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

[Hussar]

This is an interesting idea, if one has the right group of players. It would probably help if all those players had at least enough DMing experience to know what a vaguely-level-appropriate encounter looks like (doesn't have to be bang-on right but when someone turns in a Lich encounter for a 2nd-level party you've got a lot of work to do).

Thing is, though, IME many casual players (which we have to accept as being the vast majority of the player base) don't think about the game at all between sessions which means they're either writing up their encounters during the sessions or you're pulling teeth trying to get them submitted.

Not fond of this, though - way too meta for my liking.

That is obviously the idea. But, I think if we could ACTUALLY get something like that into the PHB or into some sort of official book, that might get it over the hump. If players are expected to contribute between sessions, and know that up front, I think it would help a lot.

As far as being too "meta", well, the whole exercise is obviously meta. And it's a way to let the players know just how reliable their own knowledge is. If there's a massive bowl of M&M's there, well, that means the DM has done all sorts of alterations. If the bowl is nearly empty...

And it becomes an interesting resource. No different than, say, Action Points or Inspiration. And because it's a group resource, there's also the tension of who gets to use it.

I'm going to pitch this idea to my players some time in the future. I hope I can get it off the ground. To be fair, the last time I tried, it fizzled. So, yeah, I do believe it's very much an uphill slog. Mostly because players have been taught to be so freaking passive.

 

[gban007]

As far as what @Micah Sweet may or may not have said, I don't care. I'm not Micah and I don't follow or remember every conversation in a thread with more than 20,000 cocomments.

I guess from my perspective, if you don't care what Micah said, why did you jump in on a response to Micah? As it stands by choosing to only read the one line response without without the context of what it was replying to, is why you thought it was attacking a preference when I dont think reading the context that it was. It is just that two differing views on home to play the game leads to one way of playing it potentially preventing one way of coming up with house rules from being used.

 

[Lanefan]

Define "lose".

It's a common belief that the only way to "lose" an RPG is to not have fun. You apparently agree, as you have said it's tons of fun for everyone when the PCs backstab each other, even though their character "lose" by dying (or being stolen from, or whatever). You've said that everyone is fine if all they do is faff around and not get to the adventure's goal.

Indeed, but there's still the basic instinct to not lose. Loss conditions include character death, level drain, petrification, item or gear destruction, stat loss, and so forth.

Which means, were I to take a (hypothetical) proposal to the players that would result in more item and gear destruction and a second proposal that would result is less item and gear destruction, which do you think they'd vote for? As in, 100 times out of 100.

Not nearly so hypothetical: the casting mechanics I'm using were new for this campaign. 17 years in, I've come to realize that the fatal flaw is that while 1st to 5th level was fine, by higher levels casters (all types) have too many spell slots and are pushing the non-casters aside much more than I expected. And so I'm going to cut their slots back if-when I ever reboot, even though I know damn well some of the players won't like it, because in the long run it's what's good for the game as a whole.

If I put this to a player vote, though, it would never pass. The current group is mellow enough I don't think it'd devolve into a big argument (with some past groups, it most certainly would have!) but I still very much doubt I could get it through. And so, it's on me to be the bad guy. Conflicting agendae, straight up.

And to forestall the question I can already see on the horizon - "Why don't you just boost the non-casters instead?" - I'm not interested in the resulting power creep. We've had some of that already over the years, and I'm looking to tamp it down rather than add to it.

You've also said, IIRC, that you don't care for powergaming type stuff; at the least, you don't want multiclassing or swordmages or anything like that. Which means that "lose" can't mean "making the best character ever." Especially since your ruleset (I skimmed it) doesn't have all the feats or special abilities that would allow for powergaming. I don't think you even use 2e's kits.

Correct, I do not. Powergaming is naturally kept to a dull roar by the lack of options and resulting synergies, so there's very little win or lose there other than the most basic of optimization.

You've also said that GMs should be neutral, meaning that you don't have a goal of deliberately killing the PCs.

Correct. Flip side: I don't pull punches either.

So what agendas are at conflict here?

See above.

 

[Lanefan]

I said that players and GMs can work together to create house rules. I'm taking it you disagree completely. That players can request something and GMs can veto or allow it,

I'm fine with players suggesting houserules as long as I retain veto rights.

but GMs and players are incapable of brainstormng a new houserule together.

I don't want to say 'incapable' as that's a bit too absolute, but IME such discussions often ended up as unresolved arguments where the DM had to make the final call anyway. We tend to be a somewhat stubborn bunch.

What I'd rather do instead is make up the new rules as a batch, run them out as a fait-accompli playtest-able system, then run a one-off mid-level adventure to see how they work. After that, we can discuss tweaks and changes etc.

 

[Lanefan]

New post because I hit send too soon and don't feel like editing that one.

I also disagree that's a house rule. It's a player race option. Depending on what edition you play, they may even be completely "legal" to play. 3x had those ECLs and all the templates, for instance, and 3x and 5e both have shifters, which can easily be reskinned as a werewolf. What you're doing is deciding what options are available as PC races, not choosing a house rule.

Changing the PC-playable species options from what's in the PH is a houserule all day long.

 

[Lanefan]

That is so not my sub-agenda. My sub-agenda is to create an interesting story through my characters. I want my characters to suffer. I want my characters to LOSE. And that's the problem with the presumption that players don't want to lose. I want my character to lose all the time. But, in D&D, that almost never happens because for most DM's the only lose state is death of the character and the end of the story. So, for most DM's, a campaign is a never ending series of successes. Mostly because D&D has no other methods in the system for losses that aren't death.

Modern D&D only has death as a hard-loss condition. TSR-era D&D offered a host of other options.

Level drain was a good one: a loss condition that didn't end the game (unless you lost more levels than you had, of course, but that's pretty rare). Item destruction is another such.

 

[Lanefan]

That is obviously the idea. But, I think if we could ACTUALLY get something like that into the PHB or into some sort of official book, that might get it over the hump. If players are expected to contribute between sessions, and know that up front, I think it would help a lot.

It would certainly winnow out a lot of casuals. Jury's out on whether that's a good or bad thing, but I'd lean toward bad.

Were I to try this here I'm 95% sure I know what the result would be. Two of my players would do it. A third might reluctantly do it with some nagging. The fourth...well, I'd probably be down a player.

As far as being too "meta", well, the whole exercise is obviously meta. And it's a way to let the players know just how reliable their own knowledge is. If there's a massive bowl of M&M's there, well, that means the DM has done all sorts of alterations. If the bowl is nearly empty...

And it becomes an interesting resource. No different than, say, Action Points or Inspiration.

I don't like those mechanics either and would not use them.

 

[AlViking]

I guess from my perspective, if you don't care what Micah said, why did you jump in on a response to Micah? As it stands by choosing to only read the one line response without without the context of what it was replying to, is why you thought it was attacking a preference when I dont think reading the context that it was. It is just that two differing views on home to play the game leads to one way of playing it potentially preventing one way of coming up with house rules from being used.

We're all allowed to state our opinions as long as we respectfully state our opinions especially when we disagree ... although some of the responses have been borderline.

Whether or not the DM makes the final call on rulings, house rules, all sorts of things comes down to preference and opinion of what works best. In my opinion, DM making the final decision works best for most people. Players have a different perspective on the game, they have a personal stake in making their character fit their ideal. For a significant percentage that means pushing the envelope and giving their characters significant advantages without considering overall balance or believing that their decisions don't impact other players.

As yet another example I was in a game where a player was running a cleric who had the noble background so had 2 retainers. He convinced the DM to give those retainers levels of cleric and would effectively take 3 turns on his turn. He honestly thought he was doing something good for the group because we had more healing, we all talked to the DM when the guy was late one day and explained that he was hogging the spotlight and it was annoying. But a lot of players would have never spoken up, would never vote against someone else's ideas even if they didn't like it.

Yes, there can be the occasional bad DM but the odds of having a bad player are far higher just because of the number of players to DM. There is no perfect answer. Collaborative rule building may work better for some groups but I think they are the exception. Even if they aren't, I'd rather have the DM make the final call whether I'm player or DM.

 

[gban007]

Yes, there can be the occasional bad DM but the odds of having a bad player are far higher just because of the number of players to DM. There is no perfect answer. Collaborative rule building may work better for some groups but I think they are the exception. Even if they aren't, I'd rather have the DM make the final call whether I'm player or DM.

Possibly also depends on circumstances. With my current role playing group where we've been playing on and off together for 20 plus years across various systems and winnowed out the couple of people who didn't suit the overall group (one as a player, the other as both player and DM) we tend to switch who is DM and who are players as we enter new campaigns, and so we all as a group happily discuss what house rules we think we want, with no one person having veto power as such. We all know each other and know we can trust that people arent trying to take advantage or the like, so dont have the sort of issues given in prior examples. If we somehow ended up with our player taking the limelight, we would all discuss as a group and adjust.
Now, it did take some time to get to that point, and in early years yes tended to need to rely on veto as such especially while those other two players were still around, but that had changed over time.
It may be a matter of preference,.but I think circumstances may also help dictate what will and won't work.

 

[Remathilis]

Modern D&D only has death as a hard-loss condition. TSR-era D&D offered a host of other options.

Level drain was a good one: a loss condition that didn't end the game (unless you lost more levels than you had, of course, but that's pretty rare). Item destruction is another such.

I once had a fellow player quip he'd rather his PC died than lose his gear. Death could be reversed with a diamond and spell; getting magic items back was impossible.

(This was a high level campaign that started 2e and ended 3e, pertaining to both editions equally).