D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[Necropolitan]

Not if a game rule says so.

If a GM can take away a major source of power or even characterization of a PC through rules on a whim, then a player table can do those thing to a GM's precious setting through rules by consensus. Which, I remind you, is very much harder.

You're making completely unreasonable demands.

 

[AlViking]

Not if a game rule says so.

If a GM can take away a major source of power or even characterization of a PC through rules on a whim, then a player table can do those thing to a GM's precious setting through rules by consensus. Which, I remind you, is very much harder.

If I've agreed to play a game, I've agreed to play by the game's rules (which may, of course include house rules). If I'm not enjoying the game I'll try to resolve it. If I can't resolve it I'll find better ways to spend my time. Doesn't matter if that game is D&D or Parcheesi.

 

[GobHag]

You're making completely unreasonable demands.

I'm glad you agree that alignment is bad.

 

[Voadam]

That's completely absurd, absolutely not.

If you don't like what the DM is doing then tell them. If they refuse to change then leave.

You don't get to force the DM to do what you want.

It is just a different way to set up the game and narrative control of things. I have played in shared world D&D games where the DM shifted and we riffed on ideas and setting elements others had introduced as well as our own. As a DM I have incorporated things players have introduced for stuff like certain cultural elements or even a whole cultural pantheon. Other games like Kids on Bikes start off with the players defining certain setting elements and the DM then tries to work with those, it is an easy thing to do in a D&D game if you want.

PC narrative control of a scene is also fairly easy to add into D&D, in my 5e D&D game I allowed inspiration to be spent to have a player describe a flashback of how they set things up to influence the current scene such as by having a necessary piece of equipment not listed on their sheet or having previously bribed a guard or whatever. That worked well even when running a structured module in an adventure path in a fairly detailed homebrew world.

 

[Necropolitan]

It is just a different way to set up the game and narrative control of things. I have played in shared world D&D games where the DM shifted and we riffed on ideas and setting elements others had introduced as well as our own. As a DM I have incorporated things players have introduced for stuff like certain cultural elements or even a whole cultural pantheon. Other games like Kids on Bikes start off with the players defining certain setting elements and the DM then tries to work with those, it is an easy thing to do in a D&D game if you want.

PC narrative control of a scene is also fairly easy to add into D&D, in my 5e D&D game I allowed inspiration to be spent to have a player describe a flashback of how they set things up to influence the current scene such as by having a necessary piece of equipment not listed on their sheet or having previously bribed a guard or whatever. That worked well even when running a structured module in an adventure path in a fairly detailed homebrew world.

That's not what they were demanding.

Their rule would mean if the players decided they'd rather open a coffee shop than slay Strahd the DM would be forced to go along with it.

 

[GobHag]

And that's exactly what happens anyway. If the table as a whole wants Coffee Shopping than Slaying Strahd is going to be a pain for both parties in the end, better turn Strahd into the corporate magnate that wants to shut down that shop.

 

[Necropolitan]

And that's exactly what happens anyway. If the table as a whole wants Coffee Shopping than Slaying Strahd is going to be a pain for both parties in the end, better turn Strahd into the corporate magnate that wants to shut down that shop.

No, better for the DM to kick out those absurdly-entitled problem players who refuse to engage in the basic premise of the campaign.

 

[GobHag]

If everyone in the table ended up not following the premise of the campaign then the premise of the campaign must be wrong then . Sure if 1 or two are against it then it's fine to reprimand them fromnot following the path, but if everyone's pushing left then left is where the campaign will go.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that's exactly what happens anyway. If the table as a whole wants Coffee Shopping than Slaying Strahd is going to be a pain for both parties in the end, better turn Strahd into the corporate magnate that wants to shut down that shop.

Or find a different GM who wants to pursue the coffee shop idea.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If everyone in the table ended up not following the premise of the campaign then the premise of the campaign must be wrong then . Sure if 1 or two are against it then it's fine to reprimand them fromnot following the path, but if everyone's pushing left then left is where the campaign will go.

Sure, but probably under a different GM. You can't make the GM run their game against their will.