D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Belen]

For the same reason so many GMs on this very forum have bemoaned their terrible plight, being the victim of the horrible, manipulative, nasty players; these poor, beleaguered GMs with absolute power, and an edition which bends over backwards to make their word law, as hard as iron, cannot do anything about these nasty players with such HORRID demands as "well I was kind of hoping I could play a dragonborn".

You are very consistently anti-DM across many threads. It is one reason that I perceive ENWorld has become DM-unfriendly.

That may not be the case but it sure feels that way.

 

[mamba]

I'm not saying it's unclear to the player.

ok, so a misunderstanding rather than unclear. In that case things get sorted out right then and there, just like in your example discussion

DM: I'm running an Arctic game would you like to play.
Player: Sure. That's sounds cool. Frozen tundras and stuff. I guess I can't play in 2014 Arctic Ranger because that would make it too easy, right?

any player who thinks an Arctic Ranger is not suitable for an arctic campaign sounds like someone who runs into a lot of misunderstandings

I am not sure what disqualifies a Pyromancer though. The DM should definitely have been more explicit in your fictional exchange

 

[TiQuinn]

it's silly to pretend that tortle is any sort of deep RoLePlAyInG choice.

 

[Minigiant]

ok, so a misunderstanding rather than unclear. In that case things get sorted out right then and there, just like in your example discussion

No it's not a misunderstanding it's unclear because clear instructions were not given.

Misunderstanding would be if he said something and then he interpreted those words as something else. But Arctic as words in Dungeons and Dragons only are linked to the ranger class and the druid class as player character creation aspects.

any player who thinks an Arctic Ranger is not suitable for an arctic campaign sounds like someone who runs into a lot of misunderstandings

Because if you're going to have a campaign fully in one terrain you would require that the dm to state that your favorite terrain abilities to be able to constantly be used.

I mean that's a common complaint about rangers since 2e.

 

[Remathilis]

You are very consistently anti-DM across many threads. It is one reason that I perceive ENWorld has become DM-unfriendly.

That may not be the case but it sure feels that way.

He's in the minority. This board is full of people who think DMs do no wrong. In fact, I'm pretty sure we were just having a conversation about killer DMs with people who didn't believe they existed in the numbers that match the stories told about them. That's so deep in denial that you can meet the Pharaoh.Thread after thread, DM supremacy is touted and players either get on board or get out. DMs don't compromise, they declare.

And if you want to ask for names: go look at my block list.

 

[Minigiant]

You are very consistently anti-DM across many threads. It is one reason that I perceive ENWorld has become DM-unfriendly

Just a hypothesis.

I think Enworld is heavily skewed to ..

1) DMs with long standing established groups
2) Players who are in a mix of established and random tables.
3) People who are 1 and 2
4) Players who are currently not in a group for unfortunate circumstances

So the sides butt heads.

 

[Epic Meepo]

The conversation in this thread has really helped me decide what to look for the next time I put together a gaming group. As a player, I think I'd prefer to play for DMs who have also been players for at least a few campaigns. As a DM, I think I'd prefer to run games for players who've also been DMs for at least a few campaigns.

If everyone at the table has experience with both roles, I'm less likely to encounter any binary, "my side vs. the Other" shenanigans in real life.

 

[Scribe]

You are very consistently anti-DM across many threads. It is one reason that I perceive ENWorld has become DM-unfriendly.

That may not be the case but it sure feels that way.

Its, as is typical of our current age, just a very vocal minority.

 

[saviirkad]

The conversation in this thread has really helped me decide what to look for the next time I put together a gaming group. As a player, I think I'd prefer to play for DMs who have also been players for at least a few campaigns. As a DM, I think I'd prefer to run games for players who've also been DMs for at least a few campaigns.

If everyone at the table has experience with both roles, I'm less likely to encounter any binary, "my side vs. the Other" shenanigans in real life.

Yeah, I'm fortunate myself that while I get to DM Saturdays, I get to also play on Wednesdays in a game DMed by one of my Saturday players. We frequently connect with each other on how things are proceeding so we can build up each other's skills, and we play in each other's games with an eye to how we can help each other move the game forward.

Our combined group (we have 3 games because I alternate Saturday games to accommodate people's variable schedules) includes munchkin players who prioritize how to be mechanically amazing, roleplayers who bind every mechanic to the story they'd like to tell, vibe players who remember about a third of what their characters can do week to week, and one player who simply prefers always to play the "weird" character that most often seems out of place for the setting and group.

Hearing so many people talk about things on this site, you'd think I'd have a group destined to spin out into a controversial split, rather than going strong for 8 years now. We communicate, we don't put our own ideas and preferences above everyone else's, and we prioritize first and foremost the fun and enjoyment of everyone.

And for that "weird" character player, whose preferences are most pertinent to the conversation this thread has become, I am thankful each and every time I've approved it, and deeply regret the one time I vetoed it. Every single time I've adjusted my ideas for the setting and world the group was playing in to accommodate this character, it has 100% led to a much better world and story than I would have otherwise made. The one time I vetoed it was because it was my first interaction with the player and it was my first time DMing. The player was unhappy but did pivot, and later experience proves to me that I was wrong to require it. For the record, the first side game we did, which ended up a full campaign itself, that player got to play their previously vetoed choice.

This is not a blanket statement that every DM should approve every PC always, just that at my table, with proper communication and shared priorities of everyone's fun, I've found that approving has always led to a better experience for the players and myself as DM. I've just found that players who fit the description of problem tropes are often much more than that, and working together builds something better. I'm not de-prioritizing my needs or wants as the DM, I'm incorporating theirs within my own. The more incompatible they may seem, the more creativity may be involved, but every single time, the end result was something I was happier with than what I started with on my own.

My most munchkiny player, as another example, is the best DM's assistant I can ask for. Looking up rules as needed so the game flow isn't interrupted, engaging with the plot and remembering details of the story. My most vibes player loves engaging with NPCs and asking after them, checking in on them. My player who was newest to D&D now has the most powerful character who has dropped more bosses than everyone else combined, which the whole table celebrates and actively makes room to allow them to claim even more kills.

 

[mamba]

No it's not a misunderstanding it's unclear because clear instructions were not given.

clear instructions were not given, agreed. Thinking an arctic ranger is unsuitable / not allowed is a misunderstanding however.

Because if you're going to have a campaign fully in one terrain you would require that the dm to state that your favorite terrain abilities to be able to constantly be used.

Do I? The rules say what they are, the DM should know that this means the arctic ranger is a better choice than other rangers for the terrain. If the DM wants to limit their use because they are only running one terrain type then the DM has to clarify that, the rules are clear on this.