Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Pantagruel touched on this already, but it bears repeating: A good DM is a DM who makes sure everyone at the table (including themselves!) has fun. And it's important to recognize that there's a yawning gulf of difference between "I don't like this thing" and "this thing is bad and no one should like it." Now I'm not going to yum your yuck and tell you you're wrong for not liking a grindfest game, but by the same token don't assume no one likes that, at least once in a while. As long as everybody's on board with the stakes and the expectations in session zero, a game where each player comes with several backup character sheets can be a fun change of pace.
That all depends on clear communications and setting expectations during session zero. Not having a session zero to set expectations and boundaries is a big red flag.
I wouldn't want to play an ongoing meatgrinder campaign, but I think they can be fun as one-shots or mini-campaigns. But again, it's all about clear communications and setting expectations in session zero.
It all ties back to the root question of "what is fair?" And it turns out things like "fair" and "good" depend heavily on group consensus. If everybody at the table wants a meatgrinder campaign, then they're all probably going to think it's perfectly fair when one of their characters falls into a deep pit trap perfectly sized for the gelatinous cube at the bottom obscured by magical darkness so the character gets dissolved and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's not my ideal outcome, but if everybody at the table has expectations set and is cool with it, then by all means. But I will say that if I'm looking at joining a group, we during the pre-campaign session zero the DM says it's going to be a grimdark low fantasy setting with high risk of PC death and strict resource counting to the point of the wizard having to track how much insence they're buying to summon their familiar? I'm out. I generally want something more lighthearted and adventurous. But I hope everybody at the table has fun storming the caste while I find another group to play with.
Also, session zero isn't only for before a campaign starts. It's good to have a session zero every now and again for the DM and players to check in (and for the players to check in with each other) to make sure everyone's good with how things are going and iron out any issues that may have come up (like the "girlfriend getting more attention than the rest of the table" or "suddenly we're counting ammunition" issues mentioned upstream).
I think this particular example falls under 'most players don't actually *know* the rules of 5e D&D'.
At it's core, ammunition is to be tracked as is weight, currency, and a whole load of other small things. Now granted it's not for everyone, but if a DM advertises a campaign players ought to assume that tracking resources will be a thing unless the DM specifies otherwise. At least this holds true of 5e.
This holds true for other things too. A major difference between 5e and 5.5e is the optionality of feats. Within my circle of GMs and players it's about 50/50 GMs who run feats and multiclassing, and those who do not. However, these are not stock 5e rules. They are optional and players are *supposed* to get DM agreement to use these rules. That is of course according to the text of the 5e PHB. It personally grinds my gears when I see brainless influencers hype up a supposedly amazing build and forget to say 'by the way this build uses optional rules, check with your DM before using it'. Of course for 5.5e that optionality is removed and feats are a core part of the game.
Having played other systems I do wish the D&D player and DM base would borrow more from things we see in Pathfinder adventures. Often you'll get adventures where player options do get limited as a result of the specific setting. You might for example have an adventure where all the player characters are a specific species or class because the setting and the adventure are build around that concept. This incidentally isn't poor adventure design, but it often in D&D circles gets called out as such because the idea of limiting player choice gets seen as antithetical to the game by some. This is what I dislike a lot about 5.5e. A lot of what it introduced as standard was likely already enacted at tables anyway, but I think having a load of optional rules that can be toggled on and off makes for a more interesting variety of games and tables. It allows better tailoring of the game to the players and adventures.
When it comes to turning on and off rules, there's nothing inherently fair or unfair about that as long as players and GM understand the rules under which that specific campaign is operating. That's on a player to request though if they don't want to be tracking ammunition.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
@martintheactor
I don’t disagree with your points—it really comes down to personal taste and table culture. Many DMs view the game as their domain rather than a collaborative effort, choosing to enforce certain rules arbitrarily. (In my opinion, this is often an attempt to keep things simple by purposefully keeping players underpowered, but I digress.) If a table agrees that counting arrows is fun, then who am I to argue? If they’re having a good time, that’s all that matters.
The friction usually occurs because many tables—including the ones I play at or run—know the rules but consciously choose not to track incidentals. We prefer to allow feats, permit mild homebrew, include all official classes and races, and support multiclassing. Furthermore, we avoid "chain-killing" low-level characters, which I personally think is bad form—unless, of course, the adventure is specifically set up that way during Session Zero.
While I agree with you philosophically, I’ve definitely sat at tables where it was "my way or the highway." In those instances, I’ve always chosen to politely drop the game. At the end of the day, I think we all just have our own perspectives on what makes a session enjoyable.
I started playing with first/second edition. Maybe in the early editions, we counted ammo and the weight of every coin and such. But since 2014 rules, I can count on one hand the campaigns ive been in where the dm demanded ammunition counting. The few times it happened, it turned out to be a red flag for a terrible.dm.
Also, i had taken the wood carvers tool proficiency specifically to make arrows to replace the ones i could not recover, (phb says you can spend a minute to recover half your ammo, and wood xarver tool proclficiency lets you craft 20 arrows per long rest, 5 per short rest), but the dm didnt allow that. When i said i wanted time to recover my arrows, the dm rolled a die to tell me.how many i could get (always less than half), and when i told them i was crafting arrows while on watch, they said i couldnt do that.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/equipment#Ammunition
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/xgte/dungeon-masters-tools#WoodcarversTools
It wasnt a matter of me, the player, not knowing the rules. I knew the rules just fine. The dm would arbitrarily homebrew things on the fly, banning things that were standard rules, mid session.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
No one likes a grindfest campaign except a power tripping dm.
The original grindfest, Tomb of Horrors, was used in tournament play. I.e. one-shot competitions between parties.
But a long term campaign? Why bother? Just do oneshots every session. If youre going to die on a regular basis, then there is little reason to establish relationships with npc's, little reason to worry about what your character is doing during downtime, little reason to chart out progress towards your charavters goals.
Meat grinders like ToH would kill almost every player in a session. If thats how its going to play out, play a wargaming game instead.
I would also point out that meatgrinder campaigns arent considered "typical".
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/dmg-2024/creating-adventures#CombatEncounterDifficulty
Moderate encounters have a slim chance that 1 or.more characters will die.
Even a high-difficulty encounter only says that it "could be lethal for one or more characters. To survive it, the characters will need smart tactics, quick thinking, and maybe even a little luck."
Thats still not pointing to everyone is probably going to die before the session is over.
Or put another way, meatgrinder encounters have to be designed by dms who specifically ignore the DMG recommendations for encounter balance, and instead homebrew something much, much deadlier.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
See this just highlights the differences between tables. None of the tables I have played at had substantial amounts of downtime and half of them we were following a pre-written and the DM wasn't interested in enabling characters to pursue their character's goals rather than the pre-written plot.
Indeed, I've played at a table where multiclassing and feats were banned and only the PHB and Xanathar's was allowed and we were only allowed a +1 weapon as a magic item. The DM was not "bad" in this case, they were a long-time AL DM who was used an older version of D&D and this was their first 5e mini-campaign. Hence they were limiting options because they weren't that familiar with the 5e rules. Despite that they set up an interesting world and plot and I had a good time in the campaign.
Ya'll are free to do whatever you want and play whatever type of games you want, but IME it is much easier to find a table and you are more likely to have a good time if you are willing to work with the DM and the type of game they'd like to play, rather than having a checklist of things that if not fulfilled means you will walk out. That's also not to say you should play in a game you don't find fun. Obviously D&D is a hobby you are expending your spare time to engage with so you should be enjoying yourself while doing so. This is more to say you are more likely to enjoy yourself if you come into the game with an optimistic perspective and look for things to like about the game, rather than going into it anticipating it to be bad, and looking for reasons to walk out.
I know it's hard for you Americans to accept because your culture has become incredibly toxic, but most people in the world are just trying their best. They aren't out to get you, they aren't inherently "bad" people. People are people, they have their flaws, their insecurities, but also their hopes for a good life, and good friends.
Fairness applies to games and D&D is not a game, it’s an activity, perhaps a simulation of sorts. The core definition of a game is that someone wins and everyone else loses. Most of these analogies assume that there is some sort of presumed way to level the playing field as if D&D was a game where one can win or lose.
D&D cannot be made fair because the DM can justify just about anything and remain within the rules. The rules do not bind the DM in any meaningful way.
DMs create the illusion of challenges to be overcome, difficulties to circumvent and rewards to be earned but it’s a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors. Any challenge or obstacle you have ever overcome happened because the DM let it happen, no one has ever earned anything in D&D, you are gifted it by a DM.
Roleplaying games are a fun activity and the DM is an activity director that controls the outcome of everything, the entire “game” of D&D is a puppet show.
The only way to change that is to use published adventures and run them as written, aka, the way D&D sort of started out. Adventure modules where effectively locations with traps and monsters to overcome and even then the DM has to make judgement calls that ultimately means fairness goes out the window.
"Indeed, I've played at a table where multiclassing and feats were banned and only the PHB and Xanathar's was allowed and we were only allowed a +1 weapon as a magic item. The DM was not "bad" in this case, "
If they dont make it abundantly clear to players that they have many, many restrictions from normal rules, then yes, they are a lousy dm.
" rather than going into it anticipating it to be bad, and looking for reasons to walk out."
Where did i ever say expect all dms to be bad and look for excuses to walk out?
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
Op: "Ive seen questions of fairness come up over the years with regard to dnd. And some people seem to think that a dm can do whatever they want and be fair because the first rule is the dm's word is final"
Osr4ever: "Fairness applies to games and D&D is not a game, ... D&D cannot be made fair because the DM can justify just about anything and remain within the rules. The rules do not bind the DM in any meaningful way"
Like i already said....
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
I actually agree with you that D&D isn't a game in the technical sense, although I disagree with your definition. But it absolutely is in the colloquial sense.
And its game-nature is orthogonal to the question of whether it can be fair or not. Since it is possible for a GM to be unfair, it must be possible to be fair by not doing that.
You're confusing "I don't like this thing" with "this thing is bad and no one should like it."
It's fine to not like playing a meatgrinder game; that's your preference. But your preferences aren't universal. I don't love a campaign-length meatgrinder, but I've had fun playing one-shots and mini campaigns where characters died often.
Firmly disagree. A game is an activity for diversion or amusement. A lot of things fall under this umbrella, ranging from quite technical and complex to profoundly simple. D&D is absolutely a game.
As for DMs and the rules of D&D, the rules do bind the DM, and when a DM doesn't follow the rules and creates a bad play experience that's to the extent the players allow it. Players have the power to set boundaries and let a DM who isn't fostering a fun game experience know that they have to follow the rules or they don't get to play with the group anymore. This is session zero material. The players and the DM have to communicate clearly and set expectations, including what's going to happen when things aren't working.
I see you make a lot of specious claims about old school D&D being better and modern D&D being worse, and just like those other claims, this one just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. A DM being "good" or "bad" or "fair" or "unfair" has nothing to do with the edition and remarkably little to do with whether they're running a published adventure or running something homebrew. DMs have had the option to run published adventures or to make up their own since the very beginning. DMs have run the gamut from being very "by the book" to being more improvisational since the very beginning. No DM style is guaranteed to be more or less fair or indicate that a DM will be good or bad at what they do. Neither using published content nor using homebrew guarantees the game experience will feel fair or unfair.
Just because a GM wants resource tracking doesn't automatically make them a terrible GM. I've played in many games that keeping an eye on your own things turned out to be very good.
------------
Regarding limited choice for species, class, spells, whatever is sometimes invoked by new GMs or GMs that are new to the edition. There is a LOT of material to adapt to between say 1-2e and 5e and 5.5e. The limits may also be tied to campaign. The variations on magic availability is probably the biggest example.
-------------
The fact that many people have played Tomb of Horrors and enjoyed it proves that a GM that runs Tomb of Horrors is not instantly a bad GM. Item of note, the current version is a cakewalk.
--------------
Hard disagree on the definition of a game being an activity in which a single person wins and all others lose.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
This thread is about what is a "fair" game and fair dm.. I dont know why, but for some reason you want to make it about what is "good" game and i really dont care what is a universally "good" game.
On the other hand, if a dm wants to do a meatgrinder game and they fail to inform potential players, then that is a bad and unfair dm.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
I was responding to you making an overly broad statement that "No one likes a grindfest campaign except a power tripping dm." I didn't make claims about what makes a universally "good" game. You made a broad and unsupportable assertion that no one likes playing meatgrinder games and DMs who like them are power tripping.
I get it. It's alluring to fall into the trap of thinking "I don't like this thing, so I'm making an objective assessment of its quality" when it's really just a question of subjective preferences. I strongly dislike coconut - both the flavor and the texture - and while I'd love if everyone agreed with me and I never had to worry about coconut flakes ruining a perfectly cromulent piece of cake again, I'm well aware that it's just my preference and coconut doesn't taste bad or have an unappealing texture to everyone else in the world.
I've mentioned several times that communicating expectations and boundaries in session zero is important for everyone's enjoyment of the game. Not having a session zero is a planning and communications failure. It doesn't necessarily mean the DM is bad or unfair. Most likely it means they're inexperienced.
Author does not understand what fair means. Fair means same chances for all participants. That is it. Nothing else. Real world physics are fair - the same laws of gravity affect you, birds, and aircraft. Government laws may try to be fair, but they rarely are. Businesses are never fair.
Casinos do not pretend to be fair, they are a business out to make money. The are however constrained by government laws. Those laws are not fair, they are minimums the government puts in place.
DMs are not fair. Some of them are out to kill your character. Some want you to become 20th level. They should NEVER attempt to be fair. They should however make things clear when they are house ruling. Follow RAW as much as you can, but make it clear you will not to it all the time. A good DM should settle most disputes with the words "I am house ruling." If that does not work, add "... because I want your character to die."
A fair DM gives the monsters a 50% chance of winning every encounter. That is, after all, what a fair fight actually means.
if we're going to talk about 'fair' instead of 'good', realize that most DMs are not fair (they're biased towards the players) and that being perfectly fair isn't really a desirable quality in D&D.
"Just because a GM wants resource tracking doesn't automatically make them a terrible GM. "
Goodberry makes food tracking go away at level 1.
A bag of holding makes encumbrance and weight tracking pointless by level 2.
Spell slots? Sure. Class features like rage or wildshape? Sure. Track em.
But how is a level 10 campaign made better by asking players, who have Goodberry, Create Food and Water, and other spells, how is that game made better by asking them what they ate that day?
People play dnd because they want to be the hero, slay the dragon, become rich and famous. Nobody is playing dnd to count calories or balance a checkbook.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire