More Feedback Questions For Players or DMs

[Mytherus]

First for anyone that sees this and takes the time to reply -- thank you. I like polling players and fellow DM's to see where my (gaming) ideas and thoughts are both in terms of "are they wacky" and in terms of interest ("How fun or interesting people think they are")...

I'm mostly talking about D&D 5e here if you want to picture in terms of a ruleset.

1. System Shock Rules? Do you hate the idea or think its good / adds some excitement to encounters?

2. What's your view / feeling on Critical Hit and/or Fumble Tables?

3. Do you get annoyed if the DM sets the game to Automatically Re-roll initiatives each round?

4. Sentient weapons...Corny or cool?

5. About your DM's campaign style -- Do you prefer "Oh so Serious - if we aren't playing 100% RAW I'm out!" campaigns or "Look its a game I want to have fun...I want to adhere to the rules so that I know I'm playing the TTRPG system I signed up for -- but light flubbing of rules in favor of fun or excitement is fine by me!"? (Or any other type?)

6. Finally -- How do you as a player handle your character dying? Do you expect the DM to pull punches to artifically save your character's life or are you in favor of "What happens happens, that's TTRPGs! If the character dies he/she dies!"

Thanks.

For those celebrating, as I know this community is Multi-national....Happy Thanksgiving.

[Zacchaeus]

Replying as a DM.
1. Tried them, didn’t like them and neither did my group.
2. Tried them, didn’t like them. Doesn’t add anything.
3. Depends on the group. Mine like to plan things out and take a more tactical approach to combat. Rerolling initiative destroys that possibility so everyone is playing as a single player rather than as a team. It also messes with the timing of when spells and effects expire meaning spellcaster can’t use their full powers if they come down the order one round then top in the next. Some DMs don’t like their players planning things.
4. Can be a very good tool for the DM to progress a story. But can also force or railroad players when they don’t want to and so can take away from the players agency.
5. Always fun. But players are always looking to bend the rules :D
6. The dice rolls are what they are. My players have been playing for 30 years but still manage to get themselves into situations that they shouldn’t and accept the consequences when they do.

Also by shear coincidence I had a turkey sandwich for lunch with some turkey I found in the freezer from last Christmas 🎅

[damned]

Im mostly a GM

2. I like these as they add some flavor - Im also happy to let a player describe their own critical hit too
4. Not so much corny - but sentient weapons can have opposing personalities/views and players dont tend to like that
5. I tend to run the game as written except that I do hand wave some thing or I might ignore/alter the duration of an effect when it seems appropriate to do so
6. I dont like it when characters die but I let it happen - its not the end for the player or the party - the fun can continue!

[damned]

Also by shear coincidence I had a turkey sandwich for lunch with some turkey I found in the freezer from last Christmas ��

Is that a good idea?
Oh the USDA says "within a year" so this is a good test!

[LordEntrails]

So, it depends, but in general...
1. Don't like. But I do like more severe criticals. If...they don't happen too often. See #2.
2. 5% is too often for serious criticals. More damage sure, but losing a limb, firearm jamming, or stuff like that should be much more rare. Maybe 1%? We like lingering wounds for 5E instead. Can be resolved after the encounter and has a fun but significant lasting impacts for serious wounds.
3. Nope, we prefer this. We like combat to be chaotic.
4. Used to like them. More in terms of game design. But don't like them in terms of DM fiat or railroading. If the player can play two PCs uniquely, then they can play their own sentient weapon with it's own personality and then imo it's good.
5. Fun. After decades playing, more concerned with fun. BUT, the rules, whatever they are, have to be consistent.
6. If death is not on the line, then its too much like a can't fail story. Usually failure alone is not enough of a risk. With great risk, comes great reward!

[Morenu]

...

1. System Shock Rules? Do you hate the idea or think its good / adds some excitement to encounters?

[Never liked them as a set rule. Our DMs always used a modified version (read that as, not written down) that was used situationally. sometimes story driven (add emotion) or realism (the dragons nat 20 tail swipe throws the character 50 feet away)]


2. What's your view / feeling on Critical Hit and/or Fumble Tables?

[We LOVE Crits/Fumbles but Similar to the second part above, our DMs tend to apply things situationally, other than adding damage, nothing is automatic]


3. Do you get annoyed if the DM sets the game to Automatically Re-roll initiatives each round?

[No, we have ALWAYS rolled init once that was a thing]


4. Sentient weapons...Corny or cool?

[Depends. the right DM and party, it can be great in a lot of ways. Humor is always a part of our table and sentient weapons give the DM another way to add direction and humor to the game]


5. About your DM's campaign style -- Do you prefer "Oh so Serious - if we aren't playing 100% RAW I'm out!" campaigns or "Look its a game I want to have fun...I want to adhere to the rules so that I know I'm playing the TTRPG system I signed up for -- but light flubbing of rules in favor of fun or excitement is fine by me!"? (Or any other type?)

[As I said, Serious? absolutely no. BUT following the rules withing reason, yes. track spell components costing under x gp? Hell no. want to edit a class/spell/item... DM approval, sure. just remember that the any rules the players use, the DM can use as well]


6. Finally -- How do you as a player handle your character dying? Do you expect the DM to pull punches to artifically save your character's life or are you in favor of "What happens happens, that's TTRPGs! If the character dies he/she dies!"

[at 1st level, we have typically been loose with the "youre dead" finality IF you didn't die doing dumb ****. after that? as long as the DM didn't accidentally create a TPK encounter that the players could not avoid, (see the Dumb **** comment) then dead is dead if you have no other options.]



...
Thats my Opinions

[Nyarly Dude]

1. Dislike, don't use.
2. Dislike extremely, don't use. Martials have it bad enough as it is.
3. Dislike. There are multi-round effects which cue off initiative (stuff that fires at the beginning or end of your next turn, etc) and they get very weird in terms of durations if initiative gets rerolled.
4. Dislike, would tend to reserve for artifacts in high-level campaigns.
5. Mostly strict RAW, with exceptions made for rules that appear to be unworkable; are vague to the point of requiring interpretation so one needs to go beyond RAW; strike me as poorly written (e.g. "invisible" condition in 2014 rules, just delete the second point; clowns at WOTC just refuse to errata it) or are missing because the rules can't possibly address everything. For instance, there is no rule in D&D 5E that stipulates that you can't be casting a ritual spell while you're swimming across a raging river, but I wouldn't be inclined to allow it.
6. I don't pull punches and don't expect them to be pulled. I will, however, tend to point out relevant things that their character would obviously know and would probably lead them to reconsider if the player seems to be oblivious.

[Zacchaeus]

Is that a good idea?
Oh the USDA says "within a year" so this is a good test!

I survived :)

[anstett]

For many of these my game is set up differently but we do have everything laid out clearly for players to know what is happening up front.

For example - character death
http://www.dragonslayers-society.org/pmwiki-old/pmwiki.php?n=Main.DeathOfACharacter

And how that player can continue the Campaign
http://www.dragonslayers-society.org/pmwiki-old/pmwiki.php?n=Main.CampaignContinuance

[The Decepticon]

1. Never used.
2. Love the fumble/crits tables. It has brought some interesting things to the table. The players waiting on me as I'm reading the crit/fumble effect has been great theater to the table.
3. Players voted not to do this. I would be down to do this but so far haven't.
4. Love the sentient weapons. They don't usually cause too much trouble to the players (so far).
5. I tend to follow the rules, but give my players freedom to think of something cool they want to do outside of the normal actions.
6. Current campaign I have had 3PCs perish (thanks to a fumble that summoned a neutral creature that the players attacked for some reason). My players actually gave me advice in my first campaign that I was pulling too many punches and giving them an out. Ever since then I make battles challenging (as best you can) but not where they are overwhelmed.

[arkanis]

1. Tried them, they are awful and cumbersome

2. Still using them, but you have to retune them because they are prone to aggravate the action economy pitfalls. They add spice to combat, but lone creatures, who already suffer a lot from poor action economy, are further hampered by a lucky criticals, which is guaranteed because they have to endure a large number of attack rolls each turn. We use criticals only against creatures and PCs of medium size or smaller, not perfect but still fun.

3. Yes, rolling initiative each turn affect start of turn/end of turn mechanics too much, and makes the duration of spells inconsistent. We tried once and it was a mess.

4. Boring, we don't feel sentient items add anything to storytelling, and end up being annoying and diminish player agency, so nay.

5. This is always group preference, but we tend to like solid rules but not written on stone approach. The Golden Rules of Roleplaying always apply, and that's in a sense part of RAW, so there's no such thing as "We are going to play 100% RAW".

6. In our case the players a stable group of people who had been playing Rolemaster for years, so final death is not the drama it's seems to be at other gaming tables. Death is final, and we don't make much fuss about it. Being from bad luck, bad decisions or whatever, death it's final and the players at my table accept it. After many years playing they have understood that what makes and adventure something "adventurous" is the real possibility of death. I'm totally transparent when rolling, because I come to understand that players accept their PC demise more easily if there's no shadow of doubt of them being cheated.

[BushViper]

Disclaimer - I am a forever DM

1. I don't use this rule because it's cumbersome, but I do use other methods to make combat more interesting/challenging. Also, early in my DM career I, like many DMs, went through the phase where lingering wounds 'sounded' like a good idea, but in practice they just don't work the way they do in theory.

2. I don't like the critical success element, but why is a multi-faceted answer that I won't bore you with. However, I do think critical attacks should be more impactful and go with the max base damage + roll the critical effect. In regard to critical failures, I absolutely hate them. Particularly the ones where you hurt yourself or an ally.

3. Personally, I love it when playing online because it's handled by the program, but it can be a little slow in real life. That said, some players don't like it and I let each group decide.

4. I like sentient weapons, but they can be a huge problem with bad/inexperienced DMs. Regardless, they should be extremely rare.

5. I prefer "serious" games, but I have absolutely no problem with levity and people making jokes, but the 'feel' I strive for is something along the lines of the Dragonlance Chronicles or LotR trilogy. I don't enjoy goofy, whimsical games, at all.

6. I'm not an oppositional DM and want my players to have fun and succeed, but -- "If he dies, he dies." That basically sums up my position. This modern push for immortal characters because of the potential for hurt feelings is completely asinine.

[Lazybones1969]

DMing three 5e campaigns at the moment, two in FGU and one live.

1. Don't like it. Too random. Death saves serve this role sufficiently in 5e IMO. If you want to add an extra consequence to death, consider a permanent -1 CON penalty.
2. Back in my AD&D days I played using tables from an article entitled, "Good Hits and Bad Misses" from Dragon magazine. Remember that over time, crits/fumbles that have a lingering effect will have a disproportionate impact on player characters, given the number of dice rolls a character makes over a campaign. I think by the time that the party was 7th level one was missing a foot and another a hand.
3. I would find this quite cumbersome.
4. Potentially cool, but only if the player is involved in the decision to introduce the weapon, and only if it had some plot purpose. I would not impose this on a player without warning.
5. I try to stick to RAW for consistency but we discuss my rulings in the campaign Discord. There will always be situations that are not covered in the rules that require some interpretation.
6. Character death has always been a part of RPGs, but I find it's far less common in today's D&D. Back in the day, when zero HP equaled death, characters were more expendable. However, I find that most players today invest more time and effort in their character's backstory and character development, so I don't mind the modern trend of making characters more survivable.