I am making this thread to express my opinions about my game, feel free to post your own, but refrain from trying to change my mind on these topics.
1. The One, Two, or Three level "Dip" into Warlock. You sold your soul for a few scraps of power? Really? Now, you want to let me allow you to choose Hexblade for your Patron because you are a Bard and already have a high CHA? And what is up with that adding CHA to hit and Damage now? No, just no.
2. Monks, Samurai, Kensai and other Oriental Adventures type characters in my limited geography area. I run a game set in the Forgotten Realms that lies to the south of Baldur's Gate to the Cloud Peak Mountains. These classes/subclasses just don't exist here.
3. Dragonborn. I just don't like them, they might....might exist in the world. FAR AWAY from here, and if you see one, knock on wood because they are as unlucky as Skyships.
4. Drow that are "used to sunlight". Again, no. I don't care if your name is Drizzt and your Player is Bob Salvatore, if you play a Drow I am going to ding you on that weakness. Like every day, because that is when the sun is up. Also, watch where you live because people are mean and don't like Drow.
5. A player's right to play any special snowflake character they can dream up. Again no, just no. Players are a dime a dozen, DMs are the limiting resource here. It is your job as a player to come up with a character that will fit with my game, not vice versa.
I'll have more later but I have to got back to work.
6. Players that mentally bail when it is not their turn. Don't check your phone, don't flip through the PHB for spells to get NEXT level, don't pick your belly button lint. Stay engaged with the action. I am not going to back up if you look up and suddenly see that the Orc has provoked an AoO. Like 5 minutes ago. On another Player's turn. Stay focused and stay engaged so that you can use your reactions/bonus actions if available.
7. Related to the above: Players uncertain of what their characters are going to do when their initiative rolls around. Focus on the game and plan ahead peeps.
8. Not knowing your crap. If your PC has a shiney, know what it does. If it is a class ability read it before you use it, same with a spell. Having a set of spell cards is great, but you should have a grasp of what effects and limitations your known spells have.
9. Arguing at the table. Either with me or with another player. I, and I alone, have the power of the FOOT. Accordingly, when I give a ruling it sticks. If I say, "The effect works like this now, but I will research it over the break and make a update next session." You as a player have to accept that. Don't squabble with other players OOC, a little IC jostling is fun sometimes, but read the room. If the mood shifts you have to be the first to step back and smile saying, "We still good?"
10. Look at me. I am the DM now. Slightly related to the above. I don't care how long you have been playing, or with who, their rulings on the game are moot. Mearls and Crawford could pin a note to your character sheet saying that his dip into Hexblade Warlock was allowed and I still wouldn't budge.
11. Just because it exists, printed on official WoTC stock and ordered through Amazon.com doesn't mean that I have to accept it as RAW or RAI. See...I go selectively blind when I see things that I don't want in my game. (Re: Dragonborn, most attunement reqs, encumbrance, Inspiration, monks and the list goes on.) I don't play official sanctioned AL, so I can do that. You want to know what I allow in my games, ask. You ask, we talk and you find out why there are no Monks in region, or that my game is magic RICH and has less restrictive attunement rules.
There are many points I agree with, mainly from your second post. Engagement at the table is important, and if there's a lot of crosstalk that is not tied to the game it gets distracting when trying to explain some important information or what's going on with a fight.
For me being new to the hobby, I am much more lenient with character's choices. Any race, class, spell, whatever else you want, is good to go at my table! As long as it's not broken and you're ok with changes from session to session if you're not using official content, then great. This is mainly because I have my own homebrew world and it is ANCIENT. Things have developed in such a way that while certain cultures and regions are dominated by a particular theme, it is not unheard of to see someone that doesn't conform to the region traveling through as an adventurer.
As long as we're having fun, both players and DM, that is my goal.
I was surprised at just how many of these points I agree with! Although I'd love to throw in the perennial: why so many half-elves?
That being said, number 8 is the only one that doesn't bother me. I help with the rules so that my friends can come adventure in a far off land. I'm quite happy to help out just as much as needed!
5. A player's right to play any special snowflake character they can dream up. Again no, just no. Players are a dime a dozen, DMs are the limiting resource here.
Yikes. What the heck. That's a really toxic attitude to have.
See I've read through this and, I agree on certain points, the problem I with this. I feel you're forgetting a very important part of DND as a dungeon master. Your players come first. Now there is a point to draw the line, but, restricting class and player race options, I agree with your post on drow but taking away dragonborn just because "you don't like them" is to poor a reason in my mind, it's your job as a DM to make sure your players have fun, restricting them doesn't do that. I really do agree with a lot of your points but players are supposted to make great and fun characters they can enjoy, there is a line that should not be crossed but I feel you've set that line to far forward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Marvarax andSora (Dragonborn) The retired fighter and WIP scholar - Glory
Brythel(Dwarf), The dwarf with a gun - survival at sea
Jaylin(Human), Paladin of Lathander's Ancient ways - The Seven Saints (Azura Claw)
Urselles(Goblin), Cleric of Eldath- The Wizard's challenge
Viclas Tyrin(Half Elf), Student of the Elven arts- Indrafatmoko's Defiance in Phlan
@InquisitiveCoder I feel like there's probably a good reason for that though....
Not really. For the most part, that sort of attitude towards characters is both rather limiting and starts things off on an assumed adversarial footing. Besides, all in all the term is both dumb and really subjective. One person's "special snowflake" is likely another person's interesting take on an old tired character trope. There are really only so many sorts of characters in the world and it is up to each player and creator to make the one they are using as interesting and fun for them as possible. It is the DM's job to set expectations beforehand so that the players know what sort of margins they are working in. If Hawksmoor up there is being drowned in a blizzard of snowflakes to the point where this is a real contentious issue for them, then the problem is likely with Hawksmoor not setting proper character expectations for their games at their tables. Players are going to play what they think is fun, whether that is something new and interesting to them or another Drizzt analog #33,567.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
@InquisitiveCoder I feel like there's probably a good reason for that though....
Not really. For the most part, that sort of attitude towards characters is both rather limiting and starts things off on an assumed adversarial footing. Besides, all in all the term is both dumb and really subjective. One person's "special snowflake" is likely another person's interesting take on an old tired character trope. There are really only so many sorts of characters in the world and it is up to each player and creator to make the one they are using as interesting and fun for them as possible. It is the DM's job to set expectations beforehand so that the players know what sort of margins they are working in. If Hawksmoor up there is being drowned in a blizzard of snowflakes to the point where this is a real contentious issue for them, then the problem is likely with Hawksmoor not setting proper character expectations for their games at their tables. Players are going to play what they think is fun, whether that is something new and interesting to them or another Drizzt analog #33,567.
I'm inclined to agree with you here. Players tend to want to feel special - they're playing the heroes of the story after all. Even at relatively low levels, they're meant to be special, to stand out. My issue is generally with players who expect special treatment, and with DMs who try to bludgeon a group of players into a mold the players don't fit into. I've seen some of both.
I mean, in terms of 'special snowflakes', I tend to err on the side of the player's discretion. A player should play a character they like - else they don't have much reason to play. Because, with a few rare exceptions, players are generally better at exploring their characters and hanging out with friends than they are at marveling at my magnificent storytelling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Another medical problem. Indefinite hiatus. Sorry, all.
5. A player's right to play any special snowflake character they can dream up. Again no, just no. Players are a dime a dozen, DMs are the limiting resource here.
Yikes. What the heck. That's a really toxic attitude to have.
I'm not sure the OP means what you think they do. I tend to agree with them in a general sort of way, in that there are actually like 300 available combinations of race/class, 1500 with sub-classes, tens of thousands with backgrounds, millions with multiclassing - but to then have a player get annoyed that they can't play the sub-class they just invented because they couldn't possibly be one of those normal existing million options. Also they are a prince. And they were raised by dragons. And they would like a pet velociraptor. I mean, that's all very creative, but it makes work for the DM and seems designed to outshine the other players. If a DM wants to sign up for that then player and DM both can have a wonderful time. If any party involved is not into that, then it is best to be clear about it upfront, rather than being a selfless paragon of a DM and just getting quietly annoyed. Everyone at the table deserves to have fun, even the DM. If you don't like how a player plays, don't play with them. If you don't like how a DM DMs, don't play with them either. But don't demand outrageous special treatment from the DM; you aren't doing the DM a favour by deigning to play in their game.
5. A player's right to play any special snowflake character they can dream up. Again no, just no. Players are a dime a dozen, DMs are the limiting resource here.
Yikes. What the heck. That's a really toxic attitude to have.
Get off my Lawn! :Shakes Fist:
Yep, I said it. I do not believe, like at all, that the player is the center of the game and that I must cater to their every whim like a genie in a bottle summoned forth to grant hours of enjoyment. Role Playing games in general are about cooperative storytelling, with the Player Character's being thrust into the limelight of what ever mad scheme the DM thinks up. So, no your character that you developed without any input from me, and lovingly wrote a 4 page single spaced backstory for might not make my cut if it requires me to contort the premise to accommodate your desire to play this particular PC. It is not toxic to say that I have limitations. You want to write a backstory, fine. Find out the parameters for my game, and write up a character that fits.
See I've read through this and, I agree on certain points, the problem I with this. I feel you're forgetting a very important part of DND as a dungeon master. Your players come first. Now there is a point to draw the line, but, restricting class and player race options, I agree with your post on drow but taking away dragonborn just because "you don't like them" is to poor a reason in my mind, it's your job as a DM to make sure your players have fun, restricting them doesn't do that. I really do agree with a lot of your points but players are supposted to make great and fun characters they can enjoy, there is a line that should not be crossed but I feel you've set that line to far forward.
Umm...like where is it written that the players come first? Can you cite a page? In like any game? Ever?
I have a library full of games and supplements that are literally sagging the shelves and I would love to cross-reference that.
See, from my side of the screen, players are there to be the guiding forces of certain characters in the story. Arguably, they, the PCs, are the most important characters in the story, and I as DM do not have control over what they choose to do. I can, should, and do create challenges and interesting situations for them to engage with, always mindful of the fact of player agency in the game. Heck, even the mechanics of the game are slanted to the PCs favor with Charm effects getting round by round saves FOREX. But, the simple fact that you are a player that shows up at my table does not mean that I have to *let* you play whatever you want, or give you access to things because they were written down or published somewhere. No, you as a player are joining with other people, myself included, to engage in a journey of the imagination. My hand is the one that makes sure that you have the opportunity to have fun.
How many games start and die an early death because of a group of players get together to play and there is no sucker *I mean full time DM that simply loves to do this* and instead they kinda draw lots until one of the players gets the short stick and has to DM for his buddies. Soon, way to soon. the shanghaied DM is facing burnout, because he really, really wants to be on the other side of the screen PLAYING instead of all this RUNNING ickiness. Next thing you know the game is ended, shelved, and the lots are cast again as a new DM is suborned from the group. The cycle repeats ad naseum.
5. A player's right to play any special snowflake character they can dream up. Again no, just no. Players are a dime a dozen, DMs are the limiting resource here.
Yikes. What the heck. That's a really toxic attitude to have.
Get off my Lawn! :Shakes Fist:
Yep, I said it. I do not believe, like at all, that the player is the center of the game and that I must cater to their every whim like a genie in a bottle summoned forth to grant hours of enjoyment. Role Playing games in general are about cooperative storytelling, with the Player Character's being thrust into the limelight of what ever mad scheme the DM thinks up. So, no your character that you developed without any input from me, and lovingly wrote a 4 page single spaced backstory for might not make my cut if it requires me to contort the premise to accommodate your desire to play this particular PC. It is not toxic to say that I have limitations. You want to write a backstory, fine. Find out the parameters for my game, and write up a character that fits.
The "toxic attitude" is that you are expressing a belief of the DM and player being at odds - that without the DM saying "no, snowflake, try again" the player is trying to get something that the DM isn't or shouldn't be offering.
If you were expressing things in a way that sounded like the DM and players are working together in regards to characters and campaign - cooperating in their storytelling efforts - rather than in a way that sounds like the DM is showing up with a campaign plan that the players get no input in any detail of outside of their own character and even within their own character don't get to include anything that the DM views as necessitating a change of the DM's plan, and saying "take it or leave it", you wouldn't sound like you have a toxic attitude.
I actually mostly agree with #5. I'm pretty much cool with any character that fits the world, and if I'm running a homebrew world, I set the limitations on the front end.
But it mostly gets to me when I express that I'd like to do something with a more serious tone, and without a doubt, every time, there's always one person (usually a "that guy" anyway) who wants to make the wackiest cartoon character they can imagine. In some games, that's preferable, but I can't abide when players try to actively break the world I've built. Now, I'm not saying that I run a "this is my game and you just have to deal with it" type of thing, but when the majority of the group accepts my pitch for a campaign, be a team player or find a different team. I do what I can to accommodate, but no, you can't be Deadpool in my Batman world (if that makes sense).
Also, I'm probably more extreme about #1. I generally discourage any sort of multiclassing. Mostly because almost all of my players are new to the game, and I feel like multiclassing is "hard mode" to a certain degree. I've noticed that players tend to gain a better grasp of the rules when they start with a character who fits into a typical fantasy trope first (maybe putting their own spin on the character in the fluff), and then once they've played that character to fruition, the next one can be more mechanically experimental for them. I feel like it's important for the players to understand where their characters fit into their roles in the party, and when there's a bunch of multiclassing, it turns into an optimization fest where everyone is trying to build Mary Sue main characters. Maybe I just feel that way because I've been away from tabletop for several years, so I never really got the stereotypical fantasy roleplaying experience and haven't had a chance to get tired of the tropes yet. And if a player has a really well-thought out vision for why their character would be multiclassed other than "I want that new power", I'll absolutely do what I can to help. But if you're just min-maxing, idk maybe my game isn't for you. It's cool, there are lots of other tables out there.
I say this with all good intentions and sincerity, it is not "toxic" or "adversarial" to have limits on what is allowable in a campaign. I, as the DM, the one that shoulders the responsibility for creation, maintenance, and planning for the game get to decide these things. Some DMs are fine with a giant sandbox and allow everything. I do not. I set out my guidelines very specifically before the game begins.
No, but using "Players are a dime a dozen, DMs are the limiting resource here" as a reason is.
Ha! If I am using some small humor in my writing style it is toxic. Okay. :shrug:
But, seriously, as I said in an earlier post there are many more players than there are DMs. This is not because every game only needs one DM, but because very very few people are willing to be a DM on a consistent basis. Look at LFG posts like anywhere. What is the limiting factor? A willing DM. Hence my facetious comment about Players being a dime a dozen. It is literally true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Or what I really don't like to see in my games.
I am making this thread to express my opinions about my game, feel free to post your own, but refrain from trying to change my mind on these topics.
1. The One, Two, or Three level "Dip" into Warlock. You sold your soul for a few scraps of power? Really? Now, you want to let me allow you to choose Hexblade for your Patron because you are a Bard and already have a high CHA? And what is up with that adding CHA to hit and Damage now? No, just no.
2. Monks, Samurai, Kensai and other Oriental Adventures type characters in my limited geography area. I run a game set in the Forgotten Realms that lies to the south of Baldur's Gate to the Cloud Peak Mountains. These classes/subclasses just don't exist here.
3. Dragonborn. I just don't like them, they might....might exist in the world. FAR AWAY from here, and if you see one, knock on wood because they are as unlucky as Skyships.
4. Drow that are "used to sunlight". Again, no. I don't care if your name is Drizzt and your Player is Bob Salvatore, if you play a Drow I am going to ding you on that weakness. Like every day, because that is when the sun is up. Also, watch where you live because people are mean and don't like Drow.
5. A player's right to play any special snowflake character they can dream up. Again no, just no. Players are a dime a dozen, DMs are the limiting resource here. It is your job as a player to come up with a character that will fit with my game, not vice versa.
I'll have more later but I have to got back to work.
6. Players that mentally bail when it is not their turn. Don't check your phone, don't flip through the PHB for spells to get NEXT level, don't pick your belly button lint. Stay engaged with the action. I am not going to back up if you look up and suddenly see that the Orc has provoked an AoO. Like 5 minutes ago. On another Player's turn. Stay focused and stay engaged so that you can use your reactions/bonus actions if available.
7. Related to the above: Players uncertain of what their characters are going to do when their initiative rolls around. Focus on the game and plan ahead peeps.
8. Not knowing your crap. If your PC has a shiney, know what it does. If it is a class ability read it before you use it, same with a spell. Having a set of spell cards is great, but you should have a grasp of what effects and limitations your known spells have.
9. Arguing at the table. Either with me or with another player. I, and I alone, have the power of the FOOT. Accordingly, when I give a ruling it sticks. If I say, "The effect works like this now, but I will research it over the break and make a update next session." You as a player have to accept that. Don't squabble with other players OOC, a little IC jostling is fun sometimes, but read the room. If the mood shifts you have to be the first to step back and smile saying, "We still good?"
10. Look at me. I am the DM now. Slightly related to the above. I don't care how long you have been playing, or with who, their rulings on the game are moot. Mearls and Crawford could pin a note to your character sheet saying that his dip into Hexblade Warlock was allowed and I still wouldn't budge.
11. Just because it exists, printed on official WoTC stock and ordered through Amazon.com doesn't mean that I have to accept it as RAW or RAI. See...I go selectively blind when I see things that I don't want in my game. (Re: Dragonborn, most attunement reqs, encumbrance, Inspiration, monks and the list goes on.) I don't play official sanctioned AL, so I can do that. You want to know what I allow in my games, ask. You ask, we talk and you find out why there are no Monks in region, or that my game is magic RICH and has less restrictive attunement rules.
There are many points I agree with, mainly from your second post. Engagement at the table is important, and if there's a lot of crosstalk that is not tied to the game it gets distracting when trying to explain some important information or what's going on with a fight.
For me being new to the hobby, I am much more lenient with character's choices. Any race, class, spell, whatever else you want, is good to go at my table! As long as it's not broken and you're ok with changes from session to session if you're not using official content, then great. This is mainly because I have my own homebrew world and it is ANCIENT. Things have developed in such a way that while certain cultures and regions are dominated by a particular theme, it is not unheard of to see someone that doesn't conform to the region traveling through as an adventurer.
As long as we're having fun, both players and DM, that is my goal.
AdmiralChry's Homebrew Compendium - A collection of all my classes, subclasses, magic items, and etc.
I was surprised at just how many of these points I agree with! Although I'd love to throw in the perennial: why so many half-elves?
That being said, number 8 is the only one that doesn't bother me. I help with the rules so that my friends can come adventure in a far off land. I'm quite happy to help out just as much as needed!
The Forum Infestation (TM)
@InquisitiveCoder I feel like there's probably a good reason for that though....
See I've read through this and, I agree on certain points, the problem I with this. I feel you're forgetting a very important part of DND as a dungeon master. Your players come first. Now there is a point to draw the line, but, restricting class and player race options, I agree with your post on drow but taking away dragonborn just because "you don't like them" is to poor a reason in my mind, it's your job as a DM to make sure your players have fun, restricting them doesn't do that. I really do agree with a lot of your points but players are supposted to make great and fun characters they can enjoy, there is a line that should not be crossed but I feel you've set that line to far forward.
Marvarax and Sora (Dragonborn) The retired fighter and WIP scholar - Glory
Brythel(Dwarf), The dwarf with a gun - survival at sea
Jaylin(Human), Paladin of Lathander's Ancient ways - The Seven Saints (Azura Claw)
Urselles(Goblin), Cleric of Eldath- The Wizard's challenge
Viclas Tyrin(Half Elf), Student of the Elven arts- Indrafatmoko's Defiance in Phlan
Another medical problem. Indefinite hiatus. Sorry, all.
@Metamongoose I was basically talking about scenarios like what @RegentCorreon said. Anything else would be fine.
I actually mostly agree with #5. I'm pretty much cool with any character that fits the world, and if I'm running a homebrew world, I set the limitations on the front end.
But it mostly gets to me when I express that I'd like to do something with a more serious tone, and without a doubt, every time, there's always one person (usually a "that guy" anyway) who wants to make the wackiest cartoon character they can imagine. In some games, that's preferable, but I can't abide when players try to actively break the world I've built. Now, I'm not saying that I run a "this is my game and you just have to deal with it" type of thing, but when the majority of the group accepts my pitch for a campaign, be a team player or find a different team. I do what I can to accommodate, but no, you can't be Deadpool in my Batman world (if that makes sense).
Also, I'm probably more extreme about #1. I generally discourage any sort of multiclassing. Mostly because almost all of my players are new to the game, and I feel like multiclassing is "hard mode" to a certain degree. I've noticed that players tend to gain a better grasp of the rules when they start with a character who fits into a typical fantasy trope first (maybe putting their own spin on the character in the fluff), and then once they've played that character to fruition, the next one can be more mechanically experimental for them. I feel like it's important for the players to understand where their characters fit into their roles in the party, and when there's a bunch of multiclassing, it turns into an optimization fest where everyone is trying to build Mary Sue main characters. Maybe I just feel that way because I've been away from tabletop for several years, so I never really got the stereotypical fantasy roleplaying experience and haven't had a chance to get tired of the tropes yet. And if a player has a really well-thought out vision for why their character would be multiclassed other than "I want that new power", I'll absolutely do what I can to help. But if you're just min-maxing, idk maybe my game isn't for you. It's cool, there are lots of other tables out there.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I say this with all good intentions and sincerity, it is not "toxic" or "adversarial" to have limits on what is allowable in a campaign. I, as the DM, the one that shoulders the responsibility for creation, maintenance, and planning for the game get to decide these things. Some DMs are fine with a giant sandbox and allow everything. I do not. I set out my guidelines very specifically before the game begins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that point.