Again, and I cannot stress this enough: my main point is that the DM is also playing the game. They’re not obligated to run the kind of game they don’t want to run.
If you don’t want to play in a game where you track ammo, that’s fine. By the same token, the DM isn’t obligated to play with you, so they don’t have to change their game to suit your tastes—or anyone’s. If the DM and players are willing to compromise on some things, great. If they aren’t, and that means a game doesn’t happen, so it goes.
The feeling I got from your comments—feel free to correct me—is that you think the DM should put their own enjoyment aside to just do what the players want. That’s my issue. The DM isn’t a servant, in the same way they aren’t a social superior. To return to my first comment, they’re just another player at the table, albeit in a different role, whose enjoyment matters just as much as anyone else’s.
I already did. It’s the experience they want to create at the table. Just like how lots of video games track ammo. That is a completely sufficient answer.
Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way? It’s hard to believe you actually value the DM’s fun, when the DM running a game that makes them happy causes you such confusion and consternation.
If it only makes the DM happy, and none of the players, its shouldnt happen no matter what it is. Some players will fuck off, some players will tank it and begrugingly do it to stay at the table. But its never right. Nothing at a table should be fun just for one person if it affects more than themselves.
As for your question : Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way?
Well, like 95 % of the posts of every forum, its less about the personnal experience and more aboht a discussion around a subject that interests me. What you or other actually do at a table ? Will never affect me. But I like discussing it and bouncing ideas. Since doing this axtually upgraded my own table throught time.
For example, I added new rules that are straight from a video of XP to level 3. They give my players more options and if I never went outside my bubble to check and discuss or examine what others did, and most importantly WHY, my own table would be lesser.
One of the things I learned the hard way was what I told you : if you as the DM do something at your table and it only makes you happy, don’t do it. Because its selfish of you even if you are putting work in, even if you are the one working the most on the table.
Im also a dad. Im doing lots of stuff for my kid. It doesnt give me the right later to force him into servitude because I did so much for my boi.
A DM shouldnt force bad things on their players against their fun because he works so much.
I’m sorry, but you’re just coming across very standoffish. I already explained that tracking ammo creates interesting choices, and I already explained that players and DMs can come to a compromise. I also explained that no one is obligated to play with anyone else, which is a clear difference from your comparison to your son. If you’re going to gloss over what I have to say, I don’t feel particularly inclined to keep saying anything.
But I’ll give a little more benefit of the doubt.
Let’s say I want to run a gritty, low-powered game. The players are down-on-their-luck, going into dangerous wilds and deep into forgotten ruins, in search of treasure to at least eke out a living, with a glimmer of hope that one day they’ll strike it big and make their fortune. I want players to begin poor, where every bit of coin counts, and I want survivalism to be a big deal, so it’s important what they buy and bring with them. Ammo would naturally be a part of that, and the tension of potentially running out—or what to do after actually running out!—is compelling. You think that’s boring. And… okay. Infinite ammo would be kind of antithetical to the vibe I’m going for. Plus, if you have an issue with arrows, I don’t expect you’d take kindly to tracking food, water, light sources… I doubt we’d see eye-to-eye. And that’s it. I’m not willing to compromise on the kind of game I’m trying to start, and you’re not willing to play in this one. Both are valid. I’ve been on both sides of this situation. And no one owes anyone a justification for their personal preferences.
And if you want to look at how other people manage inventory, look at “slot-based” solutions. A bundle of arrows would contain however many arrows, and take up one slot. No need to calculate the weight of each, just tick them off as you use them. Simpler, while still making inventory matter. And if some people like the bean counting of tracking individual weights… that’s it. It’s enough to understand that they like it, even if you don’t.
Finally, if you truly want to understand other people’s positions, you can’t take such an aggressive stance, because that creates a framework where you’re rewarding yourself for being obtuse. The less you’re willing to consider another perspective, the stronger your position feels, and the better you think you’re doing. That obviously falls apart when we’re dealing with issues that have no objective answer and don’t require a compromise, but even outside of that, you’ll have a firmer grasp of any issue when you truly try to understand what other people believe and why. Repeatedly challenging people and not accepting their answers doesn’t do anything but cause resentment as you appear hostile. A debate doesn’t have to be a competition, it can be two people trying to understand, rather than win.
You know what. This makes sense. This actually makes sense. Yeah ok, some settings will benefit from counting ammo. Althought the setting you used as example is an extreme example where a lot of things would be different from the average campaign.
So yeah, there are exceptions to my idea that ammo shouldnt be kept unless players actually want to.
A major issue with 5e is that it breeds players who are very bad for the space. They think DMs are secondary (at best) or just have no idea how a game actually works. It might just be because it’s popular, but i do think some of their scummy practices (like splitting up all the books) contribute to it.
Preach. It’s an attitude from top to bottom, from WotC to an unfortunate number of players.
People complain about a DM shortage, and that is a purely 5e problem. Outside of 5e, you’ve got lots of people eager to run games, because running a game isn’t as difficult and thankless.
Again, and I cannot stress this enough: my main point is that the DM is also playing the game. They’re not obligated to run the kind of game they don’t want to run.
If you don’t want to play in a game where you track ammo, that’s fine. By the same token, the DM isn’t obligated to play with you, so they don’t have to change their game to suit your tastes—or anyone’s. If the DM and players are willing to compromise on some things, great. If they aren’t, and that means a game doesn’t happen, so it goes.
The feeling I got from your comments—feel free to correct me—is that you think the DM should put their own enjoyment aside to just do what the players want. That’s my issue. The DM isn’t a servant, in the same way they aren’t a social superior. To return to my first comment, they’re just another player at the table, albeit in a different role, whose enjoyment matters just as much as anyone else’s.
I wouldnt take away the DM’s fun. Ever. He is very important.
Now you tell me how is it fun for the DM to make players count their ammo please.
I already did. It’s the experience they want to create at the table. Just like how lots of video games track ammo. That is a completely sufficient answer.
Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way? It’s hard to believe you actually value the DM’s fun, when the DM running a game that makes them happy causes you such confusion and consternation.
If it only makes the DM happy, and none of the players, its shouldnt happen no matter what it is. Some players will fuck off, some players will tank it and begrugingly do it to stay at the table. But its never right. Nothing at a table should be fun just for one person if it affects more than themselves.
As for your question : Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way?
Well, like 95 % of the posts of every forum, its less about the personnal experience and more aboht a discussion around a subject that interests me. What you or other actually do at a table ? Will never affect me. But I like discussing it and bouncing ideas. Since doing this axtually upgraded my own table throught time.
For example, I added new rules that are straight from a video of XP to level 3. They give my players more options and if I never went outside my bubble to check and discuss or examine what others did, and most importantly WHY, my own table would be lesser.
One of the things I learned the hard way was what I told you : if you as the DM do something at your table and it only makes you happy, don’t do it. Because its selfish of you even if you are putting work in, even if you are the one working the most on the table.
Im also a dad. Im doing lots of stuff for my kid. It doesnt give me the right later to force him into servitude because I did so much for my boi.
A DM shouldnt force bad things on their players against their fun because he works so much.
I’m sorry, but you’re just coming across very standoffish. I already explained that tracking ammo creates interesting choices, and I already explained that players and DMs can come to a compromise. I also explained that no one is obligated to play with anyone else, which is a clear difference from your comparison to your son. If you’re going to gloss over what I have to say, I don’t feel particularly inclined to keep saying anything.
But I’ll give a little more benefit of the doubt.
Let’s say I want to run a gritty, low-powered game. The players are down-on-their-luck, going into dangerous wilds and deep into forgotten ruins, in search of treasure to at least eke out a living, with a glimmer of hope that one day they’ll strike it big and make their fortune. I want players to begin poor, where every bit of coin counts, and I want survivalism to be a big deal, so it’s important what they buy and bring with them. Ammo would naturally be a part of that, and the tension of potentially running out—or what to do after actually running out!—is compelling. You think that’s boring. And… okay. Infinite ammo would be kind of antithetical to the vibe I’m going for. Plus, if you have an issue with arrows, I don’t expect you’d take kindly to tracking food, water, light sources… I doubt we’d see eye-to-eye. And that’s it. I’m not willing to compromise on the kind of game I’m trying to start, and you’re not willing to play in this one. Both are valid. I’ve been on both sides of this situation. And no one owes anyone a justification for their personal preferences.
And if you want to look at how other people manage inventory, look at “slot-based” solutions. A bundle of arrows would contain however many arrows, and take up one slot. No need to calculate the weight of each, just tick them off as you use them. Simpler, while still making inventory matter. And if some people like the bean counting of tracking individual weights… that’s it. It’s enough to understand that they like it, even if you don’t.
Finally, if you truly want to understand other people’s positions, you can’t take such an aggressive stance, because that creates a framework where you’re rewarding yourself for being obtuse. The less you’re willing to consider another perspective, the stronger your position feels, and the better you think you’re doing. That obviously falls apart when we’re dealing with issues that have no objective answer and don’t require a compromise, but even outside of that, you’ll have a firmer grasp of any issue when you truly try to understand what other people believe and why. Repeatedly challenging people and not accepting their answers doesn’t do anything but cause resentment as you appear hostile. A debate doesn’t have to be a competition, it can be two people trying to understand, rather than win.
You know what. This makes sense. This actually makes sense. Yeah ok, some settings will benefit from counting ammo. Althought the setting you used as example is an extreme example where a lot of things would be different from the average campaign.
So yeah, there are exceptions to my idea that ammo shouldnt be kept unless players actually want to.
A major issue with 5e is that it breeds players who are very bad for the space. They think DMs are secondary (at best) or just have no idea how a game actually works. It might just be because it’s popular, but i do think some of their scummy practices (like splitting up all the books) contribute to it.
Preach. It’s an attitude from top to bottom, from WotC to an unfortunate number of players.
People complain about a DM shortage, and that is a purely 5e problem. Outside of 5e, you’ve got lots of people eager to run games, because running a game isn’t as difficult and thankless.