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

[Zardnaar]

Do the priorities of the other players matter? If people sign up for a game with a curated list of species and someone else wants to play something not on that list, do they get a say? Do you set up some kind of secret vote so that you don't have to worry about hurting someone else's feelings?

That kind of balancing act can make these decisions can make things really fuzzy. I know I've proposed things like space fantasy game using third party and never pursued it because it would have been a lot of work and nobody really seemed enthused about it.

Of course my thoughts on it are the the GM puts in far more work running the game going so they make the final decision. But as GM I also take into consideration what everyone at the table wants, not just me.

If youre advertising fir players its easy.

Games here at XYZ at DEF time and we are using ABC.

I'll use the KISS principle with newbies. PHB only and give them the choice of a start set pre Gen.

Of youre playing with your stable group they don't care generally you've already asked them about what they want.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Anyone who's not brain dead knows the DM gets final say.

Though uncommon (and I know someone will come along and claim its not possible for this to work without degenerate results, but I suspect that's just expectation rather than any logic), I'd be very cautious to assume that's true at every table everywhere, ever. There is nothing whatsoever I know of that would prevent a group consisting of four players and a GM to use voting to decide final says. I've done it about specific rules decisions in games any number of times, even if I don't do so universally.

 

[SkidAce]

I said this a day or two ago, but tight curation around a central animating principle is totally fine (by me.)

It's "my homebrew doesn't have a place for tieflings or dragonborn, so you can't play them" I find objectionable.

One is about a exploring a concept together, the other is about "This is my setting, and I declare parts of it inviolate."

How do you tell the difference between the two?

 

[AlViking]

I'd have to see the exact phrasing before I assumed that's as clear as you seem to think it is here.

I should probably change "race" to species I suppose. "If you want to run another race that could pass as one of the allowed races, let me know and we can discuss options, but no guarantees."

Not that it really matters if I get your seal of approval or not.

 

[AlViking]

I'd say they probably should, and probably the secret vote is the ideal way, yes.



I understand the feeling the GM should have more weight in the decision making than an individual player. What I've questioned before is whether they should have more weight than all, or even a majority of them.

Let me present an example: you have a GM and five players. Some issue comes up that the GM wants one way, three of the players want a different (specific) way, two players don't care. I'd find the assumption the GM gets to win that one excessive. I mean, I can understand why he might not be interested in continuing to run the game depending on the importance of the specific issue at hand to him, but I still think the expectation he not only has the ruling vote there but that the players are in the wrong to stand their ground is unwarranted.

Since I care about making the game fun for everyone I'm going to listen to feedback. But even if the majority of people wanted to run and evil character campaign I would say no. There are some things I won't compromise on.

 

[Bae'zel]

Since I care about making the game fun for everyone I'm going to listen to feedback. But even if the majority of people wanted to run and evil character campaign I would say no. There are some things I won't compromise on.

Oh yeah full-on evil characters are a hard sell for me, unless you're taking the neat route of "my character may be evil, but they are fiercely loyal to the other PCs; they'll only do horribly evil stuff to the opposition". Even then it has to be relatively PG or at least nothing beyond what you'd see in a Lord of the Rings movie. For typical D&D anyway.

 

[TwoSix]

That sounds an awful lot like saying one personal preference is superior to the other in the context of 2452/2464. The gm could say that assessment on why they choose to engage in strict setting citation is irrelevant because they find the result allows them to more easily and believably portray a dynamic living world that flows more smoothly in response to player actions in that world.

If the GM does feel that way, I'd be happy to hear them state their case and defend it, as I have here.

I'm fully comfortable that in the context of this thread, I am making a normative case, not attempting to do an objective characterization.

 

[Bae'zel]

If the GM does feel that way, I'd be happy to hear them state their case and defend it, as I have here.

I'm fully comfortable that in the context of this thread, I am making a normative case, not attempting to do an objective characterization.

In the case of my reluctance to accept evil PCs, it's about my comfort level. Lines and Veils etc. Some people don't want spiders or animal abuse, I don't want evil PCs doing despicable things.

I'm sure that everyone in this thread can agree of that sort of restriction. That ain't about preferences, it's about me having fun and not feeling miserable.

 

[TwoSix]

In the case of my reluctance to accept evil PCs, it's about my comfort level. Lines and Veils etc. Some people don't want spiders or animal abuse, I don't want evil PCs doing despicable things.

I'm sure that everyone in this thread can agree of that sort of restriction. That ain't about preferences, it's about me having fun and not feeling miserable.

Of course. When it comes to X-card type restrictions on uncomfortable topics, that obviously trumps the normal practices. If something makes myself or one of the other players uncomfortable, it's out, no questions asked.

 

[Zardnaar]

Though uncommon (and I know someone will come along and claim its not possible for this to work without degenerate results, but I suspect that's just expectation rather than any logic), I'd be very cautious to assume that's true at every table everywhere, ever. There is nothing whatsoever I know of that would prevent a group consisting of four players and a GM to use voting to decide final says. I've done it about specific rules decisions in games any number of times, even if I don't do so universally.

DM walks away you have no DM or another player has to do it.

You can't force a DM to do anything. Even a paid one.

Its a stupid ENworld hypothetical anyway. Every DM essentially filters players one way or another.

You're an idiot if you dont listen to your players up to a point. They cant out vote you to run something you don't want to ultimately.

No I'm not running an evil game. I'm offering this edition, im offering this RPG etc.

I canceled my Norse game and essentially dissolved the group. That was a mistake by me as the players voted for it from a curated lists. Turns out I made them wrong call offering it, wasnt enjoying it and stopped.

Last time I offered 5 themes pick one (eg FR/generic, norse, drow, magitech). Better off picking one you're enthusiastic about and go with that.