building. If you have a different preference that's not a problem either.

Read the previous comments. I was talking about the group coming up with house rules; I wasn't talking about worldbuilding at all. Others (Lanefan, Deset Gled) think it's too likely that the players will act in bad faith and self-interest rather than what's good for the game. I said that's more likely to be the case where the GM is antagonistic or neutral, not so much in games where everyone works together.

Example: I've been making subclasses for Daggerheart recently, a system that's new for all of us. Specifically, I've been making subclasses based around character ideas two of the players have been talking about. While they pointed out features they felt were lackluster in comparison to the book's subclasses, they also pointed out features that felt OP to them or that weren't thematically necessary. (And the unnecessary feature was effectively "sense invisible ghosts and spirits" in what will be a Ravenloft game--that is, a game that is likely to have a lot of invisible ghosts and spirits in it.)

If they had acted out of self-interest, they probably wouldn't have wanted me to nerf those subclasses. Instead, they wanted the subclasses to be balanced and thematically appropriate.

Micah decided to pooh-pooh the idea of players and GMs working together because he doesn't like storytelling games. Even though we weren't even talking about storytelling games at all and I didn't say a thing about telling a story. So I guess my preference is a problem for him? You're going to go tell him off for that, yes?

And I feel that's his loss, because he doesn't get the players working to make the game better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Read the previous comments. I was talking about the group coming up with house rules; I wasn't talking about worldbuilding at all. Others (Lanefan, Deset Gled) think it's too likely that the players will act in bad faith and self-interest rather than what's good for the game. I said that's more likely to be the case where the GM is antagonistic or neutral, not so much in games where everyone works together.

Example: I've been making subclasses for Daggerheart recently, a system that's new for all of us. Specifically, I've been making subclasses based around character ideas two of the players have been talking about. While they pointed out features they felt were lackluster in comparison to the book's subclasses, they also pointed out features that felt OP to them or that weren't thematically necessary. (And the unnecessary feature was effectively "sense invisible ghosts and spirits" in what will be a Ravenloft game--that is, a game that is likely to have a lot of invisible ghosts and spirits in it.)

If they had acted out of self-interest, they probably wouldn't have wanted me to nerf those subclasses. Instead, they wanted the subclasses to be balanced and thematically appropriate.

Micah decided to pooh-pooh the idea of players and GMs working together because he doesn't like storytelling games. Even though we weren't even talking about storytelling games at all and I didn't say a thing about telling a story. So I guess my preference is a problem for him? You're going to go tell him off for that, yes?

And I feel that's his loss, because he doesn't get the players working to make the game better.

Your preference isn't a problem for me, but you are approaching trad games with a decidedly narrative mindset (now including Daggerheart, an explicitly more narrative game than most versions of D&D), and that's not how I play. You can like what you like, and I can like what I like, and we both get to talk about it.

 

[Faolyn]

Your preference isn't a problem for me, but you are approaching trad games with a decidedly narrative mindset (now including Daggerheart, an explicitly more narrative game than most versions of D&D), and that's not how I play. You can like what you like, and I can like what I like, and we both get to talk about it.

So you're saying that, in a trad game, it's impossible for players and GMs to work together? Players and GMs must always be at odds?