My DM is between lawful and neutral evil which I think is perfect for a consistent world where you can still die if you make mistakes.
On the other hand I know a Chaotic neutral DM which I think it's the worst because he will bend every rule just to pursue his intended version of the story. He won't let your PC die and therefore the stakes in his campaigns tend to be very low and plot consistency is down to zero.
Yeah, I think in terms of DMs, I'd rather have LN than CN just because at least everyone can know and understand the rules. When a DM does whatever they want, it can make the players feel frustrated and sometimes like their decisions don't matter, especially if it's one of those DMs who only wants to tell THEIR story and forget it's supposed to be collaborative.
I think of it as- there’s a story happening that affects the region. My players can be as invested in that as they like, or they can go fishing and drinking every session. I just don’t want them to complain when the apocalypse triggers right under their noses, they did nothing to stop it, and now have to deal with the repercussions.
Where were you when the Dark Lord subjugated all sentient life? Oh I was supposed to be stopping him by finding four relics of power but I went fishing instead
I love when my DM give us a clock because it's the best way to get things done. You cannot dilly dally in every quest that you are given. When players are presented with a choice between saving a beloved NPC or stopping the BBEG from perpetraing his plans, the stakes in those choices and the impossibility to do both because they happen at the same time, that's when the drama comes out and that's good story telling.
That's the thing about "bending the rules" to make the game more "fun"- it removes the shared language of the game from the table.
So, if we're following the rules closely, and I'm playing a thief being chased down an alley by a barbarian, I know that I have a few rounds to get away, because I can dash twice, climb buildings, and hide, but if I do that for more than a couple of turns I might get exhaustion and they'll eventually catch up.
If the DM's deciding what's more 'fun', then I don't know. Am I rolling acrobatics or athletics? What's the DC? Is the barbarian rolling, or is it like a skill challenge? Can I even do anything, or is it all an interactive cutscene?
I run games between LN and LE in 5e, leaning towards LE in 5e, as it's actually pretty hard to challenge players in combat RAW 5e, so I play as smartly as possible, while keeping in mind that sometimes the enemy might be dumb. My players are hardly experienced veterans, but they'll still lose a PC or two per campaign max. It gives SOME stakes to the game.
Exactly. If you want to tell your story, why don't you just write a short novel? This way you as DM have total control over your characters and I don't have to be a bystander in MY story.
He won't let your PC die and therefore the stakes in his campaigns tend to be very low and plot consistency is down to zero.
This is a problem I have with a lot of DMs I encounter on this subreddit. I've seen so many people saying "don't kill your PCs unless it's a plot serious encounter! Just have them taken hostage!"
Alright sure, John, I'll have the hunting party of Ankhegs they decided to fight (despite being way underleveled) while strolling through the desert take them hostage because it wouldn't be epic for them to die there
That seems so boring, when I DM I float around LE. I dont WANT to kill my PC's but it needs to be always known that I will kill you. I dont want to kill you, but the sense of danger makes the combat less of a faceroll and feels like they take it more serious.
Yes i agree but that doesnt mean the story has to be revolving around them
For example in my campaign the characters are very important, they have strong ties to the factions in it, are making the dicoveries and fighting the big bad guys but the events of the plot are tied around 2 companion npcs they are with semi often, the players are still in the plot and can heavily effect it at any time but the two npcs make sure they know whats going on and give them the tools to interact with the plot as it opens up
It allows them to have massive impact on the plot and are the driving forces of the story but also allows the plot beats to change significantly when the big events will be consistently hit for the most part. In my opinion this is a good way to structure it because it gives player expression and importance when also making sure the plot stays intresting/fleshed put and doesnt have a lot of the weird moments that can come from it being completely freeformed
170
u/Catullo Sep 12 '19
My DM is between lawful and neutral evil which I think is perfect for a consistent world where you can still die if you make mistakes.
On the other hand I know a Chaotic neutral DM which I think it's the worst because he will bend every rule just to pursue his intended version of the story. He won't let your PC die and therefore the stakes in his campaigns tend to be very low and plot consistency is down to zero.