D&D 5E "When DMing I Avoid Making the PCs have 'pointless' combats." (a poll)

[iserith]

Again, yes, I expect the game to be challenging, the players don't want a challenge, therefore I'm the problem.

The way I think of it is this. If the rules allow it, the players will do it. I don't blame the players for that. I blame the rules. So, if the rules produce a result that I don't want, I change the rules. Simple. I am transparent about that and have no problems changing the rules and the players know that going in. Yet the still complain and object and quit. Like when I banned Leomund's Tiny Hut. The players abused the hell out of it. I let it slide until it became clear that they were never going to stop abusing it as long as it was an option, so I banned it. Players complained and quit.

I sit everyone down and do a one-on-one session zero. Give them the spiel and hand them a print out of the house rules and email a link to the same document online as a PDF. My expectations are made crystal clear. Yet the players still ignore those and play anyway...knowing their expectations do not match up with mine...then the complain and quit. It's a really weird cycle. It's repeated dozens and dozens of times. Players say they want a challenge, then once presented with one, they freak out and bounce.

I mean, all I can see here is there is some kind of communications breakdown happening that is leading to a mismatch of expectations. Or something going on in play you are doing that is not welcome. I don't see how you can end up with "dozens and dozens" of the same result and have it not be that. You seem to want to blame it on the rules or on D&D 5e players in general, but you also say you house rule a lot, so that takes at least some portion of the rules out of the calculation presumably. And D&D 5e players aren't a monolith, so we're back to you. Obviously, I don't have perfect insight into your game, but productive introspection is a good thing and I heartily recommend it.

 

[tetrasodium]

J
Really? Mass rage quits because they could not think things through? IMHO you are better off without them. I never had such rage quits since high school.


I do not know what to say other than the above. I warned every single players that there is no perfect solutions for any problems. If a player has some experience with a DM, I ask this person a bit about how the games were run by their old DMs. Hard mode is not for everyone and for those that want to try, a DM must warn them.

It maybe because I have a very different style than many DMs out here or that players in my area love challenging and deadly adventures. I truly do not know. One thing is for sure, when we do our Friday Night Dungeons we do have a lot of question as to how my games are so roughs (even in exhibit games). I truly run games like the world is alive.

One thing I often do as a cameo outside the game like the old:"Meanwhile" in old stories and movies. Is to describe a scene about the master villain of the current story. If they know the master mind then I describe the scene (but I do not tell the location) and make the villain curse the success of the players or say how they were fools to fail such easy endeavours and so on. It kinda of give a warning of things to comes. I usually use the dream of a priest or diviner or exhalted soul to give such "insights". I find that players like these (even if they're bad clichés). It also reinforce the fact that the world is alive and moves. It also help them understand that their actions have meaning and effects.

When a character dream of shadowy figure that say:" Curse these interlopers! They have set back my plans by months if not years! Come Azrazel! We must plan our next move carefully in (fill in the blank)!" It not only gives the player a warning of what is to come, it also sets them on the hunt. This is the kind of thing that my players and those that come to look at the exhibit games like a lot.

overgeeked already clarified the 1s&2s not mass point but I've seen a couple with the threat used as veto much more common. Things play out like this

• GM:"This next game is going to have x rule (ie roll stats in order, rests modified as follows, healing word is gone, whatever)."
• players ab&c: "cool sure"
• playerD: I'm not playing with that unplayable nerf. I just won't play. I can't believe you guys would be ok with that
• playerD: continues trying to force the veto by pressuring any player who doesn't really have any strong feelings

In past editions there were things that the gm could offer like a feat/magic item/etc because there were more dials & those dials were generally set to a much lower level. 5e has such a high % of the dials it didn't remove or remove as an option for this by simply declaring them ToTaLY "OpTiOnAL" in a ruleset that doesn't account for their added power. The GM has no cards to play in that discussion & the system ensures it

 

[Helldritch]

overgeeked already clarified the 1s&2s not mass point but I've seen a couple with the threat used as veto much more common. Things play out like this

• GM:"This next game is going to have x rule (ie roll stats in order, rests modified as follows, healing word is gone, whatever)."
• players ab&c: "cool sure"
• playerD: I'm not playing with that unplayable nerf. I just won't play. I can't believe you guys would be ok with that
• playerD: continues trying to force the veto by pressuring any player who doesn't really have any strong feelings

In past editions there were things that the gm could offer like a feat/magic item/etc because there were more dials & those dials were generally set to a much lower level. 5e has such a high % of the dials it didn't remove or remove as an option for this by simply declaring them ToTaLY "OpTiOnAL" in a ruleset that doesn't account for their added power. The GM has no cards to play in that discussion & the system ensures it

We've had this discussion before. And yes, I still agree that most dials have been removed from the hands of the DM. The only dial we have left that is fully under our control is: "If you're not happy with my way of doing things, fine. Find someone else to make you play."

It is a bit drastic but this is in fact, the only and last recourse we have if we can't have the players buy in to our premises/choices for the campaign. The old school way of challenging players are slowly coming to an end if what I read on this forum and a few others are true.

 

[Lojaan]

I remove all scenes, combat, social or exploration, that don't have a point. Why wouldn't you?

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, all I can see here is there is some kind of communications breakdown happening that is leading to a mismatch of expectations. Or something going on in play you are doing that is not welcome. I don't see how you can end up with "dozens and dozens" of the same result and have it not be that. You seem to want to blame it on the rules or on D&D 5e players in general, but you also say you house rule a lot, so that takes at least some portion of the rules out of the calculation presumably. And D&D 5e players aren't a monolith, so we're back to you. Obviously, I don't have perfect insight into your game, but productive introspection is a good thing and I heartily recommend it.

And we're back to: Yes, I expect the game to be challenging, the players don't want a challenge, therefore I'm the problem.

How productive. Tschüss.

 

[overgeeked]

overgeeked already clarified the 1s&2s not mass point but I've seen a couple with the threat used as veto much more common. Things play out like this

• GM:"This next game is going to have x rule (ie roll stats in order, rests modified as follows, healing word is gone, whatever)."
• players ab&c: "cool sure"
• playerD: I'm not playing with that unplayable nerf. I just won't play. I can't believe you guys would be ok with that
• playerD: continues trying to force the veto by pressuring any player who doesn't really have any strong feelings

Yeah. I have zero patience for school-yard threats. When players try that BS with me I boot them first and ask questions later. Player D would be without a seat at my table.

In past editions there were things that the gm could offer like a feat/magic item/etc because there were more dials & those dials were generally set to a much lower level. 5e has such a high % of the dials it didn't remove or remove as an option for this by simply declaring them ToTaLY "OpTiOnAL" in a ruleset that doesn't account for their added power. The GM has no cards to play in that discussion & the system ensures it

Exactly. It's the Monty Haul edition of D&D. The players are just superheroes and the player base seems trained to expect exactly that. Anything less than and they lose their minds.

 

[iserith]

And we're back to: Yes, I expect the game to be challenging, the players don't want a challenge, therefore I'm the problem.

How productive. Tschüss.

Yeah. I have zero patience for school-yard threats. When players try that BS with me I boot them first and ask questions later. Player D would be without a seat at my table.

Exactly. It's the Monty Haul edition of D&D. The players are just superheroes and the player base seems trained to expect exactly that. Anything less than and they lose their minds.

The brush you paint with is so broad. I'll see your 200 D&D 5e players who you say don't like challenge and raise you hundreds more that I've DMed for who do. But do continue to blame supposed generational change, the rules of the game itself, the players of the game, or whatever external explanation you can imagine. Anything to keep from examining whatever responsibility you may bear for the outcomes you are seeing. It's certainly easier.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And we're back to: Yes, I expect the game to be challenging, the players don't want a challenge, therefore I'm the problem.

How productive. Tschüss.

Okay. You are 100% right, they are terrible and you should leave them.

Good?

The advice is the same. If both sides aren't happy they should stop being together.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't vote, as I don't run 5th edition D&D. If I had voted, I'd have gone for "yes".

Despite the tag, the question asked is edition-agnostic and I answered it as such.

 

[Lanefan]

If the players are using the hut and taking long rests all the time to avoid getting winnowed down on resources, maybe they're stating their preferences and it isn't 'more challenging'.

You often jump to this conclusion, and I yet again disagree with it.

No matter how much challenge the game presents, it's still 100% in the players' interests to mitigate or reduce or avoid those challenges when-where possible. In-character, the PCs would reasonably do likewise when-where they could.

As a player I (usually) do what I can in-character to reduce or mitigate or avoid challenges presented by the game, but that by no means implies any preference saying I don't want thosse challenges to be there.