D&D 5E Monster Races and a quick sword thrust at the gate

[Hussar]

See, I'm not getting where this "entitlement" notion is coming from. After all, the DM in this case SPECIFICALLY allows for these characters. He's got no problems with them making the characters, but, then, turns around and is apparently shocked when the players aren't 100% on board with getting attacked by random bystanders.

And, say what? Monstrous races don't have cities? Where is that coming from. Pomarj (Greyhawk) has Highport, and, well, there's always Iuz. Since when don't orcs and whatnot have cities?

Look, there's no problem banning a race. But, if you tell the players that it's ok to play something only to turn around and gank the PC at the first opportunity, specifically because they chose that option, that's a pretty dick move by the DM.

 

[Wulffolk]

Or it is a pretty unrealistic of the player that this exact thing won't happen when they have been told to expect it. It could be argued that it is a "pretty dick move" on the part of the player to give a DM grief for following through with their warning. Hence the entitlement part. Too many player think that just because an option made it to print that a DM MUST ALLOW IT.

 

[Sunseeker]

Or it is a pretty unrealistic of the player that this exact thing won't happen when they have been told to expect it. It could be argued that it is a "pretty dick move" on the part of the player to give a DM grief for following through with their warning. Hence the entitlement part. Too many player think that just because an option made it to print that a DM MUST ALLOW IT.

Well, technically the Dm did allow it. Regardless of it being in print or not. The DM even explained that the options will be more difficult to play.

So this isn't a case of Whiny Player A gripes until the DM gives in and lets them play something the DM otherwise would not have.

This is a case of the DM allowing players to play "the hard way" and players choosing that option, and then getting upset when the DM follows through with making that option more difficult to play. It's still player entitlement, but it's not the kind of entitlement your last sentence is on about.

 

[Hussar]

Or it is a pretty unrealistic of the player that this exact thing won't happen when they have been told to expect it. It could be argued that it is a "pretty dick move" on the part of the player to give a DM grief for following through with their warning. Hence the entitlement part. Too many player think that just because an option made it to print that a DM MUST ALLOW IT.

But, as Shidaku explained, the DM allowed it at the outset. The player didn't force anything. The player is playing what the DM put in play.

Well, technically the Dm did allow it. Regardless of it being in print or not. The DM even explained that the options will be more difficult to play.

So this isn't a case of Whiny Player A gripes until the DM gives in and lets them play something the DM otherwise would not have.

This is a case of the DM allowing players to play "the hard way" and players choosing that option, and then getting upset when the DM follows through with making that option more difficult to play. It's still player entitlement, but it's not the kind of entitlement your last sentence is on about.

There are degrees though. More difficult is one thing. Getting killed as soon as you try to do something is another. And, since we don't know, why were the PC's going into town? Is the plot of the game telling them to go into town? Are the plot hooks they are chasing leading into towns? Is there anything the DM could be doing to avoid those towns? Are there other options available to the players? We don't know.

-----------

All the finger pointing aside, this comes down to a mismatch in expectations. The players are expecting one thing and the DM another. IMO, this sort of thing is pretty common and isn't really all that hard to resolve. But, it cannot be resolved in game. It won't work that way. It's too frustrating and it leads to a very adversarial position between the players and the DM.

No, what needs to be done is out of game, sit down and talk about what people actually expect. Remember, this isn't just one player. It's multiple players, so, a fair chunk of the group just isn't on the same page. The DM needs to sit down and be pretty explicit what the expectations of the campaign are. It sounds like the DM expects a fairly bog standard fantasy setting while the players are drawing from different inspiration. Fair enough.

Now, it can be resolved in a number of ways. Ranging from taking the oddball races off the table to altering the campaign to incorporate those oddball races. Again, we're not talking beholders here. Kobolds and lizard folk aren't all that huge of a deal are they? Kobolds are typically pretty common in a lot of settings and having a more civilized kobold wandering into town shouldn't get him immediately executed. Lizard folk aren't really that different from dragonborn, at least in appearance. Again, it's not a huge, setting breaking deal to just either lampshade the whole thing or maybe tone it down to dirty looks and poor service.

I could see things like having disadvantage on social skills and whatnot, rather than, "The town guard attacks you on sight".

 

[Sunseeker]

But, as Shidaku explained, the DM allowed it at the outset. The player didn't force anything. The player is playing what the DM put in play.

There are degrees though. More difficult is one thing. Getting killed as soon as you try to do something is another. And, since we don't know, why were the PC's going into town? Is the plot of the game telling them to go into town? Are the plot hooks they are chasing leading into towns? Is there anything the DM could be doing to avoid those towns? Are there other options available to the players? We don't know.

There are two sides to every story, somehow I doubt things were as simple as:
Monster Player 1(MP1): I walk up to the town gates.
DM: The guards kill you.
MP1: I run away.
DM: No you're dead.

I've run games that allowed the players to play "monstrous" races (given this was a dark low-magic game, that basically meant anything not "core 4"). I've explained "hey playing a character perceived as a monster has serious drawbacks." And ya know what? My players got it. Some of them still played "monsters". They played smart, hid their monstrous features, allied with people who treated them well, took advantage of people who were "into" exotic species, and generally avoided simply walking up to the gates and demanding to be treated equally.

So in short, the rest of your post is spot on: the problem here is a mismatch between expectations. The DM clearly thought these people would "play smart" and the players clearly thought the DM wasn't serious.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Nope what? The things you said are not what the OP said? Glad we can finally agree.

Oh, don’t turn to dishonesty. You’re probably better than that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh, don’t turn to dishonesty. You’re probably better than that.

The only one being dishonest here is you:

Wow. Ok, my dude.

The OP let them pick those races, and punished it in game with PC death. That’s a jerk move, regardless.

Running in circles about whether the races are more commonly genetically evil or not is irrelevant. It’s common enough for them not to be, that the dm should make it clear that they are in their world when a player says they want to play one. If the player wants to be kobold drizzt, and the gm is gonna kill the pc in the first town, he should have just said no. Or explicitly said, “your character will be attacked on sight by most regular folk.”

The OP lacks any statement that he told them that they would be killed on sight.

Telling players they can play a goblin, and then having guards gank them at the gate, is absolutely a jerk move.

Because those things you just accused the OP of? He didn't do, and his original post implied nothing of the sort. That's you making things up and calling him a jerk. In fact, his original post directly counters what you assumed. That's why I kept saying you need to reread it, because what he described at his table is obviously different from what you have in your head.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The only one being dishonest here is you:

Because those things you just accused the OP of? He didn't do, and his original post implied nothing of the sort. That's you making things up and calling him a jerk. In fact, his original post directly counters what you assumed. That's why I kept saying you need to reread it, because what he described at his table is obviously different from what you have in your head.

Please quote the OP to back up your claim, here.

Nothing he said contradicts what I’ve said.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Please quote the OP to back up your claim, here.

Nothing he said contradicts what I’ve said.

Here's what he said

I DM a few 5E games. Some of my players love to play monster races like goblin,kobold and Lizard man, but regardless of what I tell them expect to be able to just walk on in to any town and city.

This has lead to a few pc deaths. Also it seems to be the general thought that I'm home brewing this reaction and that the default in 5E is everyone just gets along together. That drow and goblins and orcs and whatever monster the pc's expect to play next week SHOULD be welcome to just walk on in anyplace nice and safe because people of D&D worlds NEVER judge anyone by race(even though the pc's do 100% of the time ...never once stopped to ask a goblin they encountered in the woods, nope it's just look xp!).

Is this a issue for other DM's? It frankly about to the point of me saying player handbook races only.

So...

The OP let them pick those races, and punished it in game with PC death. That’s a jerk move, regardless.

He said no matter what he tells them to expect, they insist on playing the monster PC. That means he's not punishing them any more than it is a cop punishing you for speeding after telling you that if you go 100mph in this zone, it's speeding, and you immediately decide to go 100 mph. Not only is that not punishing, that's certainly not a jerk move. In fact, he's being nice because it's the default game world that a monster PC would be reacted with hostility so the players should expect that anyway, and the DM is taking the extra effort to tell them everything he can think of to warn them.

Running in circles about whether the races are more commonly genetically evil or not is irrelevant. It’s common enough for them not to be,

Really? Where again? You keep making claims like this without citation. We know in the default D&D worlds, monster races are generally evil and at the very least are met with hostility. That's how they are described in the game. So what citation do you have where players should expect the opposite of how the game is actually set up?

that the dm should make it clear that they are in their world when a player says they want to play one.

The OP's post directly contradicts this, because that's exactly what he did and you're implying he didn't. He said he told them everything he could.

If the player wants to be kobold drizzt, and the gm is gonna kill the pc in the first town, he should have just said no. Or explicitly said, “your character will be attacked on sight by most regular folk.”

Where in the OP did he say he killed them in the first town? He said sometimes it led to PC death, but didn't elaborate when or how in the game it happened. And "sometimes' is not "all the time". Again, you're making false assumptions.

The OP lacks any statement that he told them that they would be killed on sight.

Telling players they can play a goblin, and then having guards gank them at the gate, is absolutely a jerk move.

Again, the OP doesn't say that. That's an assumption on your part of a scenario that may never have happened.

 

[GreenTengu]

This is no more true than it is to say there should only be one race today because whites and blacks and Asians etc would have race wars and exterminated each other.

So basically, I’m saying I disagree with your logic

I terms of what D&D calls "races" there is only one. The fact that you think there are massive irreconcilable differences between whites, blacks and asians demonstrates a massive misunderstanding on your part.

There is less diversity in all of humanity, yes-- that means between what you think the extremes of "blacks, white and asians" is-- than there is within a single clan of chimpanzees. Oh, and of that diversity that exists? Yeah, 70% of it exists within the people you group together under the label of "black".

There were other humans on planet earth-- Neanderthals, Erectus, and descendants of Australopithecus that ranged from giant and meaty 8' tall giants to 3' tall "hobbits" with features that spanned the range from chimpanzee to what we would currently call human.

Everything that diverted much from the common human norm is completely extinct. Apparently "whites" carry a notably high percentage of neanderthal genes, but all in all... the genetic "eve" and "adam" date back only a few 10,000s of years (the genetic eve is actually much more recent than the genetic adam, for whatever little that means) of the 100,000 years that the modern strain of human has been around and the 500,000 years that humans of any shape and size have been around.

So... "sorry" to say-- but his logic is pretty damn sound. If given the opportunity (an opportunity that whites, blacks and asians never had, mind you) humanity would in fact entirely exterminate absolutely all similar creatures that could be defined as "different" that existed within their same region.

Moreover, the very fact that the genetic "groups" you list (which, again, are faulty due to the fact that the vast majority of diversity within humanity exists within one of the things you decide to group as a singular thing) is evidence of humans violently eliminating those who were in the minority.

Another issue I have with this take is Human races are sort of coded as "white" while monster races have been coded as "non-white" and I hate that unintentional racism. I mean if you have magic what is so hard about a goblin wanting to be a courageous Paladin?

What would remotely make you think it was unintentional?
The first few editions of the game admitted their introduction to roleplaying was "cowboys and Injins" in which... yes, the Cowboys were always all white (regardless of the fact that is historically wildly incorrect, it is what Hollywood portrayed) and the Injins were non-whites who were therefore evil and therefore deserving of extermination-- thus the creation of the U.S. was righteous and holy and nothing one should ever question the morality of.

Why wouldn't a game setting created by people with such a mentality not strongly and explicitly convey such ideas and concepts as they were brought up on and so very ingrained in their ideas of what roleplaying was all about?

-------------------

Anyway, I resort to what I said in my first post. The OP has little business running D&D period. This all traces back to a powermad DM who is incapable of comprehending the simple fact that this is a cooperative game and all people involved need to be enjoying it or there is no point in running a game at all.

If one wants to decide who the PCs are and limit their options in the world to an unreasonable degree and kill them off if they do anything the DM doesn't expect-- that DM needs to not be DMing and instead needs to just go and write a novel, because they are out-and-out far to anti-social to be engaging in a game like this.