D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[FrozenNorth]

I am. Dwarves and elves have got to be the most lazy pointless setting inclusion imaginable.

Wait, wait, wait… but have you considered adding yet ANOTHER elf sub-race?

You have? Then I’m all out of ideas.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes and those problems exist on both sides...

Which I acknowledged in the very line you quoted here, yes?

which is one of my points, the other being if you fundamentally don't trust your GM to arbitrate... well that seems like a major problem since as far as D&D goes that is one of the major responsibilities of a DM. It's like not trusting a player to play honestly with the use of their characters abilities.

I'll simply note as I always do that when this comes up, I trust GM's motives explicitly or I don't play with them--but I don't trust any GM's judgment unlimitedly, including my own. And there's no need to when a GM can accept criticism and players are willing to give it in good faith. There's more than one person in the room, and limiting who assesses things to only the GM is neither required, nor, in my opinion, desirable.

The example I originally responded to wasn't about a discussion it was an instance where the players goth their way because of numbers.

And how did the person determine what their "way" was? Presumably because they argued it should be so.

EDIT: Why do you believe this assumption doesn't seem nearly as well founded as some people think it is? I have yet to see a real argument that objectively shows why group consensus, player arbitration or GM arbitration is better. I would in fact argue it's a different strokes for different folks type of thing.

Why should I, when its usually presented like its self-evident, rather than backing it up with an actual argument. Its treated by a lot of people like its Revealed Truth when what it is is mostly just cultural inertia because it was present at the start of the hobby.

The only way that makes sense as a default is if you go in assuming players will only decide things on their personal self-interest in all or at least the majority of cases. While I quite admit a significant percentage of them will, going in with it as a default assumption presumes that the majority or even all of them will, and if you're going to try to claim that I think some work is required on your part. The best you can say is that your own personal player group is like that; beyond that its, at best, overextending from your personal experience, and at worst projecting your own cynicism on the gaming population as a whole.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Semi-tangentially, I think this is the first I've heard anyone react negatively to "kitchen sink" as a descriptor (instead of just reacting negatively to something being an all-the-options game). Is it commonly taken as negative and I've just been oblivious? [Edit: I am just fine with being described as having been oblivious about this point if that's the case.]

Its probably not universal, but its fairly frequently used in a dismissive way to describe a campaign that has no shape or structure. If you look at everything but the kitchen sink you'll note the third and fourth reference are not exactly complimentary, and some of the same tone can carry over here.

 

[Imaro]

Actually Hawkeye brought up the term fun when they asked why 1 person should have fun I stead of 4. Then you asked them why 4 people having fun is better than the one. Then I replied because 80% having fun is better than 20%, but then added a line saying this math has nothing to do with players and GMs collaborating.

Either way you did state a reply concerning fun...

You can rule on levitation how you like. I think your ruling is really bad and would not let many common uses of levitation work (like levitating a log straddling a ravine so the players can walk across it to the other side) but you do it how you like.

Yes and I think you and the players bullied your DM through numbers into agreeing with an easily exploitable ruling that will allow levitate to be used in ways it wasn't necessarily supposed to be used as a 2nd lvl spell throughout the entire campaign. But hey you continue gaming with that numbers (always in favor of the players) = best mentality

I'll just tell you that in this situation, if you were the GM making the bad call you could have stuck by your guns in which case the game would have ended as the players would have switched to playing a different game without you as the GM. I'm not sure that's a better outcome than revising and moving on but it's your game.

Correction... I'd be a DM making a different call.

My players wouldn't have quit and unlike your DM, and as I said earlier in the discussion, my players would have gotten a heads up on the limitation of the spell before enacting the plan. Then if they felt I was still wrong we could have a thorough discussion after the game. What wouldn't have happened is majority being the reason one or the other differing opinions was decided upon moving forward.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Or just generalize this further, and say "Courtesy and deference to your fellow participants will make you a better gamer. Be attentive to their wants, and flexible in your own."

When I'm a player, the first thing I say to the DM during character creation is "I have a couple ideas for what I'm interested in playing, but what would help the game?"

When I'm a DM, the first thing I say to the players during session zero is "I have a few ideas for what kind of game to run, but what are you interested in playing?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

In my long experience as a DM, Players absolutely only care about their characters and their immediate circumstances.

I absolutely care about other player's fun and whether the thing I want makes sense in the GM's context when assessing something. I can't assume I'm a complete special snowflake here.

 

[Cadence]

When I'm a DM, the first thing I say to the players during session zero is "I have a few ideas for what kind of game to run, but what are you interested in playing?"

The only place I'd differ, is that I'd do this in the "recruiting for session 0" phase.

 

[TwoSix]

The only place I'd differ, is that I'd do this in the "recruiting for session 0" phase.

Fair. I don't have to recruit, so it didn't occur to me. But you're definitely right.

 

[Helldritch]

Tasha's let you switch ability scores and proficiencies, not actual species traits.

Read the custom lineage in TCoE on P8. Anything can be done or emulated to a close match. It is not because I don't like the book that I don't have it. In fact, I have it twice... Collector's edition and normal. When your players are ready to put a joke on you... this is what you get.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Either way you did state a reply concerning fun...

Yes and I think you and the players bullied your DM through numbers into agreeing with an easily exploitable ruling that will allow levitate to be used in ways it wasn't necessarily supposed to be used as a 2nd lvl spell throughout the entire campaign. But hey you continue gaming with that numbers (always in favor of the players) = best mentality

Correction... I'd be a DM making a different call.

My players wouldn't have quit and unlike your DM, and as I said earlier in the discussion, my players would have gotten a heads up on the limitation of the spell before enacting the plan. Then if they felt I was still wrong we could have a thorough discussion after the game. What wouldn't have happened is majority being the reason one or the other differing opinions was decided upon moving forward.

I have to ask...

Did you read that we objected to the ruling as a GOTCHA that ended in a PC death and choose to ignore that part of it to zero in on player entitlement OR did you just skip past reading my posts in it's entirety so that you didn't know we were upset at the GOTCHA that ended in a death moreso than the actual how levitate works issue?

Because if the GM in my case had acted as you said you would have acted there would have been no issues at all, we would have just worked on a different plan.