D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Faolyn]

Deleted

 

[Cadence]

So yeah, I'd say in this case, the majority rules method makes sense.

What's the benefit of allowing the GM's ruling to stand?

I'm not sure its a huge benefit, but it used to say it was up to the GM in the rule books. Is that still true in 5e?

Going with your sports analogy earlier, are the players like the team owners and the DM like the commissioner? As long as the commissioner is running things the commissioner decides, and if the owners don't like it they can collectively fire the commissioner and get a new one. Do the owners pretty much ever over-rule a commissioner mid-season?

Really? You've been playing for what 30+ years, have experienced many multiple DMs and NEVER encountered a bad one?

I mean, that makes me really envious!

I've been gaming for a long time too (35 years) and have encountered my share of bad DMs (though I don't recall the problem ever being allowed races, classes etc.).

Dming is hard, DMing WELL is not only hard, it requires practice, a willingness for self analysis and a willingness to change that many people don't find easy.

Heck, I'm sure I've been the "bad DM", especially early on - very few people start and are good at something right away.

I've seen a number of mediocre DMs over my 40+ years of playing, but I don't remember any actual bad ones. Of course I think my standards were lower and my tastes less refined (aka stubbornness less ingrained) back when I was in grade/middle/high school

 

[Imaro]

I think I read something else in this. I was responding to the idea that players shouldn't make choices for the game or the world because they'll automatically make things easy.

Yes, it's ok to have discussions around a potential bad call by the GM. I don't mind players letting me know if I've made a wonky call.

No you got the point in the original post... No one is saying don't discuss... but automatically giving it to the players because that's what they wanted isn't a justification... especially when they have a clear and present driver for bias.

 

[Faolyn]

Please don't pull a "@Faolyn" on me. Proof:

• In this post, you said: "care about something other than the little bit they are allowed to craft." So YOU MENTIONED BEING ALLOWED.
• Instead of saying that I was against it, I wrote, in this post : "My players manage initiative for me, yes, and in another campaign, I completely manage the crafting", not to mention the pantheon thingie so OBVIOUSLY, no, I'm not against it. I just think it's minimal, by the design of the game.

I will pick up this conversation once you have acknowledged the above, as I have no interest discussing with people misquoting my words at every single turn to try and make a point.

Could you not use my name as an insult? If you don't like me that much, just block me.

 

[Faolyn]

Why, why does the GM need to do this. When a PC is killed at my table none of the players are happy with the result... that in and of itself doesn't mean it should be reversed.

I think they mean "unhappy with the world," not "unhappy with a particular event."

 

[jmartkdr2]

Hypothetically yes the problem would be me. I haven't experienced that though as I've already discussed what I'm offering with the group.

I've had problems with new potential players. One person didn't like my restrictions in my last Drow campaign. I told them "pick something's appropriate to Underdark" gave a recommend list and answered his questions about playstyles.

We had incompatible views and that's fine.

Ultimately this is mostly a discussion of hypothetical extremes - although I've seen this sort of thing happen, it's abnormal. Most groups have no issues compromising, whether that's the dm being willing to alter the setting to fit in a player's idea, or a player being willing to adjust their concept to the game, or more often pocketing a character concept that won't fit with the game in question.

Belligerent people exist, and some of them play DnD. Mostly I just don't play with people who won't attempt to compromise, because you can't change the rules to make jerks into not-jerks. They'll find a way to be jerks.

But if you're looking to improve as a dm, my advice is this: fidelity to the setting isn't usually much of a priority. You're bigger than god in the setting, you can change anything you want. Feel free to alter details to let players play characters they're excited about. I assure you, players being excited about their characters is a lot more important than how internally consistent the setting is across campaigns.

 

[Oofta]

Ultimately this is mostly a discussion of hypothetical extremes - although I've seen this sort of thing happen, it's abnormal. Most groups have no issues compromising, whether that's the dm being willing to alter the setting to fit in a player's idea, or a player being willing to adjust their concept to the game, or more often pocketing a character concept that won't fit with the game in question.

Belligerent people exist, and some of them play DnD. Mostly I just don't play with people who won't attempt to compromise, because you can't change the rules to make jerks into not-jerks. They'll find a way to be jerks.

But if you're looking to improve as a dm, my advice is this: fidelity to the setting isn't usually much of a priority. You're bigger than god in the setting, you can change anything you want. Feel free to alter details to let players play characters they're excited about. I assure you, players being excited about their characters is a lot more important than how internally consistent the setting is across campaigns.

You could just as easily say:

But if you're looking to improve as a player, my advice is this: fidelity to a specific race or build isn't usually much of a priority. You can create any number of characters that will fit the setting, you can make multiple PCs that fit a niche. Feel free to alter details to let the DM run a world they're excited about. I assure you, DMs being excited about their world is a lot more important than playing one specific character.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I think you're missing my point... the justification given for the DM running back his ruling in the presented situation has been the majority wanting something being equated to the most fun/what's best for the game (I mean even you used the appeal to popularity as a justification in some of your posts)... and the most fun was then equated to the goal of most/all peoples games... so in theory using those random determiners only detracts from the fun that could be had since the most fun is when the majority playing get what they want... right? If not... why are we using an appeal to popularity as some kind of valid argument for why the players opinions should take precedence over the GM's?

You added something to what I said that I didnt say.

The argument against the ruling that levitation triggered pressure plates was not because "it's more fun if it doesn't". The argument was "You heard us planning, never clarified to us that it wouldnt work because of your not in the book interpretation, and let us carry on a plan that ended up in a PC death. This wasn't fair."

 

[Helldritch]

The problem I see with the vast majority of hypotheticals on this thread is they they all seem to paint the DM as a jerk who makes random decisions without a care in the world about what their players think.

I've had bad DMs. They exist. I just get tired of being lumped in with every bad behavior because I have a clear vision of my campaign world that only includes a limited number of races.

A DM is quite close to a referee. Whenever a referee is making a call a player do not like, even if it is within the rules, THAT REFEREE IS A JERK! A BAD REFEREE! HE CLEARLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE GAME! (caps intended )

We see that in Football (American or otherwise, baseball, hockey, tennis etc...) A DM is considered as such. He sides with the players (right or wrong) he is goooood! He sides against the players... well, he is clearly an incompetent jerk so I will go to the internet and show him/her the error of his/her ways.

There are such things as players/fans not even acknowledging that the referee might be right. And when someone feels unjustly judge, well... we all know where it can lead: "The forums!"

 

[Oofta]

A DM is quite close to a referee. Whenever a referee is making a call a player do not like, even if it is within the rules, THAT REFEREE IS A JERK! A BAD REFEREE! HE CLEARLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE GAME! (caps intended )

We see that in Football (American or otherwise, baseball, hockey, tennis etc...) A DM is considered as such. He sides with the players (right or wrong) he is goooood! He sides against the players... well, he is clearly an incompetent jerk so I will go to the internet and show him/her the error of his/her ways.

There are such things as players/fans not even acknowledging that the referee might be right. And when someone feels unjustly judge, well... we all know where it can lead: "The forums!"

I thought I made a bad call once, but I was mistaken.