Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8998186" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I'm going to regret this.Why would the DUNGEON MASTER'S guide include instructions for the player? They aren't supposed to be reading that guide. They are players. This isn't some obligation thing, this is telling DMs that it is perfectly fine to "spoil" things by advising the players on things like "Hey, you want to play a Paladin? I'm not really planning on a large prescence of undead and fiends, so the devotion's abilities won't be as useful" And, despite the PHB never once telling the players they can work with someone else, somehow every single player I've ever shown the game to figured out they can ask for help. Shocking that.Somehow telling the DM that it is perfectly fine for them to restrict options if they want to is a problem. Sure, the PHB doesn't say anything about this.... except for the second page of the PHB " Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."Or in the various places where it says to check with your DM, like the drow entry on pg 24 or the the variant human on pg 41. Also, why would they need to describe what working together looks like? Don't people... know what it means to work together?This is just a rant that misses the entire point of the advice, and has nothing to do with the advice itself. This isn't about "if you don't have a trap master you will all die a horrible, screaming death, so make sure someone can handle traps" but is more about "if you have three people who are focused on dealing with traps, they may overlap and not feel like they get as much chance to shine, so encourage them to diversify." Because, yeah, as we have seen with the discussion of the "heal-bot" and the cleric, turns out people hated that there were roles no one wanted to play but that were vitally necessary to success.And, despite your continuous rants on the subject, I still find players look to having a healer and a main tank and ect.This again just reads like a rant, because you have problematic players. Seriously, why are you talking like you need to compel players to work together? Yes, the players should get the ability to no sell ideas that don't fit. No one likes having to put in the time and effort to embody a character only to find out that they are going to be forced to play out a story they have no interest in. I played a character some time ago who was married. I told the DM flat-out, I had zero interest in a plot line where my character's wife leaves him or cheats on him. Because I had zero interest in that. Yes, it could have been "dramatic" but held no story I was interested in exploring. Now, yes, Main character syndrome is a problem, but it isn't a problem that needs to be solved by coercing players into working together or compel people into playing your story. Sure, weaving together five different elements isn't easy, but it is made easier by not trying to have "shocking twists" or surprises. Talk to your players, as a group, and say "hey, we've got a benefactor here, and this element here, maybe we could combine them like this?" and if the players say "No, that doesn't sound fun or interesting" then you know that doesn't appeal to them, and can figure something else out. But, the reason this advice exists is because a lot of the time, DMs will just ignore everything you build into your character's backstory. I had a DM who I knew did this, every time we played together I would make a character with a backstory, and they would completely ignore every single element of it, so I started writing in completions to my backstory and closing those threads, because otherwise they just dangled forever because the DM didn't want me to even have a backstory, but I can't make a character who springs fully formed from the aether with no history. So the book says "hey DMs, we gave players these hooks for you to utilize, so try and make sure you utilize them"This reminds me of a Puffin Forest video. A guy invited Puffin to a 4e game, where he had great hopes for the players. The guy then invited two people brand-new to DnD... and at every character creation point, told the new people "this is what the character you make has to look like". You, the DM, aren't playing the character. You, the DM, should work with the players to help build characters those players are actually interested in. Because if they aren't interested, then just like that video, after they feel it is socially acceptable, those players will leave and never come back. Because if they aren't interested, why would they continue to play? This is advice, and the advice is to prevent the above. To prevent the DM who is reading it from approaching things like "and these characters would be great for my next nove- I mean campaign!"And, again, your description here just sounds like bad player expeirences. I've had players who wanted to do crazy and ridiculous things. Had a guy recently who wanted to play a warforged possessed by the souls of dead children. But I was able to work with him, and figure out ways we could both be happy with the situation. I didn't need to shut him down and tell him his idea was stupid and would never work in MY world. Also, the PHB doesn't assume that the players WILL go outside of the options presented in the PHB, and where they would it is quite clear on "talk to your DM".<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZknKIWDA1XU" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZknKIWDA1XU</a>Serious question. Do you think a rule in the PHB that stated "If you don't work with your DM while making your backstory, reduce your health by 50%" would be a good rule? How are you supposed to pressure players into working with the DM? What does that even mean? And what about DMs who have no interest in working with the players? What are the player's supposed to do when the PHB creates "pressures" for them to do this, but the DM has no interest? And, this is also baffling to me, because this here is the solution to that issue you had a bit ago, about weaving together different story elements from multiple players AND how to combat Main Character Syndrome. Ta-Da! Here is that solution, working with the players to create the party dynamics. But instead you want there to be rules about pressuring players to work together?Okay, I will concede, some of this text should be player facing. But look at the PHB, it is already full to bursting with the actual rules of the game. And you don't need control or fangs here. You are just asking the players "okay, how did you all meet". What control do you even want here that you don't have? Why is this something you need to control? And, what fangs do you need for doing "how did you meet" poorly? What does that even mean? The way I do this sort of thing is really simple. I use a lot of "No, but" and "yes, And". If two players come up with something I truly don't see making sense, then I would go "Well, I'm not sure that would work because (gives reasons), but what if we tried (gives alternative)." And yes, the players might veto me, but that is far preferable to me being able to veto them, because unhappy players aren't going to want to continue playing.Dude, what? This is actually very important advice. Discussing what themes, topics and behavior your players see as inappropriate and not something they are interested in is massively important. Without that knowledge, you can step in it BIG TIME. I should know. I once had a game where two of my players were dating, and they rolled a married couple. They didn't do much with that plot line, and I forgot about it when I had a dryad charm and seduce one of them, which led to both of them being uncomfortable and the one character flying into a murderous rage that nearly split the party. We had to retcon the entire thing. And that was entirely my fault.Knowing what experience they are hoping for? My man, have you ever attempted to run a political intrigue game for a group who is more interested in a hackfest? It doesn't work well. Playing a hackfest when you are looking for an engaging story? Boring as heck. This isn't "just give them what they want" this is making sure expectations align so everyone is having the most fun possible. And yes, session zero is the best time for it, because session 9 is a little late too find out everyone is bored out of their minds and had no interest in the game style you ended up using.Dude, no one is expecting you to be perfect. No one is expecting a doctoral thesis presentation, or that you covered every single possible thing under the sun. Yeah, sometimes you don't fit it all in session zero, and you have to continue it into sessions two and even three. But knowing this is the type of stuff to do early, instead of not doing it at all? Useful.Sure, the inexpeirenced GM needs more specific advice, I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean this advice is bad. But I don't get this idea that the GM needs some control over things the players "can't ignore later". Session zero can't make people want to work together, if you are in that state, you need far more than a session zero. But you keep presenting this like there is something the rules can do to make players do things they don't want to do, or that somehow the PHB is encouraging people to sit in isolated rooms, drafting their own personal novels, then grunting at the DM when the DM tries to talk to them. Yes, the advice could be a little more focused on the how, but at a certain point you are talking about the book offering a "how to talk to people in a social situation" advice, and the DMG isn't the place for that.</blockquote>

Verification