Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's the thing, I don't understand why I have to argue this. Don't power game at my table. Done. Why do we have to discuss this, or validate it? It's so silly? (GOTTA SAY THIS HERE) Not at all the same level, but the people who get pissy when I say no sex or forced control or another person, ie Rape, use the same argument. It's my job to explain why. No it isn't. No. The end.
I have no obligation other than to be the DM and make decisions, that I feel are best suited to keep the game moving to an enjoyable place. If that involves playstyles or topics I deem inappropriate, I just say no.

You don't have to argue it, though a good DM would discuss it with their players before a new game.

That's the whole pregame phase where you're setting a very general tone before the start so that everyone is going in with similar expectations.

So yes you do just have to say "no" to some ideas players will have. That might be certain character builds; certain roleplay or backline story choices; it might even be certain classes that can or can't appear because of game reasons etc...



Discussing it with your players pre-game is all important as it helps them set themselves up right. It might also be that you say no to something that everyone else in the group wants. At which point either you're putting your foot down and saying no or you're changing up to reflect what the group wants etc....


As I said playing a power-build isn't cheating any more than playing an underpowered build is. However a DM might well restrict players on the extremes. A super weak character might be really fluffy for a player, but it might also be so weak that hte DM realises it will be useless and die in the first round of combat against a small rat. That might degrade the game for the other players if one of them is constantly being killed off or is constantly useless beyond measure in combat.

Similarly an overpowered one can spoil the fun too.

So, I'm actually gonna bat for the player here, and, depending on the circumstances, I don't think they're being entitled at all - and in fact, the GM could be accused of being inconsistent and lazy. I'm curious to know *why* the GM wasn't going to let other races in the game.

OP claims it's to make things "simpler", but... I mean, is it? Plenty of non-PHB races are just as easy to wrap your head around as the PHB ones. Tieflings are fine, but Aasimar aren't? It's fine to play a Dragonborn, but not a Genasi? It feels like an arbitrary restriction, and - sure, the GM has the *right* to do that, but it doesn't mean the player can't call out an arbitrary restriction, and that the GM can't at least consider the alternative. Everyone has the internet. It's not hard to give a cursory read of another race's rules.

If it's a case of "I don't want all the wacky weird stuff running around in my game!!", then, again, I have to wonder why it's okay for Tieflings to be a thing, but not Aasimar, or Dragonborn but not Genasi. If they wanted to say "I want 'generic' looking characters that look like they could be played by human actors without too much CGI", then they should say that, and not "only PHB", because that would still allow for esoteric races like half-orcs, tieflings and dragonborn.

I don't entirely know the process by which the GM in the OP stated their intentions and guidelines to the other players, so I'm curious to hear what that process was like. Was there a session 0 where the players and GM met to discuss this? Did the GM lay out their intended tone for the game? Did they say that they wanted a "low fantasy" setting for their game, or was it simply "only PHB, deal with it".

Again, GM runs the game, but also, if the GM's being unreasonable or short-sighted, that can be called out. I don't like this idea of "GM is god, if the players don't like it, then they're at fault for going against the word of god". I say that *as* the perpetual GM of my group, and very often takes on that role for one-shots.

So, yes, I'd want more context here before I say if either party's 'wrong'.

I say "only PHB, deal with it" because my view is that players can reasonably expect to find the things in the PHB in a D&D world. So I adapted my world to accommodate all of the PHB races and came up with a reason for them all to be there. I don't have a in world reason for artificers or warforged to be there, and I'm not interested in making one. So there's a POV you didn't consider?

I'd actually prefer, nowadays, a more limited selection of races, and I go back to the "classic 4" now, but I don't run 5e any more so I feel that is fair.

But once you move beyond the PHB the expectation should be that that stuff is optional, as the rules say, and you should have to ask if you want access to it (and also provide the book, in my view). I might consider it, but I am already a bit irritated at a player pushing at a boundary I have set, and I tend to feel it's pretty unreasonable to do so - there's plenty in the PHB, what's the need for all this other stuff? It smacks of coming with a character idea in mind already, which is a no-no at my table. Make your character in concert with the other people at the table in session 1. It makes for much better games, in my experience. If someone is pushing hard against that and asking me to consider a bunch of extra stuff, we're probably not a good match, because I despise being forced to look at and engage with "player build" nonsense when I DM.

I always see reference to session 0, personally I've never done a session 0 and never had serious problems due to that.

 Da Boss wrote:
I say "only PHB, deal with it" because my view is that players can reasonably expect to find the things in the PHB in a D&D world. So I adapted my world to accommodate all of the PHB races and came up with a reason for them all to be there. I don't have a in world reason for artificers or warforged to be there, and I'm not interested in making one. So there's a POV you didn't consider?

So, they can reasonably find Tieflings but not Aasimar? Dragonborn, but not Genasi? Or, from another perspective, I can play a half-orc, but not a full orc? Or do orcs not exist?

Again, I *totally* understand not having some of the more, uh, esoteric stuff (tortles, warforged, gith, etc), but is a Genasi really that extreme? Why are half-devil/demons okay, but not half-celestials? If a half-orc is fine, why not a full orc? You made your world to accommodate the PHB races, but is it so hard for you to *also* accommodate for things that aren't exactly a million miles away (ie, PC orcs and goblins, aasimar)? If the next PHB came out, and it had, say, Genasi as a core race, would you amend your setting to include them?

I see that POV, but I also see that there's an element of "well, that's pretty damn arbitrary, why are half-demons fine but not half-celestials", or "so, dragon people is fine, but not a goblin?"
Would you be opposed if a player also helped you with worldbuilding and finding a "lore suitable" explanation for their character? For example, a warforged who is a construct of a long dead wizard, a one-of-a-kind creation? They're offering to work with you, and negotiate a solution that might lead to you both being happy?

I'd actually prefer, nowadays, a more limited selection of races, and I go back to the "classic 4" now, but I don't run 5e any more so I feel that is fair.

But once you move beyond the PHB the expectation should be that that stuff is optional, as the rules say, and you should have to ask if you want access to it (and also provide the book, in my view). I might consider it, but I am already a bit irritated at a player pushing at a boundary I have set, and I tend to feel it's pretty unreasonable to do so - there's plenty in the PHB, what's the need for all this other stuff?

Because they might not be interested in that? Maybe they've played as one of all the other races, and have a really fun idea for something else? Not to sound harsh, but again, if, say Dragonborn were cut from the PHB, and then someone wanted to play Dragonborn, would you still say "well, there's all these other races, why do you need to play a dragonborn"? It feels like you're retroactively justifying the PHB, instead of considering things on their own merit. I mean, at what point do things get cut out of the PHB that you'd start to say "there's not enough in here": gnomes? Tieflings? Dragonborn? Halflings? Half-orcs? Dwarves? Elves?

You mention the boundary set, but it's also helpful to know WHY that boundary exists in this game - does that boundary exist because all other races were exterminated? Does it exist because you've decided that all orcs are evil by nature, and so a PC orc is fundamentally not allowed? Does that boundary exist because you can't be bothered to admit anything else? Does that boundary exist because of the tone you have, and you'd like a game where everyone plays a human in a low fantasy world? In which case, *say so*, and you're more likely to have players who work with that. If you just say "no XYZ", you'll sound closed off and kinda antagonistic, IMO.

It smacks of coming with a character idea in mind already, which is a no-no at my table. Make your character in concert with the other people at the table in session 1. It makes for much better games, in my experience.

However, you're also at that table. Why aren't you looking to work in concert with the player to help make their character fit or provide a thematic alternative? You're not above them - you're also a player, but with a different set of responsibilities. It makes for a much better game, in my experience, for the GM to ALSO be involved with character creation, to work with the player to build relationships, plot hooks, and so on - if a player comes in with an idea (which isn't a bad thing in my experience - so long as they leave open ends for the other players to fill and be a part of - which nearly all players I play with do), then why not work with them on that?

If someone is pushing hard against that and asking me to consider a bunch of extra stuff, we're probably not a good match, because I despise being forced to look at and engage with "player build" nonsense when I DM.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "player build"?

Again, I want to reframe this again - you can say that the player is "pushing hard" against your rule, but likewise, your rule is pushing hard against them and their enjoyment. Why don't you explain your stance to them, beyond "I'm the GM", and come to a compromise. What do they want out of this character that this race will do? What kind of game are you looking to run?

I'm not meaning to imply that you're as blunt as the hypothetical GM in my examples is, but you've freely stated that you ONLY use the PHB races. Why? You must have orcs in your setting - why can't an orc be played by a player? You have devils and demons in your setting, but not celestials? Are you saying that, if the PHB had a new race added that this would all be fine? Or that, if a race was removed, that would be a problem for you? Saying "PHB only" doesn't feel like a "my world requires this level of integrity and tight worldbuilding", it feels more like "I'm arbitrarily choosing to only use this sourcebook" - in which case, why?

I always see reference to session 0, personally I've never done a session 0 and never had serious problems due to that.

That's a fine personal experience. However, I swear by it, as a way to ensure that everyone helps get the same tone of the game, the same expectations, can play characters that might compliment one another, and to openly lay out desired story beats or character intentions. And, especially in cases like the OP, allows the GM to lay out their intent, the players to raise questions, and the GM to answer them - and create a system of dialogue, not just "what I say goes". I've been on the receiving end of "I'm the GM, so no" GMs before, and I think that it's bad form. I'd much rather a GM that says "yes, and" or "no, but" than one which sets up a hegemonic system.

Session zero is there for one reason and one reason only. To smooth out bumps before they become tripping hazards. If you have a tiefling paladin that LOVES to charm/control weaker player characters, they understand that player agency is a thing, and you cannot team attack, team steal, or team mind control/pursuade/intimidate into doing whatever you want. You make an understanding, a code of conduct. I agree to do my part, and the players agree not to do anything that would make a fellow player uncomfortable or triggered. I literally had a player in my last group try and break into the home of an elderly female elf, with the full intent of raping and murdering her, and then framing the mayor. This was done with full consent of the DM, and in the guise of "roleplaying my character". I quietly left the party. A Session Zero would have easily prevented this by clearly laying out this type of behavior in game is forbidden.

Session zero is there just to make sure everyone has a good time.

 Ahtman wrote:
There was a recent conversation about a new campaign to give the DM a chance to take a break from dm'ing and play and the person who was going to run it chose a 5E update of an old module (The Keep on the Borderlands) and set some character creation rules. Wanting to keep it simple the guidelines were PHB classes and races, though you could use sub-classes from any official source. One of the players was unhappy and felt he should be able to make whatever he wanted from any source he wanted and was upset at the limitations given.

Is the DM being to harsh or player being, I'm not sure this is the best word but I'll go with it at the moment, overly entitled? Have you ever set or played in a game where there were limitations on character creation? Where would you draw the line?

While not the way I would play, it's perfectly valid.
If the player is polite, I don't think they're being unreasonable to ask, but they have to be prepared for the answer to be no.

I'll echo both Smudge and Da Boss here-a lot of extra content won't meaningfully add to mental overhead or make for wonkier world building; but at the same time, some content DOES do so.

It's important to maintain fairness, so I don't think you're in the wrong for being firm on PHB only. But I also don't see issues with politely asking for limits to be eased.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Here's the thing, I don't understand why I have to argue this. Don't power game at my table. Done. Why do we have to discuss this, or validate it? It's so silly? (GOTTA SAY THIS HERE) Not at all the same level, but the people who get pissy when I say no sex or forced control or another person, ie Rape, use the same argument. It's my job to explain why. No it isn't. No. The end.
I have no obligation other than to be the DM and make decisions, that I feel are best suited to keep the game moving to an enjoyable place. If that involves playstyles or topics I deem inappropriate, I just say no.

There's a bit of a difference between power gaming and rape. Actually, an entirely massive world of difference.

But could you define Power-Gaming? What does that mean to you?

Creating such an advantage over the set rules of the game that the objective difficulty curve of the game becomes trivial or non-existent. The Mage learned was given a necklace of fireballs at level 2, which effectively allowed them to one-shot every combat encounter going forward.

The 40k player used the top Meta lists in every game they played, making them statistically more likely to have the advantage over less well designed lists/opponents.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Creating such an advantage over the set rules of the game that the objective difficulty curve of the game becomes trivial or non-existent. The Mage learned was given a necklace of fireballs at level 2, which effectively allowed them to one-shot every combat encounter going forward.

The 40k player used the top Meta lists in every game they played, making them statistically more likely to have the advantage over less well designed lists/opponents.

There are only two builds I know of that could accomplish that in 5E.

There's any build with access to Wish and Simulacrum.
Use Simulacrum normally, creating a Sim with a 9th level slot available.
The Sim then casts Wish, duplicating the effects of Simulacrum targeting the original caster, and creating a Sim with a 9th level slot available.
Repeat until your army is legion.

And Coffeelocks-which aren't an issue till level 6 at the absolute earliest, but are powerful enough that I have used a houserule that makes them not nearly so strong.

So... I think there is some misplaced rage in this.

If the rules RAW let players pick options and there are "power gamer" options built into the rules then this isn't an issue with players who chose those options. The issue is with the crappy game that created the situation in the first place because it's so poorly designed that it created the possibility.

I wouldn't tell players not to play the game as it's written. That is a nebulous thing with each person having different limits on what is and is not acceptable that are next to impossible to define.

I would say play a different game or have the entire table agree to house ruling out the offending elements if they are few enough that that is a simple solution.

Being mad at players because the game you are playing sucks is bad form.

Point 1: Why this race and not that race?
I actually just rule that half orcs are orcs. I don't like "half races" because of the racial implications, and make my fantasy races more fantastical, so no interbreeding. Half-Elves are changelings (human children stolen away to faerie), tieflings are infernally tainted humans from an ancient empire, dragonborn are wyrmtainted like the Elderlings from Robin Hobb's fantasy series. Celestials in my world don't interfere in the same way evil outsiders do, so there aren't any good "half" celestials.

I know that the PHB is going to be used by all players at my table so I make an effort to build it into my world in a way that makes sense. I don't own any other supplemental books and have no interest in owning them, so I don't incorporate any of the other stuff, it's really as simple as that.

Because they might not be interested in that? Maybe they've played as one of all the other races, and have a really fun idea for something else? Not to sound harsh, but again, if, say Dragonborn were cut from the PHB, and then someone wanted to play Dragonborn, would you still say "well, there's all these other races, why do you need to play a dragonborn"? It feels like you're retroactively justifying the PHB, instead of considering things on their own merit. I mean, at what point do things get cut out of the PHB that you'd start to say "there's not enough in here": gnomes? Tieflings? Dragonborn? Halflings? Half-orcs? Dwarves? Elves?

If they're not interested in my game they don't need to play with me, no hard feelings. If I was playing an edition where Dragonborn were not in the PHB, yeah, I'd probably remove dragonborn as a PC race from my setting. And yeah, I probably would say that there's plenty of other options. I'd be fine with an all human game too, because I don't think character needs to be defined by the physical properties imparted by being a different species. Certainly, my taste atm is to cut everything except Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings as PC races.

You mention the boundary set, but it's also helpful to know WHY that boundary exists in this game - does that boundary exist because all other races were exterminated? Does it exist because you've decided that all orcs are evil by nature, and so a PC orc is fundamentally not allowed? Does that boundary exist because you can't be bothered to admit anything else? Does that boundary exist because of the tone you have, and you'd like a game where everyone plays a human in a low fantasy world? In which case, *say so*, and you're more likely to have players who work with that. If you just say "no XYZ", you'll sound closed off and kinda antagonistic, IMO.

In my case the boundary exists because I don't own or want to own any of the other material and I dislike going online during games to look stuff up, and have had negative experiences with that in the past with players pushing unreasonably or getting rules from various sources confused. Keeping it to one book keeps things simple. I don't mind sounding closed off, but have answers to any questions from a player if they want to ask, but I don't feel any need to justify pre-emptively.

However, you're also at that table. Why aren't you looking to work in concert with the player to help make their character fit or provide a thematic alternative? You're not above them - you're also a player, but with a different set of responsibilities. It makes for a much better game, in my experience, for the GM to ALSO be involved with character creation, to work with the player to build relationships, plot hooks, and so on - if a player comes in with an idea (which isn't a bad thing in my experience - so long as they leave open ends for the other players to fill and be a part of - which nearly all players I play with do), then why not work with them on that?

In terms of the game, sorry, I do think I am above them - I'm running the game and have to operate as an event organiser and arbitrator, and sometimes have to help negotiate social problems between players. Without me, there is no game at all, whereas any player can leave and the game can continue. So I think my preferences about this stuff are more important than a players, for my game. I accept this to be true when I play in another person's game without question, and it causes me no issues.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "player build"?

Player build refers to the suite of player options that players choose from in neo-trad games like 5e Dungeons and Dragons to "build" their character. Race, class, subclass, feats, spell choice and so on. I dislike that entire part of modern dungeons and dragons and my preference is games without a character build element at all. I can tolerate it if my players all prefer to play 5e, but I don't want to spend time talking about it because it's really not interesting to me.

Again, I want to reframe this again - you can say that the player is "pushing hard" against your rule, but likewise, your rule is pushing hard against them and their enjoyment. Why don't you explain your stance to them, beyond "I'm the GM", and come to a compromise. What do they want out of this character that this race will do? What kind of game are you looking to run?

I don't mind explaining, but explaining is not a negotiation. If they don't want to play with me it's okay.

I'm not meaning to imply that you're as blunt as the hypothetical GM in my examples is, but you've freely stated that you ONLY use the PHB races. Why? You must have orcs in your setting - why can't an orc be played by a player? You have devils and demons in your setting, but not celestials? Are you saying that, if the PHB had a new race added that this would all be fine? Or that, if a race was removed, that would be a problem for you? Saying "PHB only" doesn't feel like a "my world requires this level of integrity and tight worldbuilding", it feels more like "I'm arbitrarily choosing to only use this sourcebook" - in which case, why?

It's the one I own, and it's the one I can reasonably expect all of my players to own. Not particularly interested in feeding the corporate beast that is hasbro's sourcebook churn.

 Lance845 wrote:
So... I think there is some misplaced rage in this.

If the rules RAW let players pick options and there are "power gamer" options built into the rules then this isn't an issue with players who chose those options. The issue is with the crappy game that created the situation in the first place because it's so poorly designed that it created the possibility.

I wouldn't tell players not to play the game as it's written. That is a nebulous thing with each person having different limits on what is and is not acceptable that are next to impossible to define.

I would say play a different game or have the entire table agree to house ruling out the offending elements if they are few enough that that is a simple solution.

Being mad at players because the game you are playing sucks is bad form.

For me once people start quoting RAW in a rpg then I don't want to play with them and I doubt they want to play with me.

I also know "power gamers" who people don't want to game with - I even still game for one who virtually no one will game with now - it can be hard work but he is a mate.....

I have similar views to Da Boss in many areas as long running GM and have experience (and ran) good and bad campaigns.

For instance in Warhammer RPG I don't have Halflings - nothing to do with PGing - I just can't stand them and they don't exisit in my Warhammer world. And I do think thats an important thing - Its my world that I want them to experience and enjoy and perhaps maybe have some enjoyment myself. So yes I agree making it clear before the game starts is very important.

I now set out what my campaign will be, why I have chosen certain options etc before we generate characters....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Creating such an advantage over the set rules of the game that the objective difficulty curve of the game becomes trivial or non-existent. The Mage learned was given a necklace of fireballs at level 2, which effectively allowed them to one-shot every combat encounter going forward.

The 40k player used the top Meta lists in every game they played, making them statistically more likely to have the advantage over less well designed lists/opponents.

So I was correct earlier. The players aren't "breaking" or cheating the game, they are simply using what tools the game gives them to creates characters (or armies in your second example) which are well designed for the purposes of winning combat events; in games which involve major to entire combat elements and which also reward the player for winning in those events.

It's a skill level thing, esp in the 40K situation. One army is better built than the others, therefore it has a greater chance of winning over the others if controlled and used correctly.

For 40K that's tricky to handle because if one person in the group is higher skilled and thus wins more games on average then you have to manage it. Perhaps asking them to accept using less points than their opponent to try and balance out the skill disparity so that both players have a more challenging match.

For DnD that's the job of the DM to balance things out. Reviewing characters when they are being made (early game) and saying "no" to some things or "ok you can have your necklace, but it comes with a risk of blowing up on your neck if you use it too often" etc... RPG games filter through the DM and a good DM can filter the game to allow players freedom within limits to create and adventure, whilst at the same time also adjusting what they've got to try and level things out. It's easier than in 40K or Magic the Gathering because the players are not directly competing with someone to "beat" that person. They are playing with a DM and within a world typically against NPC situations (where its not player vs player). So perhaps that player group ends up against a cult who all wear charms of fire protection because they are a fire cult who need to wear them to shield themselves from the burning flames of their gods.

So now that fireball is still strong, but way less so.

Lance845 wrote:So... I think there is some misplaced rage in this.

If the rules RAW let players pick options and there are "power gamer" options built into the rules then this isn't an issue with players who chose those options. The issue is with the crappy game that created the situation in the first place because it's so poorly designed that it created the possibility.

I wouldn't tell players not to play the game as it's written. That is a nebulous thing with each person having different limits on what is and is not acceptable that are next to impossible to define.

I would say play a different game or have the entire table agree to house ruling out the offending elements if they are few enough that that is a simple solution.

Being mad at players because the game you are playing sucks is bad form.

Exactly. It's like when GW did Age of Sigmar at launch with "just build armies of whatever you want". Yes someone with 10 dragons wants to take 10 dragons and then overpower everyone else in the game because 10 dragons is insanely strong in an army. For them they want to play with the 10 cool dragon models they've got in a fantasy setting against dragon armies. Another player wanted to create authentic medieval armies; another wanted to create an army of orks that focus entirely on close combat to be choppy and orky and then got burned to bits because they didn't have any archers etc....

Everyone comes with different impressions and ideas. The job of a good game is to provide structures, guidelines and rules that allow freedom within limits to give people choices and also expectations. When the game is more free form/open like an RPG then the DM has that job of filtering expectations and player choices so that things work. If the DM doesn't do this then yes you can have run-away situations where players get insanely powerful; or they start playing out utterly nuts super grim-dark characters that make others uncomfortable; or they go nuts with pets and suddenly the party is a walking zoo that destroys the immersion of other players etc....



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


For me once people start quoting RAW in a rpg then I don't want to play with them and I doubt they want to play with me.

I get what you mean, but at the same time I feel like this is overly aggressive as a generalist statement. I think Rules as RAW should be the baseline the game works from. If someone wants to justify something they do with RAW then that's 100% perfect.


They've read the rules - interpreted them to do something and planned to do that thing. If that thing is stupidly broken then the DM can make a judgement call on it; or work with the RAW and perhaps twist it in some form etc...


Of course you will get people who are bonkers with the RAW who read into simple statements to look for insane advantages everywhere and who are more than just interpreting but outright "powergaming" to the point of "cheating with technicalities" and such. People like that can indeed be a challenge and if a DM and player are butting heads constantly or one player is always trying to dominate the whole party and spoil the game then yes. Sometimes when the DM says no its not "no you can't do that" its "no you just aren't suited for this party/group/game"

That can be really harsh on someone, but at the same time sometimes you've got to take the group over the individual if you cannot reason with the individual and if they are a constant outlier.

Or perhaps you say "no you can't do this campaign, but hey what if you run the next one and help others build super characters and we have a wild series of games playing insane broken characters and powerful stuff"

Power gaming is people coming onto a forum to debate what the definition of "is" is, to determine whether or not their unit can have infinite attacks(Bragg), or whether drop pods can have charges, or my personal favorite, "whether a destroyed unit can still make more attacks with the weapon that literally destroyed it (Tank Busta Hammers debate).

It's all power gaming. It's seeking to use the RAW to eek out an unfair advantage over the people who are not seeking to play WAAC.

DnD should never EVER, be about WINNING. You don't Win, you experience. You enjoy. If you die, oh well, you re-roll. That's part of the fun. But you don't show up to the table with a sheet of all 18-20s saying "I rolled this at home" and proceed to declare rules in game like your character has special powers over the universe. No, you can't seduce the dragon. And yes, you are re-rolling that character, infront of me. By stat, in order.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Power gaming is people coming onto a forum to debate what the definition of "is" is, to determine whether or not their unit can have infinite attacks(Bragg), or whether drop pods can have charges, or my personal favorite, "whether a destroyed unit can still make more attacks with the weapon that literally destroyed it (Tank Busta Hammers debate).

It's all power gaming. It's seeking to use the RAW to eek out an unfair advantage over the people who are not seeking to play WAAC.

DnD should never EVER, be about WINNING. You don't Win, you experience. You enjoy. If you die, oh well, you re-roll. That's part of the fun. But you don't show up to the table with a sheet of all 18-20s saying "I rolled this at home" and proceed to declare rules in game like your character has special powers over the universe. No, you can't seduce the dragon. And yes, you are re-rolling that character, infront of me. By stat, in order.

Power Gaming means different things. On one level its just using the rules to best advantage; in your example it sounds more like "that guy" syndrome which is basically trying to cheat the system


I think its important to draw a line between someone who is mechanically playing well and someone who is outright looking to cheat.




As for DnD never been about "winning" that depends on the game and what you mean by winning. Many people might not want to be constantly re-rolling characters and might want their character to last for ages (people get quite attached to them).

Again many of these things are "day one/setup" kind of things. As you say you want someone to build their character infront of you. Ergo you, the DM, want to be part of the character creation process so that you can help guide your players to create characters that work within the setting that you are creating for them to play in. Not just to avoid the "I cheated on my rolls" guy; but to help set expectations; draw limits around things and create a functional roleplay setting.

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Power gaming is people coming onto a forum to debate what the definition of "is" is, to determine whether or not their unit can have infinite attacks(Bragg), or whether drop pods can have charges, or my personal favorite, "whether a destroyed unit can still make more attacks with the weapon that literally destroyed it (Tank Busta Hammers debate).

It's all power gaming. It's seeking to use the RAW to eek out an unfair advantage over the people who are not seeking to play WAAC.

DnD should never EVER, be about WINNING. You don't Win, you experience. You enjoy. If you die, oh well, you re-roll. That's part of the fun. But you don't show up to the table with a sheet of all 18-20s saying "I rolled this at home" and proceed to declare rules in game like your character has special powers over the universe. No, you can't seduce the dragon. And yes, you are re-rolling that character, infront of me. By stat, in order.

Power Gaming means different things. On one level its just using the rules to best advantage; in your example it sounds more like "that guy" syndrome which is basically trying to cheat the system


I think its important to draw a line between someone who is mechanically playing well and someone who is outright looking to cheat.




As for DnD never been about "winning" that depends on the game and what you mean by winning. Many people might not want to be constantly re-rolling characters and might want their character to last for ages (people get quite attached to them).

Again many of these things are "day one/setup" kind of things. As you say you want someone to build their character infront of you. Ergo you, the DM, want to be part of the character creation process so that you can help guide your players to create characters that work within the setting that you are creating for them to play in. Not just to avoid the "I cheated on my rolls" guy; but to help set expectations; draw limits around things and create a functional roleplay setting.

Despite our different approaches, I think we both want the same thing. A Fun and enjoyable experience for everyone. We just get there differently. I personally am a bit of a stick in the mud, if we don't all roll together, ADnD style, then we aren't rolling, and we're using standard array, 15,14,13,12,10,8. I want everyone on the same playing field, that way at least I can make an encounter and be sure I'm not in danger of "if I take my hand off the wheel here I'm not going to TPK this party".

It's easier for me, the GM, to create a fun game, if everyone plays together as a team, not as 5 individuals. That's another somewhat strong rule for me. We never split the party into groups less than half, and never play with less then 4 out of the 5 players. I don't like making players have to session zero for 30 minutes every session.

Oh agreed and in theory the "session zero" should really only be needed at the start of the campaign.

IT also comes comes a lot down to your play group as well. If you know the other players for 10 years of gaming chances are you don't need to explain anything because you've got 10 years of gaming behind you that lets you know what's what with everyone.

Even a new person might just need a one-to-one chat now and then to bring them up to speed with the group and the group itself should help them along.


When it comes to more random groups or people you don't know and such then things like the session zero are much more important because you are all dealing with unknowns and it really helps to have that first setup be a lot more setup and establishing the game that's to be played.

I find myself more attracted to games with random character generation and essentially no character build options.
Rather, characters are differentiated by how they think and behave, rather than what is on their sheet. And power is found by adventuring and finding unique rewards rather than showing up, getting your Milestone XP and levelling on schedule.

I find it removes powergaming as something that happens out of game and into choices made by characters at the table - rather than sitting at home, looking at options and figuring out which one gives advantage, they're talking to their fellow adventurers about a powerful magic sword or cache of spells they heard about, and go questing for it.

I am learning its also how you sell the game:

If I say I am going to run a Stormbringer game - than I know at least one player is - Oh cool I want to play a Demon summoning, Dragon rider whose is the nephew of the Emperor/Empress and also part demon.....

If i say I running in X period, with the theme being X, Y Z then expectations can be better managed.

same with Warhammer - a generic warhammer game can be - oh looking forward to playing a Wardancer-mage or a down and out Ratcatacher depending on personaility and what books read recently but last campaign i ran - the updated Enemy Within - I used a selection of 4 pre gens to choose from (all human - one apprentice mage) and it went well. One character finished the whole sequence of books, the oher retired one character because he did not want her to die......so she got married etc.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

DnD should never EVER, be about WINNING. You don't Win, you experience. You enjoy. If you die, oh well, you re-roll. That's part of the fun. But you don't show up to the table with a sheet of all 18-20s saying "I rolled this at home" and proceed to declare rules in game like your character has special powers over the universe. No, you can't seduce the dragon. And yes, you are re-rolling that character, infront of me. By stat, in order.

If DnD Isn't about winning it's PHB and game mechanics don't really support that.

Let's be straight up about this. Game mechanics influence player psychology. Players tend towards paths of least resistance. When mechanical combinations arise/are discovered players latch onto/explore them. SOME players are more inclined to play their own game within the game and ignore those features to their own ends, but thats 1) not the norm and 2) still them being affected by the psychology of the game they are playing. It's just not the one everyone else is.

From the moment a player cracks open their first PHB and starts making their first character it is about combat abilities, experience points, power and advancement. And the clearest path to that is winning. You win the fight. You solve the mystery. You topple the big bad. You win. DnD is almost exclusively about winning. It's every mechanic gears players towards it. Advise of group cooperation/make up is about it. Whats your race? Here is some novelty information about who they are as a people that in all likelihood will never come up in game and here is ability you can use as a reaction in combat to WIN that you will be using at least once every session for the rest of the campaign.

TTRPGs SHOULD be about the experience. DnD CAN be about the experience. But it's WORK from both the PCs and the GM to fight what the mechanics are telling you and make the game about that instead of winning which the game is telling you to do every single step of the way.

Well, you are playing RPG, not a dungeon crawl board game. If you feel characters are getting too optimized for combat, move the focus of the adventures you write away from combat.

Maybe one garou in your players' pack of lost pups is an OTT brawler? Make the local presence of Pentex so strong that stealth or intrigue/subterfuge are the only sensible options 90% of the time.

Your player insists that his character inherited a set of power armour from his dad? Let their main opponent be a corrupted arms manufacturer who specialises in EMP weapons.

Your group of Warhammer Fantasy overpowered fighters needs to navigate a Nurgle infected village? Make sure they understand that hacking those plague zombies from 2 meters away is a sure way to get Nurgle Rot too.

Maybe the next combat encounter for your group of expert gunmen is going to be fighting off two fat enuch guards/wrestlers in a public bath where the only things everyone has access to are towels and bars of soap?

Once again, it's RPG, not a dungeon crawl board game where you set up figures on the board and have a fight following the same set of conditions every time. If your players expect this, maybe next time offer them a game of Zombicide or Massive Darkness or Machina Arcana.

I don't tailor my world to my players. So I like to ensure that I don't have to worry too much about power gaming by not having it be part of the game.

Tailoring your world to your players is fine, but it's not the only way to run an RPG. I prefer to present a world and then see what the players do inside that world, and I generally pre-prep the entire region they're gonna play in before the game starts.

I started doing this after decades of following the advice about tailoring and tuning encounters, and I find it way more satisfying and enjoyable to do it this way.

What I like about tailoring is that the stories become much more personal and engaging. It's not the governor's daughter that was kidnapped, it's yours! It's not the merchant's transport of goods that you protect because he hired you, it's your own company's transport of goods etc.

Yeah I've definitely done that in the past, with good results.

Just not as interested in it any more.

I think there's a balance between using precreated stuff; creating your own fixed setting and tailoring to your players.

There's no ideal "this is the way" to do it and you could very well have a campaign that uses extremes of all through over the various play sessions.

I think how well you know your players also comes into it. Even if you aren't tailoring and you are creating fixed worlds; if you've been playing with the same people for years chances are some tailoring will happen anyway. You'll know that X really loves something and that will work its way in or that Y really hates a certain topic so you'll dodge that one etc...


So it might happen without you really realising it; esp because those things your players enjoy will have them react and play better which means a better experience for the DM and group.

The tailoring that was being suggested wasn't including players stories and motivations to create hooks and plot. It was adjusting encounters to circumvent player abilities and force them into other avenues of play.

Do they have a great weapon? Make it useless.

What that idea fails to account for is that dnd is first and foremost exactly a dungeon crawl board game. The rules are written to support hex maps and minis which is just a board and pieces.

When you level up you MIGHT get a +1 to stealth but WILL gain hp and other combat oriented abilities.

Dnd is a combat game about winning combats. Mechanically. The fact that people manage to do other things with it is a testament to the players. Not the game.

I have definitely seen what Lance is laying down in action.

When a players first RPG is D&D, it definitely gives them some D&D-isms that lean heavily into murder-hobo.

When I have seen them start with other games that lean into narrative more, like PBtA/FATE or even FUDGE. Then they tend to lean into telling stories more.

I have had a really hard time moving folks from D&D-isms to Narrative, but no real challenges moving Narrative players to D&D.

Mechanics matter as they are the tools players use to understand the expectations of the game.

Edit:
Recently had an experience playing in a campaign where I Nat 1 knowledge rolled about a monster. I RP'ed that I thought they were a Vampire, and not something else. Therefore, in my turn I moved up and tried to Turn Undead even though as a Player I knew it was not the case. The GM said, "I appreciate your dedication to the bit" and then proceeded to reduce me to 0 with said monster, and force me to take death saves that I failed. Luckily, my companions were able to fight it away and heal me with 1 death save left to fail.

What I learned as a player, was to not RP because it will be punished. Instead, get into the combat box and stay there. No RP and no Heroic combat. Instead, my character needs to be a part in the war machine.

Be careful of the "lessons" we teach our players as they can be hard to unlearn.

I'm a VERY big believer in the Sly Flourish methodology of the Lazy Dungeon Master. I'll spend maybe 15-30 minutes before game time coming up with names, places, settings, plot hook, treasure, monsters, traps, and a BBEG. Point being, anything more than that and I'm wasting my time. Every time I spend hours building a campaign, my players spend 90% of their time AVOIDING the obvious flashing signpost that says, "QUEST". Instead they try to go find Kobolds in the forest, that they hear about after talking to every villager in the town, which I was not prepared for them to do....Don't overthink it. React to your players, have key ideas, salient points, but don't build a railroad. you'll end up tired. If they want to go start a ranch and raise kittens to raise money to save the orphanage, thats awesome, as long as they had fun, I'm sure the princess who was kidnapped by the bandits will be fine till next week....

 Easy E wrote:

Be careful of the "lessons" we teach our players as they can be hard to unlearn.

Yes. This exists outside of game design as well.

We have all had jobs, right? Have you ever seen someone get trained "wrong" and the kind of time and effort it takes to reign them back in to just do the damn job the right way?

This has been studied. It takes roughly 10x the time and effort to unlearn an incorrect practice then it does to just teach and enforce the correct practice from the beginning. It's why employees who cut corners and get rewarded for their "productivity" but cause all kinds of problems down stream CANNOT be given new employees to train. They will spread their garbage corner cutting to others and the availability of employees to put in the time and effort to unlearn it often just isn't even available.

Back to Game Design. DnDs mechanics teach lessons. Murder Hobos don't exist because people suck. Murder Hobos exist because DnD teaches you to do it. And then you put that person in a White Wolf game and they try to Murder Hobo...

What did you expect?

It's the same as how in RPG games on pc you are encouraged to loot, steal and basically take everything from everywhere you go that isn't bolted down.

Because in very few games are there punishments for basically stealing and even where they are they are often light or easily spotted as a risk. Ergo you will steal the gemstone; you just learn/know you have to either kill the guard first or wait till his back is turned