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

[Mort]

L

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.

This is why I love my current group!

I've been a "forever DM" for many years, only getting to play very rarely.

But my current group, we rotate DMs regularly (whenever a plot arc is finished, when the curren DM feels like switching, etc.). It's been really nice not being stuck in one role.

 

[Belen]

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.

It’s

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.

I approve things all the time when a player has an idea and works to incorporate it into the campaign. I give every player free leave to write up locations, npcs, etc.

If they want to play a species not found in the campaign setting, then they have the option of 1) Stranger in a Strange Land (Planar, usually) 2) Writing a full species backstory with me for the setting.

I have found few players that ever want to work that hard for a species request. I have had, maybe 1-2 in 30 years that really wanted to invest in the game and I treasure those folks because they make it fun.

I still respect the heck out of the DM who builds a cool setting and wants to place restrictions. I am not going to complain but if I also have no trouble leaving if the vibe is off.

 

[Mort]

I think a bigger difference is that if you joined a game pitched as an Arctic game, you would happily turn up with a character not suited to an Arctic game and tell the GM that's their problem, not yours; whereas if I agreed to join such a game I would arrive with a suitable character (otherwise, I would politely decline the invitation in the first place).

When I start a campaign I have a session 0. Part of session 0 is character generation and I have the group agree on an initial theme (past ones have been employees of Morgrave University, Members of the Greyhawk adventurer's guild, stuff like that). Makes sure everyone is on the same page. And if a player wants something odd, fine, but everyone is aware of it.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

While I think that may help, its not the cure for this. Of my entire group, the guy who has DMed the longest and still does run his own game aside from playing, is also the biggest "I want to use this 3pp book" and "here is my five page backstory, no I'm not altering it" player as well. My "never touched the DMG in there life" players are typically a lot more chill about it than he is, because HE allows in HIS game, so EVERY DM should allow it.

(His own game is incredibly lax? How lax? He once had a PC warforged cleric of Takhisis in his homebrew).

 

[Remathilis]

When I start a campaign I have a session 0. Part of session 0 is character generation and I have the group agree on an initial theme (past ones have been employees of Morgrave University, Members of the Greyhawk adventurer's guild, stuff like that). Makes sure everyone is on the same page. And if a player wants something odd, fine, but everyone is aware of it.

I almost want to say session zero is too late for some of those choices to be made. If you invite me to play D&D, before I even leave the house I want to at least know the edition, setting, and general openness of game options. (Core only, limited classes, low magic, etc). When I pitched my latest game, I specifically told everyone its 5.24, Eberron, has a Wild West vibe to it, and uses most non-setting specific 5e stuff and a few 3pp things. That was the sales pitch. If someone didn't want to play 5.24, doesn't like Eberron, or doesn't like Westerns, they can opt out right there.

 

[Belen]

I almost want to say session zero is too late for some of those choices to be made. If you invite me to play D&D, before I even leave the house I want to at least know the edition, setting, and general openness of game options. (Core only, limited classes, low magic, etc). When I pitched my latest game, I specifically told everyone its 5.24, Eberron, has a Wild West vibe to it, and uses most non-setting specific 5e stuff and a few 3pp things. That was the sales pitch. If someone didn't want to play 5.24, doesn't like Eberron, or doesn't like Westerns, they can opt out right there.

I agree with you. The pitch document should come before any session 0.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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".

The annoying part to me is the framing that it's binary. That you are either pro-DM or pro-player, that no nuance exists. That just because I believe a DM can restrict race and/or class options and not be a worse DM for it, that I must believe that DMs can do no wrong, and players no right. That if I believe, players can walk away, they have agency, that that means I think all DMs tyrants.

Extreme views do exist, and some may hold the very views people cite. But I have a sinking suspicion that most of us aren't so easily classified. That most of us value both roles, and desire a group that shares a vision. One that can succeed in having an enjoyable game for all, including ourselves, without subservience.

So I reject the premise of us vs them, that there is some grand conspiracy, some evil cult, that threatens the hobby by promoting and actively encouraging broadly anti social behavior by one role or the other. Instead I believe there is trench digging for the sake of argument.

That we are likely just people arguing over small differences of opinion. That our differences largely wouldn't manifest outside deeply entrenched threads of argument and poorly worded posts of persuasion. That our tribalism is a product of the lens through which we read the words of others.

If my theory is right, and the hobby is under no threat, and these forums aren't loaded with self-righteous narcissists who only value their own fun at the expense of others. Then maybe, just maybe, disagreements over table norms do not equate to moral failures, that maybe moralizing the fun of others is indeed unproductive.

But I'm an optimist, with nothing but positive experiences with the TTRPG community and here on Enworld.

 

[Mort]

I almost want to say session zero is too late for some of those choices to be made. If you invite me to play D&D, before I even leave the house I want to at least know the edition, setting, and general openness of game options. (Core only, limited classes, low magic, etc). When I pitched my latest game, I specifically told everyone its 5.24, Eberron, has a Wild West vibe to it, and uses most non-setting specific 5e stuff and a few 3pp things. That was the sales pitch. If someone didn't want to play 5.24, doesn't like Eberron, or doesn't like Westerns, they can opt out right there.

My group is pretty established and has been stable for years. We have already had several discussions on what's going to happen before an "official" session 0 and we're all up to date on books allowed etc.

If I were to actually be looking for new players, Yeah, I'd give a firm outline/rundown of everything that's allowed, expected, etc.

 

[Epic Meepo]

While I think that may help, its not the cure for this. Of my entire group, the guy who has DMed the longest and still does run his own game aside from playing, is also the biggest "I want to use this 3pp book" and "here is my five page backstory, no I'm not altering it" player as well. My "never touched the DMG in there life" players are typically a lot more chill about it than he is, because HE allows in HIS game, so EVERY DM should allow it.

(His own game is incredibly lax? How lax? He once had a PC warforged cleric of Takhisis in his homebrew).

I don't think I'd play with someone who's both an unaccommodating DM and an unaccommodating player. That's not someone who wants to play a cooperative game. That's someone who wants to tell a story to a passive audience.

 

[saviirkad]

I have found few players that ever want to work that hard for a species request. I have had, maybe 1-2 in 30 years that really wanted to invest in the game and I treasure those folks because they make it fun.

Perhaps I just have the extreme fortune and privilege to have a group filled with such rarities, which in either case I am very thankful for.

We did put in the work together, mostly. I do more of it, because I'm the DM who is doing the world-building and their involvement is primarily to ensure I'm not introducing anything that turns them off their character choice.

An example, the player wanted to be a warforged hexblade warlock who would be found as a captive of a murder-cult mountain family the group had just eliminated, where their first PC had died during combat. This was during Tier 1 levels. This was not an Eberron campaign, nor was any known society advanced enough to produce the warforged.

So, I made a dead society, went with gnomes obviously, who had reached an advanced state and used the warforged initially as servants. They were reforged for war, a war the gnomes ultimately lost. This civilization fell and was lost to time, leaving many of the warforged in buried stasis like a terracotta army. This cult family found a mountain ruin, took one of these stationary soldiers back with them. Their murderous ways were retroactively given a purpose, a ritual that bound souls to this being in order to awaken it, empower it, and enslave it. Their former PC's death was the last soul needed, but with the family disposed of, the awakened and empowered warforged maintained their own independent will.

Player got their character as they wanted it, with the addition of being given a personal quest to resolve the poor souls bound to themself, including their former PC. They ultimately pursued a path to swear themselves to a new patron who could take these souls, which ended up being a Raven Queen analogue.

I got an expanded world I hadn't considered in this way before, which provided me with ample material to pull later developments from. Tier 3 revealed a lot about this ancient war that tore down an advanced civilization. Tier 4 revealed the gnomes were the aggressors and the campaign BBEG was the arch-artificer that created the warforged.