To ALL DM's... "It's not the players, the spells, feats, or anything else in the rules of Dnd 5E that "breaks the game"... it's you DM's... it's YOU!"
With all respect, this is simply not true!
I am a DM. I've never complained about my players breaking our game and I've never broken our game. Since I am the DM, I have the final say on which rules we use and which we don't. Doesn't mean the players doesn't have a say, doesn't mean I'm lazy, it's a part of being a DM.
You said: "You do realize that DND isn't the DM vs the players right? Its all about telling a fun and engaging story..." - I never implied or remotely insinuated otherwise. And FYI... you caught yourself in hypocrisy... if DnD is as you say: "Its all about telling a fun and engaging story..." (and I mostly agree, it's about much more) then why do you nerf your characters, deny potential story greatness, and not let your PC's fly? You already said why... Because as I claimed in my original post and you proved for you... only out of laziness and difficulty to you, completely ignoring your player's story-telling wishes, over your own. See what I mean... you won't even entertain for a second the problem lies in a DM and not the 5E rules, spells, and feats.
Make a better dungeon is my point, don't nerf PC's or complain about 5E rules.
To GodRickGreat... (Gee... no DM god complex there!)
"With all respect, this is simply not true!..."- No... I have experienced what I said I did. What you mean is it doesn't apply to you as a DM and that's GREAT!!! I can and should address all DM's and if it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you.
But to point out... it does apply to you and here's why- You said: "Since I am the DM, I have the final say on which rules we use and which we don't." -This is nerfing Rick and it's military dictatorship, not a democracy you impose. ("I am the DM, I have the final say on which rules we use...) So, everyone in the party has majority stance, but the only vote that counts is yours. And you have final say on enforcing the rules, not nerfing them.
It's your campaign, do what you want and if the players are cool with it, then fine... but I suspect at least some secretly aren't and stay silent in fear of reprisal for any countermanding of "GodrickGreat" hath spoken rule nerfing laws.
Make a better dungeon is my point, don't nerf PC's or complain about 5E rules.
You keep saying stuff like this with regards to flight. You know D&D doesn't require dungeons and most of the time the adventurers will be outside, right? How do you make a better dungeon so that never becomes an issue?
I really think banning racial flight speed is a very fair restriction. It really is quite powerful and moreso at low level.
And what are you even implying with that? Make the dungeon only have 10 foot high ceilings? Put traps above head height? Give every monster in your game flight or ranged attacks?
It really seems like you are arguing just to argue. (Also, practice quoting. It is hard to pick your points out from theirs the way you do it. DDB has a quote box in their text editor specifically for this.)
I agree with others' sentiment about this thread. It feels strangely confrontational; whether you intend it to or not. A personal rant on a perceived injustice, that I'm not sure many would agree with you on.
I'm afraid that's all I can say about the topic, beyond 'I disagree'. I'm a flipping amazing DM, and so are all my DM friends, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
A suggestion: only be a DM, and you don't have to subject yourself to this (evidently) highly vexing issue.
" You keep saying stuff like this with regards to flight." Again misrepresented. No, I didn't bring up "flight issues' someone else did, and I responded to it.
"You know D&D doesn't require dungeons and most of the time the adventurers will be outside, right?" - This is a intentional provocation. ALL DnD campaign locations and playing sites are referred to as "dungeons" regardless of their location of occurrence.
"And what are you even implying with that? Make the dungeon only have 10 foot high ceilings? Put traps above head height? Give every monster in your game flight or ranged attacks?" -More misrepresentation, I said make a better dungeon, not change the entire rule book or monsters. But to rhetorically answer your digression... If PC's "level up"... why can't monsters and creatures?!
"It really seems like you are arguing just to argue." - No, not at all. It's a poll I posted and then I responded to comments as people made them. Again, that's called a conversation. But FYI... in an "argument" there are at least 2 opposing viewpoints, not one. If I'm arguing... so are you. (But I don't have a problem with that) No one forced you to read or comment on my post, but funny how everyone has their myopic view and refuses to acknowledge that contrary viewpoints are fine.
To GodRickGreat... (Gee... no DM god complex there!)
No absolutely not. My nickname comes from a character I played for several years, so it has absolutely nothing to do with what I've done as a game master.
"With all respect, this is simply not true!..."- No... I have experienced what I said I did. What you mean is it doesn't apply to you as a DM and that's GREAT!!! I can and should address all DM's and if it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you.
You said ALL DM's. Since I am a DM and it doesn't apply to me, the logical conclusion is that the first premise cannot be true.
But to point out... it does apply to you and here's why- You said: "Since I am the DM, I have the final say on which rules we use and which we don't." -This is nerfing Rick and it's military dictatorship, not a democracy you impose. ("I am the DM, I have the final say on which rules we use...) So, everyone in the party has majority stance, but the only vote that counts is yours. And you have final say on enforcing the rules, not nerfing them.
I never said the only vote that counted was mine. That is you putting words in my mouth. I said "I have the final say". That means if there is discussions on how to understand a rule, I will make the final call if necessary. It's also my call that I've said that in our current campaign we do not use feats. Why? Because I know at least half of my players wouldn't have the time to read through them all. Thus a made a decision on behalf of the group. I didn't do it to limit the players, I did it to make it easy for them as they are all new to D&D as a system.
It's your campaign, do what you want and if the players are cool with it, then fine... but I suspect at least some secretly aren't and stay silent in fear of reprisal for any countermanding of "GodrickGreat" hath spoken rule nerfing laws.
I can assure you that my players would never stay silent in fear of reprisal. Actually most of them cares far less about the rules than I do. That's another reason I've chosen to cut some of them.
Yes, it is confrontational, but to me, not by me. Again, no one forced you to read or comment on my poll/post, yet it's been a myopic standpoint on the other side of my post where everyone voices their disagreement (which is fine) but then, most cried "foul" for any contrary thoughts or corrections of misrepresentations I pointed out. The rules apply in both directions Chequers in conversations AND in Dnd 5E rules... most of which you all nerf there, but won't admit, and are trying to nerf here... whether YOU see it or intended it or not. Where did I even remotely insinuate no one else was entitled to their opinion, but what have I mostly received back? You took it personal... so, you are probably guilty of what I am talking about.
"A suggestion: be a DM, and you don't have to subject yourself to this (evidently) highly vexing issue." Well, this is rude hubris... it implies I haven't DM'ed, which you can't possibly know and as I said, I'm a longtime player/DM.
I disagree with the premise of your question. When you say that DMs "get their butts kicked" by players or that they "can't even TPK" the party, I understand that to mean you think the DM is the opponent of the players. That is not the DMs job in my view. The DM can always TPK the party if they want to - just have 12 extra dragons turn up, as is entirely within their power. I apologise if I have misinterpreted your views, but that is what I got from reading your post.
In my view the DM's job is to provide an interesting challenge for all the players in the party, and to help tell an interesting story.
So, where in that job might restricting a player's character design choice (nerfing) be necessary? Three reasons occur to me:
1. Maintaining rough balance between character power levels. As I said above, the job is to challenge ALL players. If one player is twice as powerful as the others in a game then an otherwise regular-difficulty encounter will be no challenge for one and nearly deadly for others.
2. Maintaining story theme. The DM is doing the heavy lifting on story creation, and may remove some player options to try and help the story stay thematically consistent. For example, a constantly flying player will require all encounters to account for that. If the setting of the story does not have a sensible flying enemy then it might easily descend into farce.
3. Discouraging repetitive player behaviour / encouraging imaginative solutions. If a character has one very over-powered feature/spell/attack, then it would be very tempting indeed to always use it. Indeed it is strategically irresponsible to not. This path leads to repetition, and in my opinion, boredom.
Now you are free to call this sort of reasoning laziness if you want, but I think it is absolutely the DMs job. It is obviously best to lay all this out and agree with the players before a campaign begins, but in extreme cases a DM may feel it necessary to deny access to some new feature later in the game, or even actually nerf a single player to bring their power level down to match the party. As a DM I have done this - arranged for a specific magic item to be stolen from a player (gave them a quest hook to get it back) until it better matched the party's power level, and as a player I would not want to play at a table where the DM was unwilling to do this. I consider it a very important part of their job, not laziness.
You said: "(Also, practice quoting. It is hard to pick your points out from theirs the way you do it. DDB has a quote box in their text editor specifically for this.)"
See what I mean?! You are such an argumentative nerfing control freak you try to mandate how I can post or quote. You all don't realize what hypocrites you are and keep proving my points!
With all respect, this is simply not true!
I am a DM. I've never complained about my players breaking our game and I've never broken our game. Since I am the DM, I have the final say on which rules we use and which we don't. Doesn't mean the players doesn't have a say, doesn't mean I'm lazy, it's a part of being a DM.
Ludo ergo sum!
To 1stson...
You said: "You do realize that DND isn't the DM vs the players right? Its all about telling a fun and engaging story..." - I never implied or remotely insinuated otherwise. And FYI... you caught yourself in hypocrisy... if DnD is as you say: "Its all about telling a fun and engaging story..." (and I mostly agree, it's about much more) then why do you nerf your characters, deny potential story greatness, and not let your PC's fly? You already said why... Because as I claimed in my original post and you proved for you... only out of laziness and difficulty to you, completely ignoring your player's story-telling wishes, over your own. See what I mean... you won't even entertain for a second the problem lies in a DM and not the 5E rules, spells, and feats.
Make a better dungeon is my point, don't nerf PC's or complain about 5E rules.
Thx!!!
To GodRickGreat... (Gee... no DM god complex there!)
"With all respect, this is simply not true!..."- No... I have experienced what I said I did. What you mean is it doesn't apply to you as a DM and that's GREAT!!! I can and should address all DM's and if it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you.
But to point out... it does apply to you and here's why- You said: "Since I am the DM, I have the final say on which rules we use and which we don't." -This is nerfing Rick and it's military dictatorship, not a democracy you impose. ("I am the DM, I have the final say on which rules we use...) So, everyone in the party has majority stance, but the only vote that counts is yours. And you have final say on enforcing the rules, not nerfing them.
It's your campaign, do what you want and if the players are cool with it, then fine... but I suspect at least some secretly aren't and stay silent in fear of reprisal for any countermanding of "GodrickGreat" hath spoken rule nerfing laws.
You keep saying stuff like this with regards to flight. You know D&D doesn't require dungeons and most of the time the adventurers will be outside, right? How do you make a better dungeon so that never becomes an issue?
I really think banning racial flight speed is a very fair restriction. It really is quite powerful and moreso at low level.
And what are you even implying with that? Make the dungeon only have 10 foot high ceilings? Put traps above head height? Give every monster in your game flight or ranged attacks?
It really seems like you are arguing just to argue. (Also, practice quoting. It is hard to pick your points out from theirs the way you do it. DDB has a quote box in their text editor specifically for this.)
I agree with others' sentiment about this thread. It feels strangely confrontational; whether you intend it to or not. A personal rant on a perceived injustice, that I'm not sure many would agree with you on.
I'm afraid that's all I can say about the topic, beyond 'I disagree'. I'm a flipping amazing DM, and so are all my DM friends, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
A suggestion: only be a DM, and you don't have to subject yourself to this (evidently) highly vexing issue.
To DxJxC...
" You keep saying stuff like this with regards to flight." Again misrepresented. No, I didn't bring up "flight issues' someone else did, and I responded to it.
"You know D&D doesn't require dungeons and most of the time the adventurers will be outside, right?" - This is a intentional provocation. ALL DnD campaign locations and playing sites are referred to as "dungeons" regardless of their location of occurrence.
"And what are you even implying with that? Make the dungeon only have 10 foot high ceilings? Put traps above head height? Give every monster in your game flight or ranged attacks?" -More misrepresentation, I said make a better dungeon, not change the entire rule book or monsters. But to rhetorically answer your digression... If PC's "level up"... why can't monsters and creatures?!
"It really seems like you are arguing just to argue." - No, not at all. It's a poll I posted and then I responded to comments as people made them. Again, that's called a conversation. But FYI... in an "argument" there are at least 2 opposing viewpoints, not one. If I'm arguing... so are you. (But I don't have a problem with that) No one forced you to read or comment on my post, but funny how everyone has their myopic view and refuses to acknowledge that contrary viewpoints are fine.
Who's really arguing Dx?
No absolutely not. My nickname comes from a character I played for several years, so it has absolutely nothing to do with what I've done as a game master.
You said ALL DM's. Since I am a DM and it doesn't apply to me, the logical conclusion is that the first premise cannot be true.
I never said the only vote that counted was mine. That is you putting words in my mouth. I said "I have the final say". That means if there is discussions on how to understand a rule, I will make the final call if necessary. It's also my call that I've said that in our current campaign we do not use feats. Why? Because I know at least half of my players wouldn't have the time to read through them all. Thus a made a decision on behalf of the group. I didn't do it to limit the players, I did it to make it easy for them as they are all new to D&D as a system.
I can assure you that my players would never stay silent in fear of reprisal. Actually most of them cares far less about the rules than I do. That's another reason I've chosen to cut some of them.
Ludo ergo sum!
To Chequers....
Yes, it is confrontational, but to me, not by me. Again, no one forced you to read or comment on my poll/post, yet it's been a myopic standpoint on the other side of my post where everyone voices their disagreement (which is fine) but then, most cried "foul" for any contrary thoughts or corrections of misrepresentations I pointed out. The rules apply in both directions Chequers in conversations AND in Dnd 5E rules... most of which you all nerf there, but won't admit, and are trying to nerf here... whether YOU see it or intended it or not. Where did I even remotely insinuate no one else was entitled to their opinion, but what have I mostly received back? You took it personal... so, you are probably guilty of what I am talking about.
"A suggestion: be a DM, and you don't have to subject yourself to this (evidently) highly vexing issue." Well, this is rude hubris... it implies I haven't DM'ed, which you can't possibly know and as I said, I'm a longtime player/DM.
I disagree with the premise of your question. When you say that DMs "get their butts kicked" by players or that they "can't even TPK" the party, I understand that to mean you think the DM is the opponent of the players. That is not the DMs job in my view. The DM can always TPK the party if they want to - just have 12 extra dragons turn up, as is entirely within their power. I apologise if I have misinterpreted your views, but that is what I got from reading your post.
In my view the DM's job is to provide an interesting challenge for all the players in the party, and to help tell an interesting story.
So, where in that job might restricting a player's character design choice (nerfing) be necessary? Three reasons occur to me:
1. Maintaining rough balance between character power levels. As I said above, the job is to challenge ALL players. If one player is twice as powerful as the others in a game then an otherwise regular-difficulty encounter will be no challenge for one and nearly deadly for others.
2. Maintaining story theme. The DM is doing the heavy lifting on story creation, and may remove some player options to try and help the story stay thematically consistent. For example, a constantly flying player will require all encounters to account for that. If the setting of the story does not have a sensible flying enemy then it might easily descend into farce.
3. Discouraging repetitive player behaviour / encouraging imaginative solutions. If a character has one very over-powered feature/spell/attack, then it would be very tempting indeed to always use it. Indeed it is strategically irresponsible to not. This path leads to repetition, and in my opinion, boredom.
Now you are free to call this sort of reasoning laziness if you want, but I think it is absolutely the DMs job. It is obviously best to lay all this out and agree with the players before a campaign begins, but in extreme cases a DM may feel it necessary to deny access to some new feature later in the game, or even actually nerf a single player to bring their power level down to match the party. As a DM I have done this - arranged for a specific magic item to be stolen from a player (gave them a quest hook to get it back) until it better matched the party's power level, and as a player I would not want to play at a table where the DM was unwilling to do this. I consider it a very important part of their job, not laziness.
To DxJx
You said: "(Also, practice quoting. It is hard to pick your points out from theirs the way you do it. DDB has a quote box in their text editor specifically for this.)"
See what I mean?! You are such an argumentative nerfing control freak you try to mandate how I can post or quote. You all don't realize what hypocrites you are and keep proving my points!
Don't like the way I post...? Tough.
Locking this thread, as is has deteriorated to inflammatory commentary.
Thank you all who provided feedback to the original post. This discussion has come to a close.