I unfortunately did have a time when we had to ask a DM to either step down to a player role or leave the game. We approached it like adults though and simply told him our concerns. He was over his head and he could barely work through a combat without getting frustrated at us. We did our best to support but ultimately we had to have the conversation with him about maybe letting someone else take the reigns for a bit and give him a break.
Luckily he was relieved and took over one of the NPCs as a player and one of the players retired their character and took up the DM role.
The one thing you should remember always:
These are people....just treat them like people and adults and you should be fine! Conversations about expectations for all is a good thing and Session 0 is very important. However, having a "State of the Game" style meeting every once in a while lets everyone level set and figure out what they want to do moving forward. Gives everyone a voice to talk about their respective issues if any.
If either disapprove of the other, it may be time to leave the game.
And even then, it's not symmetrical, a DM can ask the player to leave the campaign (and the DM may certainly keep the character as an NPC or even give it to someone else to play), but the reverse is certainly not true.
I suppose we fundamentally do not agree then. As you say, the DM can continue using the character from a player that has left the group, but likewise, the player has as much right to continue the campaign without the old DM if he can find players for it, or if the existing players wish to continue with a new DM.
Also, I don't believe a DM can tell a player to leave the table if the other players wish for the player to remain. When relating to things outside of the game it's a democracy.
I reiterate my stance, no person has more power than another in the physical world. It's completely ok that we do not agree, but this is my opinion.
Also, I don't believe a DM can tell a player to leave the table if the other players wish for the player to remain. When relating to things outside of the game it's a democracy.
It is true that the other players could ask for the player to remain, but then the DM is equally allowed to therefore refuse to DM for that group of players.
I think that Lyxen's remarks are on point. I want to add a couple remarks.
The DM has as much power as the players give them before the DM plays the only real trump card they totally possess, ending the game. Out of respect for the DMs work outside the game, the players should give some deference to the DM.
Likewise, the players have as much power as the DM gives them. A mature DM will give the players some room to express themselves in the game in a manner that they want. However, the players only real power is to pick up and go home. A mature player will not make repeated demands on the DM to shape the campaign around every whimsey the player might have.
What we say here doesn't matter. Each table makes their own rules and decides the answers to the two questions; power for the DM? and power for the player? And at the end of the day the power is to play or stay home.
Treat each other with respect and you will get respect in return.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Also, I don't believe a DM can tell a player to leave the table if the other players wish for the player to remain. When relating to things outside of the game it's a democracy.
It is true that the other players could ask for the player to remain, but then the DM is equally allowed to therefore refuse to DM for that group of players.
I reiterate my stance, no person has more power than another in the physical world. It's completely ok that we do not agree, but this is my opinion.
Of course they do. In some groups there is only one person who is able to DM, who takes over the role in that group?
In that case the group simply do not continue playing. If the DM has any sense, then she will probably listen if all the players at the table are voting against her, and changes will be made accordingly and the group continues having fun with the game.
Let me put it like this, a DM asking a player to leave has as much impact as a player asking another player to leave, for instance.
When relating to things outside of the game it's a democracy.
No, it's not. See above, the DM puts a lot of work in preparing and running the game. Thinking that they have equal rights is the same thing as giving no value to that work from the players side, and this is extremely disrespectful for the work done.
There is no disrespect in acknowledging that everyone at the table are equal, and this also doesnot mean that no value is given to the DMs work. So I don't subscribe to your opinion in regards to this.
Can a DM ultimately just end the campaign and stop playing with the group, sure she can, but then so can a player. If everyone is interested in getting along and having fun together then a common ground will be found. From what I can read out of the responses in this thread, people seem to put DMs on a piedestal (a bit anyway), which is fine, within the game world, because there the DM is god, but in the real world, we're all just people having fun, equal in every right, and noone has more power than the other. Even if the roles at the table are not symmetrical as you say. Symmetry is not required for something to be equal in rights.
And then yes, again, the DM can just say "If you don't get along with this, then I'll end the campaign, or if player B refuses to leave the group, then I also will end the campaign" - But the player can do the same. In the end the result for both parties are the same, either they continue to play together or they don't.
I think that Lyxen's remarks are on point. I want to add a couple remarks.
The DM has as much power as the players give them before the DM plays the only real trump card they totally possess, ending the game. Out of respect for the DMs work outside the game, the players should give some deference to the DM.
Likewise, the players have as much power as the DM gives them. A mature DM will give the players some room to express themselves in the game in a manner that they want. However, the players only real power is to pick up and go home. A mature player will not make repeated demands on the DM to shape the campaign around every whimsey the player might have.
What we say here doesn't matter. Each table makes their own rules and decides the answers to the two questions; power for the DM? and power for the player? And at the end of the day the power is to play or stay home.
Treat each other with respect and you will get respect in return.
Makes sense. I think there are a lot of tables where the game would not continue if anyone decided to leave the game, often because people are close friends, and if it came to such a disagreement that anyone would have to quit, then the entire game would fall apart, and in those situations everyone is equal, and that is the starting point of my opinions on this matter.
Honestly, nobody ever had this kind of discussion before 3e, which entitled players to an incredible degree and created all sorts of behavior that disrupt the way tables usually run. It created entitled players who, even more than before, feel that they have the right to go toe to toe with the DM to discuss rules, and despite 5e being crystal clear on the subject, some people still think that is acceptable.
I jumped from AD&D to 5e. It has been a learning experience. I think 5e is a better overall system. - But I did notice, in these fora pages, that there is a new attitude in D&D that the player is not just an adventurer, a pioneer, but a Hero - and right out of the gate at level 1. This has not been my approach to the game and I think it has an effect on the table dynamics. I just make a simple declaration of what my character does and if the DM objects, I make a straightforward explanation of why I think the rules support my view. If the DM still rules against the idea (not me, the idea) then I wait and discuss it away from the table.
I think this discussion is getting to far into theory crafting to make any progress. I can see in some circumstances where a player quitting could end a campaign. But in all circumstances if the DM quits the campaign is over unless someone picks up to fill in the DM roll, and then it quickly becomes a new campaign. And this option is nearly only available in published campaigns.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
110% with that statement. I'm a DM mostly, only playing characters 2 to 3 times a year. When I'm off my game my players then suggest playing one of the board games like Legend of Drizzt or Castle Ravenloft.
Wording matters here. As others have said, a die can be biased. But "loaded" comes with a connotation that it is intentionally biased.
If a die was rolling crits suspiciously often - and I mean it would have to be game breakingly often - then I might ask the player to switch dice. But I would absolutely not use the term 'loaded', I'd go with "I think maybe that die is a little out of balance, it happens sometimes with manufacturing." If I had sold the dice myself, I'd offer a refund.
But for the most I'd just let the player feel like a badass for a session, and make a note to watch their rolls next session. Two sessions of ludicrous rolls would be enough for me to require a dice change. Refusal would then make me seriously consider intentional cheating. And cheating at a co-operative game makes my blood boil.
Wording matters here. As others have said, a die can be biased. But "loaded" comes with a connotation that it is intentionally biased.
If a die was rolling crits suspiciously often - and I mean it would have to be game breakingly often - then I might ask the player to switch dice. But I would absolutely not use the term 'loaded', I'd go with "I think maybe that die is a little out of balance, it happens sometimes with manufacturing." If I had sold the dice myself, I'd offer a refund.
But for the most I'd just let the player feel like a badass for a session, and make a note to watch their rolls next session. Two sessions of ludicrous rolls would be enough for me to require a dice change. Refusal would then make me seriously consider intentional cheating. And cheating at a co-operative game makes my blood boil.
All things considered I'd be very careful with saying that a dice is biased either (unless properly tested) - after all, if you roll sufficiently large number of dice, everything equalizes but you can always take a biased sample from the results.
I rolled 900 times for fun in a dice generator. All things considered, most of the numbers appear close to equal number of times.
But I can take a biased sample from the rolls and here are two strings:
19,18,17,18,19
And another one much later:
2,1,6,1,4
Both of those could give the impression that there is something wrong with the dice. But in the end I had nat.20 rolled 45 times and a nat.1 rolled 54 times. That is roughly 5-6% each, would you look at that.
Wording matters here. As others have said, a die can be biased. But "loaded" comes with a connotation that it is intentionally biased.
If a die was rolling crits suspiciously often - and I mean it would have to be game breakingly often - then I might ask the player to switch dice. But I would absolutely not use the term 'loaded', I'd go with "I think maybe that die is a little out of balance, it happens sometimes with manufacturing." If I had sold the dice myself, I'd offer a refund.
But for the most I'd just let the player feel like a badass for a session, and make a note to watch their rolls next session. Two sessions of ludicrous rolls would be enough for me to require a dice change. Refusal would then make me seriously consider intentional cheating. And cheating at a co-operative game makes my blood boil.
All things considered I'd be very careful with saying that a dice is biased either (unless properly tested) - after all, if you roll sufficiently large number of dice, everything equalizes but you can always take a biased sample from the results.
I rolled 900 times for fun in a dice generator. All things considered, most of the numbers appear close to equal number of times.
But I can take a biased sample from the rolls and here are two strings:
19,18,17,18,19
And another one much later:
2,1,6,1,4
Both of those could give the impression that there is something wrong with the dice. But in the end I had nat.20 rolled 45 times and a nat.1 rolled 54 times. That is roughly 5-6% each, would you look at that.
No argument from me. Like I said, it would have to be a very significant portion of a great many rolls over the course of the night, and it would have to be causing an active problem for the other players. My point was more intended to center around interaction between DM and player - placing the onus on the die, not the player. "I think that die may have got a little unbalanced in manufacturing" is way better than "I think your die is loaded."
It should be a vanishingly rare event though - very few dice should be so unbalanced that it's discernable without intentional testing. And at the end of the day, if anyone has a major problem with a die rolling 20 6% of the time instead of 5% of the time, you may be taking the game altogether too seriously!
With all that said, I got kinda fed up with hearing my players complaining that they thought their dice were unbalanced every time they rolled 3 misses in a row, and I bought everyone a set of dice lab optidice (the ones that use the exact same number of dimples to make up each number, so no number has more material removed than another). Although even that is not going to be a perfect process, everyone now prescribes poor/good rolling to luck, not the dice, and I have a quieter time at the table. Expensive, but it was worth every penny to put that argument to bed.
I unfortunately did have a time when we had to ask a DM to either step down to a player role or leave the game. We approached it like adults though and simply told him our concerns. He was over his head and he could barely work through a combat without getting frustrated at us. We did our best to support but ultimately we had to have the conversation with him about maybe letting someone else take the reigns for a bit and give him a break.
Luckily he was relieved and took over one of the NPCs as a player and one of the players retired their character and took up the DM role.
The one thing you should remember always:
These are people....just treat them like people and adults and you should be fine! Conversations about expectations for all is a good thing and Session 0 is very important. However, having a "State of the Game" style meeting every once in a while lets everyone level set and figure out what they want to do moving forward. Gives everyone a voice to talk about their respective issues if any.
I suppose we fundamentally do not agree then. As you say, the DM can continue using the character from a player that has left the group, but likewise, the player has as much right to continue the campaign without the old DM if he can find players for it, or if the existing players wish to continue with a new DM.
Also, I don't believe a DM can tell a player to leave the table if the other players wish for the player to remain. When relating to things outside of the game it's a democracy.
I reiterate my stance, no person has more power than another in the physical world. It's completely ok that we do not agree, but this is my opinion.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
It is true that the other players could ask for the player to remain, but then the DM is equally allowed to therefore refuse to DM for that group of players.
Of course they do. In some groups there is only one person who is able to DM, who takes over the role in that group?
I think that Lyxen's remarks are on point. I want to add a couple remarks.
The DM has as much power as the players give them before the DM plays the only real trump card they totally possess, ending the game. Out of respect for the DMs work outside the game, the players should give some deference to the DM.
Likewise, the players have as much power as the DM gives them. A mature DM will give the players some room to express themselves in the game in a manner that they want. However, the players only real power is to pick up and go home. A mature player will not make repeated demands on the DM to shape the campaign around every whimsey the player might have.
What we say here doesn't matter. Each table makes their own rules and decides the answers to the two questions; power for the DM? and power for the player? And at the end of the day the power is to play or stay home.
Treat each other with respect and you will get respect in return.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
In that case the group simply do not continue playing. If the DM has any sense, then she will probably listen if all the players at the table are voting against her, and changes will be made accordingly and the group continues having fun with the game.
Let me put it like this, a DM asking a player to leave has as much impact as a player asking another player to leave, for instance.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
There is no disrespect in acknowledging that everyone at the table are equal, and this also does not mean that no value is given to the DMs work. So I don't subscribe to your opinion in regards to this.
Can a DM ultimately just end the campaign and stop playing with the group, sure she can, but then so can a player. If everyone is interested in getting along and having fun together then a common ground will be found. From what I can read out of the responses in this thread, people seem to put DMs on a piedestal (a bit anyway), which is fine, within the game world, because there the DM is god, but in the real world, we're all just people having fun, equal in every right, and noone has more power than the other. Even if the roles at the table are not symmetrical as you say. Symmetry is not required for something to be equal in rights.
And then yes, again, the DM can just say "If you don't get along with this, then I'll end the campaign, or if player B refuses to leave the group, then I also will end the campaign" - But the player can do the same. In the end the result for both parties are the same, either they continue to play together or they don't.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Makes sense.
I think there are a lot of tables where the game would not continue if anyone decided to leave the game, often because people are close friends, and if it came to such a disagreement that anyone would have to quit, then the entire game would fall apart, and in those situations everyone is equal, and that is the starting point of my opinions on this matter.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I jumped from AD&D to 5e. It has been a learning experience. I think 5e is a better overall system. - But I did notice, in these fora pages, that there is a new attitude in D&D that the player is not just an adventurer, a pioneer, but a Hero - and right out of the gate at level 1. This has not been my approach to the game and I think it has an effect on the table dynamics. I just make a simple declaration of what my character does and if the DM objects, I make a straightforward explanation of why I think the rules support my view. If the DM still rules against the idea (not me, the idea) then I wait and discuss it away from the table.
I think this discussion is getting to far into theory crafting to make any progress. I can see in some circumstances where a player quitting could end a campaign. But in all circumstances if the DM quits the campaign is over unless someone picks up to fill in the DM roll, and then it quickly becomes a new campaign. And this option is nearly only available in published campaigns.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I think it's fine for a DM to ask you to use different for a while, BUT THEIR HIS DICE, this guy sounds low-key angry at life, but idk
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
110% with that statement. I'm a DM mostly, only playing characters 2 to 3 times a year. When I'm off my game my players then suggest playing one of the board games like Legend of Drizzt or Castle Ravenloft.
Wording matters here. As others have said, a die can be biased. But "loaded" comes with a connotation that it is intentionally biased.
If a die was rolling crits suspiciously often - and I mean it would have to be game breakingly often - then I might ask the player to switch dice. But I would absolutely not use the term 'loaded', I'd go with "I think maybe that die is a little out of balance, it happens sometimes with manufacturing." If I had sold the dice myself, I'd offer a refund.
But for the most I'd just let the player feel like a badass for a session, and make a note to watch their rolls next session. Two sessions of ludicrous rolls would be enough for me to require a dice change. Refusal would then make me seriously consider intentional cheating. And cheating at a co-operative game makes my blood boil.
All things considered I'd be very careful with saying that a dice is biased either (unless properly tested) - after all, if you roll sufficiently large number of dice, everything equalizes but you can always take a biased sample from the results.
I rolled 900 times for fun in a dice generator. All things considered, most of the numbers appear close to equal number of times.
But I can take a biased sample from the rolls and here are two strings:
19,18,17,18,19
And another one much later:
2,1,6,1,4
Both of those could give the impression that there is something wrong with the dice. But in the end I had nat.20 rolled 45 times and a nat.1 rolled 54 times. That is roughly 5-6% each, would you look at that.
No argument from me. Like I said, it would have to be a very significant portion of a great many rolls over the course of the night, and it would have to be causing an active problem for the other players. My point was more intended to center around interaction between DM and player - placing the onus on the die, not the player. "I think that die may have got a little unbalanced in manufacturing" is way better than "I think your die is loaded."
It should be a vanishingly rare event though - very few dice should be so unbalanced that it's discernable without intentional testing. And at the end of the day, if anyone has a major problem with a die rolling 20 6% of the time instead of 5% of the time, you may be taking the game altogether too seriously!
With all that said, I got kinda fed up with hearing my players complaining that they thought their dice were unbalanced every time they rolled 3 misses in a row, and I bought everyone a set of dice lab optidice (the ones that use the exact same number of dimples to make up each number, so no number has more material removed than another). Although even that is not going to be a perfect process, everyone now prescribes poor/good rolling to luck, not the dice, and I have a quieter time at the table. Expensive, but it was worth every penny to put that argument to bed.
https://www.mathartfun.com/thedicelab.com/OptiDice.html
No a DM can not you change dice. But if I think you are cheating I can ask you to leave the table.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Though he can't be cheating if the rolls are in the open and the DM gave him the dice being used.