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

[Maxperson]

I can't remember ever intentionally targeting spellbooks, but if they happen to be in the blast zone then so be it.

That said, usually spellbooks are in a backpack. For things like AoE damage we give the backpack a save first, and if it makes it then everything inside is considered to have survived as well. But if the backpack fails, then everything inside is exposed and has to save for itself.

Fireproof red-dragon-skin spellbook covers are rare but really sought after. They don't, however, help much if the spellbook gets drowned or has to save vs lightning, acid, etc.

That's why you research and invent Wendel's Wonderful Waterproofing so that you can cast it like 1/day or week and keep the book safe from the wets.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

@kermit4karate @Thomas Shey

(and everyone else who needs to hear this)

This thread has generated a LOT of reports since it launched- many times for people making things personal and otherwise escalating tensions instead of disengaging.

I’m sorely tempted to shut it down, but I’m not. Consider this the last reprieve. Straighten up & fly right, or this thread gets closed.

 

[Umbran]

You are either deliberately disregarding my distinction between individuals and groups, or blind to the distinction.

Mod Note:
Could you please refrain from asserting that the only possible realities are the ones you ascribe to others?

Because doing this is unlikely to resolve your argument - the typical result of this is to annoy people, and they'll probably dig into the dispute, rather than try to resolve it.

So, now you probably have an escalating argument, and moderator attention. Unless that was your rhetorical goal here, maybe not a good job.

 

[Maxperson]

I've played some one-shots with DMs where we knew we were going into a killer game and had a lot of fun. It's all about the GM setting expectations so you know what you're getting into. There also has to be a chance to survive or at least a fun and glorious way to die. The killer GM I had ... it was not fun. I'm not even sure how he thought it would be an enjoyable experience to just have one character die because of rocks falling from the ceiling or similar.

Many years ago when I was young, I worked retail so my schedule was variable. I was in a D&D game and things were going well, and then work scheduled me during play time so I missed the session. When I got there the next week I was told my character died in a combat. I didn't really think much of it since that happens. However, the 4th consecutive time that I missed a session and my character died was just waaaaaaay too unlikely to be coincidence. I called the DM in-between games and let him know that there was no point in my continuing in his game since I was going to miss sessions and it was a waste of time to make new characters when they would just die when I wasn't there.

 

[kermit4karate]

You are either deliberately disregarding my distinction between individuals and groups, or blind to the distinction. In the first case I see no reason to not find your own position insulting. In the second case you're apparently incapable of actually conducting this conversation, since I made the distinction entirely clear in the post you were responding to.

Edit: I'm not quite sure what happened here, as that's acting as though it was quoted from K4K, but the message I was responding to was from AIViking. I did not mean to misascribe this.

All good. You're right though; I didn't say that. The reply quote feature here has gotten me a few times too.

 

[kermit4karate]

Otherwise good GMs have blindspots and bad elements all the time. In particular, this is one a lot of old-school style GMs fall into, and I'm sure at least some of them are excellent in other ways.

Humans have blindspots and bad elements all the time. Humans do. That doesn't mean we don't have teachers, engineers, doctors, nurses, therapists, police officers and auctioneers among us. Flawed people can be good people. Duh, right?

Repeatedly calling out that humans are flawed though triviliazes the differences between them. Yes, some DMs can make bad decisions, as can some players. Now what? What are you suggesting to solve the DM dillema here? What's your idea?

Some people steal extra sugar packets from Starbucks. Other people kill cats. They're both flawed. Both very different too

 

[Lanefan]

That's why you research and invent Wendel's Wonderful Waterproofing so that you can cast it like 1/day or week and keep the book safe from the wets.

Though there's been a few PC-invented spells over the years in my games, this hasn't been one of them.

Kind of surprising, really, but there it is (or isn't).

 

[Bae'zel]

Story loss is at most a soft-loss condition, in that it doesn't mechanically affect the character's ability to do what it does nor does it mechanically affect the player's ability to play the character as desired. Hard-loss conditions bring about one or both of these effects either temporarily or permanently.

Perhaps, but over the years I’ve had many stellar prompts for PCs to take action, or even to change their choices when levelling up due to “soft losses”.

Never underestimate the fondness players can have for beloved NPC companions, and how desperate they can get when those NPCs are in peril…

 

[Hussar]

Considering how many DMs I've had over the decades, there have only been a couple that I would consider "bad" along with a few that just weren't for me. After a certain point I suspect that if a person considers the majority of the GM's they've had "bad" it's a reflection on the player having unrealistic demands and expectations, not an issue with the GMs.

Years ago, I polled here, although I can't find the thread now, what people's overall experience as a player was. About 25% rated their DM's very negatively. Which, I imagine means that perhaps your experience is bit more of an outlier than you might realize. I imagine that you're probably like me and don't actually play all that often and so, generally don't have that bad experience. OTOH, I've seen 3 player revolts (where the entire table stood up and left) (only one of which was my idea), so, IME, the number of truly bad DM's out there is a lot more than you might think. Blaming the player for having a series of bad experiences with DM's is not particularly productive. It's presuming bad faith on someone's part - they are lying about why they left a group.

Instead, why not take what they are saying at face value and presume good faith? After all, you've been VERY vocal about everyone needing to take your preferences at face value and not question any of them. And you've gotten rather hot under the collar at any suggestion that your explanations are less then 100% factual. It might be more productive to extend the same approach to others as well.

 

[AlViking]

Years ago, I polled here, although I can't find the thread now, what people's overall experience as a player was. About 25% rated their DM's very negatively. Which, I imagine means that perhaps your experience is bit more of an outlier than you might realize. I imagine that you're probably like me and don't actually play all that often and so, generally don't have that bad experience. OTOH, I've seen 3 player revolts (where the entire table stood up and left) (only one of which was my idea), so, IME, the number of truly bad DM's out there is a lot more than you might think. Blaming the player for having a series of bad experiences with DM's is not particularly productive. It's presuming bad faith on someone's part - they are lying about why they left a group.

Instead, why not take what they are saying at face value and presume good faith? After all, you've been VERY vocal about everyone needing to take your preferences at face value and not question any of them. And you've gotten rather hot under the collar at any suggestion that your explanations are less then 100% factual. It might be more productive to extend the same approach to others as well.

I don't really trust polls on here, but there is a difference between "I don't like the campaign the DM is running" or something like "the DM's game was boring" and "the DM was abusively using their power".

I agree there are bad GMs. Changing the text in the books is never going to significantly impact on the personality of the GM that is going to abuse the ability to make the final call.