D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Helldritch]

The voting requirement is very harsh. I do get that if you are running 3 games you need an even playing field to make it work.

Theoretical question: If you just only ever had one game of 6 players do you think your game would allow more player input during it's lifetime?

The voting goes for the majority. It is only once the campaign is started that it need a unanimous vote to change something.

But no, it would not change my stance once campaign is started. Unanimity would still be required.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Well, the first two words in response to your question were, "Umm, no."

It's not surprising that none of what followed showed a yes.

Well, @Oofta DId say that the power balance at the table was heavily in favor of the GM but that it wasn't 100/0% I'm just trying to see if it's 99/1,90/10, or 70/30.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Well, @Oofta DId say that the power balance at the table was heavily in favor of the GM but that it wasn't 100/0% I'm just trying to see if it's 99/1,90/10, or 70/30.

It might be that your interpretation of power balance and Oofta's are at odds then. You seem to think that the only measure of balance is when the DM is forced into a specific action by the players. At least that's what your line of questioning suggests. But by that measure, the players always have a measure of power in that they can leave the table with one less player each. So it's never 100/0 even by your own criteria unless we're playing Misery: D&D edition.

But a softer form of power balance is just as viable. Power, essentially, is agency. If the DM has a rule that the DM ruling stands firm in play, but discussion in between session can inform future rulings, then the players have (out of character) agency, and therefor power. It would still be largely the DM's call in this setup, but with something of a discussion panel between sessions to weigh the impact and fairness of specific rulings to help the DM refine his process and possibly improve his craft in the long run.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Agreed.

I've got four sub-types of Elf and they're different enough that we can usually tell who is what.

In past campaigns I always had three sub-types of Hobbit but there was so little difference between them that both I and the players largely ignored them. So for this campaign I only put in one type of Hobbit*, and it's called "Hobbit".

* - to begin with; some PCs have since travelled far enough to meet a quite-different seafaring culture/sub-species of Hobbits but haven't had all that much interaction yet other than to know they exist - and to establish that each type of Hobbit thinks the other type is bloody-well nuts.

Halfling is definitely another race that doesn't need subraces. Heck, I tend to combine them with gnomes and assume they're the same race with internal diversity.

Elves, however, tend to have meaningful subraces.

 

[Maxperson]

It might be that your interpretation of power balance and Oofta's are at odds then. You seem to think that the only measure of balance is when the DM is forced into a specific action by the players. At least that's what your line of questioning suggests. But by that measure, the players always have a measure of power in that they can leave the table with one less player each. So it's never 100/0 even by your own criteria unless we're playing Misery: D&D edition.

I'd just like to say that the players routinely force pretty much all DMs into things. The players having full control over their players force me to react to them all the time. If a player declares that their PC gets up and opens the window to their room at the inn, I'm forced to narrate that happening(barring some sort of lock on the window). Much of every game I "run" is me reacting to things the players "force."

 

[Oofta]

Well, @Oofta DId say that the power balance at the table was heavily in favor of the GM but that it wasn't 100/0% I'm just trying to see if it's 99/1,90/10, or 70/30.

It all depends on what you mean. We've discussed rulings and I've changed my mind after an explanation. I don't have a lot of house rules, most of the ones I do have favor the players. I do sometimes make a ruling on the spot just to get the game going, but we can always discuss offline.

Honestly I don't remember when a significant decision I made happened that players disagreed with. Occasionally I'll get a "how do you run it", I'll have to remind people that some spells such as plane shift work a little different. I let people know what races I allow, the handful of house rules that I do have and that I run in my own campaign world and have for a long time. If I ever tell someone "it doesn't work that way, here's what does and why" I get a shrug and an "okay".

A few years ago during break I had a chat with my players on why I thought Heat Metal was broken because I use a lot of human NPCs that frequently wear metal armor. If you run it that you can cast it on armor and that the target is at disadvantage for the rest of their lives it really nerfs any BBEG in armor. I didn't want to start an arms race of "special" armor or point out that armor is multiple pieces of metal with a gambeson underneath so we just talked it out. Ultimately I nerfed the spell a bit and we moved on. That was 5+ years ago. I did tell a guy that he couldn't play a drow, but no I didn't bring it up for a vote.

When starting a campaign, and at various points during the campaign, I get feedback on what style and tone the players want. Players have added background lore to the world, help build details of their starting locale. I just make sure nothing conflicts with canon and that it makes sense to me, including my own machinations of what is going on that the PCs don't know about. Pretty much everything their PCs do in game is up to them. I give people options on what to do next and let them make alternative suggestions for their direction. Campaigns are very player directed, if they choose not to pursue something, I just decide what happens because they did not.

So if retaining veto power over players making world altering lore decisions (PC actions alter the world all the time), restricting races, altering a handful of spells, explaining how I run stealth means that players have 0 power then we have significantly different definition of power. The way I run games pretty much lines up with the advice in the DMG.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It all depends on what you mean. We've discussed rulings and I've changed my mind after an explanation. I don't have a lot of house rules, most of the ones I do have favor the players. I do sometimes make a ruling on the spot just to get the game going, but we can always discuss offline.

Honestly I don't remember when a significant decision I made happened that players disagreed with. Occasionally I'll get a "how do you run it", I'll have to remind people that some spells such as plane shift work a little different. I let people know what races I allow, the handful of house rules that I do have and that I run in my own campaign world and have for a long time. If I ever tell someone "it doesn't work that way, here's what does and why" I get a shrug and an "okay".

A few years ago during break I had a chat with my players on why I thought Heat Metal was broken because I use a lot of human NPCs that frequently wear metal armor. If you run it that you can cast it on armor and that the target is at disadvantage for the rest of their lives it really nerfs any BBEG in armor. I didn't want to start an arms race of "special" armor or point out that armor is multiple pieces of metal with a gambeson underneath so we just talked it out. Ultimately I nerfed the spell a bit and we moved on. That was 5+ years ago. I did tell a guy that he couldn't play a drow, but no I didn't bring it up for a vote.

When starting a campaign, and at various points during the campaign, I get feedback on what style and tone the players want. Players have added background lore to the world, help build details of their starting locale. I just make sure nothing conflicts with canon and that it makes sense to me, including my own machinations of what is going on that the PCs don't know about. Pretty much everything their PCs do in game is up to them. I give people options on what to do next and let them make alternative suggestions for their direction. Campaigns are very player directed, if they choose not to pursue something, I just decide what happens because they did not.

So if retaining veto power over players making world altering lore decisions (PC actions alter the world all the time), restricting races, altering a handful of spells, explaining how I run stealth means that players have 0 power then we have significantly different definition of power. The way I run games pretty much lines up with the advice in the DMG.

If you like a players to....

1. Create and name a village.
2. Say their father is the mayor.
3. State the town is known for pig raising.
4. Say they always thought the local woods were haunted because of strange noises at night.
5. Say that in some previous war there was a Calvary skirmish in the town and now there is a small shrine there to commemorate the battle.

Then you are allowing the normal amount of world building the baseline game implies. This is very different than saying you reserve 100% of the world building to yourself.

Ultimately I think a lot of disagreement happening in this and many threads is just poor communication. Someone telling me they reserve 100% of the world building to themselves means, to me, players aren't free to do any of what I listed above.

Similarly when I say I let my players build all kinds of things in my world, it is certainly with the caveat that it has to fit into whatever I have going on behind the scenes. They can add in villages and towns but a major city can't just pop up in am area they already are familiar with.

 

[Oofta]

If you like a players to....

1. Create and name a village.
2. Say their father is the mayor.
3. State the town is known for pig raising.
4. Say they always thought the local woods were haunted because of strange noises at night.
5. Say that in some previous war there was a Calvary skirmish in the town and now there is a small shrine there to commemorate the battle.

Then you are allowing the normal amount of world building the baseline game implies. This is very different than saying you reserve 100% of the world building to yourself.

Ultimately I think a lot of disagreement happening in this and many threads is just poor communication. Someone telling me they reserve 100% of the world building to themselves means, to me, players aren't free to do any of what I listed above.

Similarly when I say I let my players build all kinds of things in my world, it is certainly with the caveat that it has to fit into whatever I have going on behind the scenes. They can add in villages and towns but a major city can't just pop up in am area they already are familiar with.

I don't think the base game implies anything of the sort. Some of the things you state I may allow, I may say that, no your father can't be the mayor or that if he is there's some reason you can't go to them if you get into trouble. But it really depends. Is the group starting out in that village? Is it just a village in some nearby district?

I'm not always going to say no, I'm not automatically going to say yes. We discuss this kind of stuff. Sometimes I say "yes you can do that, but here's another idea". Other times they'll come to me with what they're thinking and we'll brainstorm something together. I've had some players that simply didn't care, with others we had a lot of fun working on a story together or they handed me a story and I only had to make minor suggestions, if that.

 

[Lanefan]

But your players do have their own copies don't they? Otherwise, how can they plan their levelling, character's progression and put things in order for the next game?

They do that stuff at the game.

That, and if things ever get to the point where players feel they have to "plan their levelling" to that extent then that's a game I probably don't want to DM.

 

[Helldritch]

They do that stuff at the game.

That, and if things ever get to the point where players feel they have to "plan their levelling" to that extent then that's a game I probably don't want to DM.

Ok, good to know
The "plan their levelling" usually (read here almost always) happens because of a significant RP element that nudges the character in an other direction. My players like to give some thoughts when such event takes place. Like multiclassing into something that was not anticipated, or changing deity, or even subclass (I always allowed it to change before level 6) sometimes, the opportunity to take a feat outside training can be too good to pass on, even if it is not a feat you thought to get in the first place.

And if they have their character at home, they can make a clearer sheet (more easy to read) for me .