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

[Sacrosanct]

Step 1: put everyone who disagreed with you on ignore so they can't see your posts
Step 2: make a post arguing against one of those people, and since they can't see your post, act like you got the last word and "won'
Step 3: realize you broke a mod's directive to not post in the thread anymore

Recipe for success! What could go wrong?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Read the title of the thread.

Remember what implication is.

Stop doing mental gymnastics.

Nowhere in the text you quoted does OP contradict the implication of the title, that players were ganked at the city gates.

Nor does anything he said suggest that they weren’t killed for being monster races, rather than any other behavior.

Literally all I’ve suggested is that the OP let his players play monsters, told them it would be harder than playing non monsters, and then killed the characters for being monsters.

You keep claiming that the OP directly contradicts this implication, but it literally doesn’t.

If you want to argue that statements by the OP suggest or imply that he did none of that, feel free. I don’t care at all about nitpicking, I’m happy to move on to that discussion. Once you stop making obviously false claims about what the OP directly states.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Literally all I’ve suggested is that the OP let his players play monsters, told them it would be harder than playing non monsters, and then killed the characters for being monsters.

You keep claiming that the OP directly contradicts this implication, but it literally doesn’t.
.

You obviously don't know what "literally" means. And lying while calling other dishonest is a hoot, to be honest.

"..all I’ve suggested is that the OP let his players play monsters, told them it would be harder than playing non monsters, and then killed the characters for being monsters."

"[if 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.” <---inferring the DM did not tell his players

...

The OP lacks any statement that he told them that they would be killed on sight."<---again, inferring the DM did not tell his players what to expect

Congratulations on contradicting yourself. You clearly said that the OP never did these things (despite him obviously doing so by saying "no matter what I told them"), and now you're saying the exact opposite when I pointed out the direct quote of the OP contradicting your assumptions.

I'll also assume that's a "no" then, that you can't provide any proof like I asked of your claim there is "enough of it" (monsters not being bad guys) to make players assume the exact opposite of how the game is actually written.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You obviously don't know what "literally" means. And lying while calling other dishonest is a hoot, to be honest.

"..all I’ve suggested is that the OP let his players play monsters, told them it would be harder than playing non monsters, and then killed the characters for being monsters."

"[if 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.” <---inferring the DM did not tell his players

...

The OP lacks any statement that he told them that they would be killed on sight."<---again, inferring the DM did not tell his players what to expect

Congratulations on contradicting yourself. You clearly said that the OP never did these things (despite him obviously doing so by saying "no matter what I told them"), and now you're saying the exact opposite when I pointed out the direct quote of the OP contradicting your assumptions.

I'll also assume that's a "no" then, that you can't provide any proof like I asked of your claim there is "enough of it" (monsters not being bad guys) to make players assume the exact opposite of how the game is actually written.

You can assume anything you want, mate. Doesn’t mean it’s based on reality.

You’re still doing gymnastics, here. You haven’t shown any contradiction. You’ve just claimed there is one. You’re making a random assumption, and then stating that it is “clearly true”.

Have fun. This seems like a debate you can just have without me, since you’re pretty much just having it with yourself as it is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I will address the question you apparently asked me somewhere in a text wall.

Most fantasy media for he last 15 years or more has featured fantasy racism, but not so much “all monster races are kill on sight/simply because they’re monsters/these races ar just evil”.

Examples include the DnD worlds I already mentioned, and the majority of fantasy video games, from Skyrim, to WoW, to even Dragon Age, not to mention movies and shows from Star Wars to Lost Girl. They grew up with stories where the “monster” can be the good guy, where the trolls are good and the humans who hunt them are evil, etc. the racist colonialist tropes used in early fantasy and dnd have been thoroughly flipped and subverted in modern pop culture.

Further, simply the fact that so many players expect to be able to play out those stories, is evidence that they have reason to expect it.

 

[Sunseeker]

I will address the question you apparently asked me somewhere in a text wall.

Most fantasy media for he last 15 years or more has featured fantasy racism, but not so much “all monster races are kill on sight/simply because they’re monsters/these races ar just evil”.

Examples include the DnD worlds I already mentioned, and the majority of fantasy video games, from Skyrim, to WoW, to even Dragon Age, not to mention movies and shows from Star Wars to Lost Girl. They grew up with stories where the “monster” can be the good guy, where the trolls are good and the humans who hunt them are evil, etc. the racist colonialist tropes used in early fantasy and dnd have been thoroughly flipped and subverted in modern pop culture.

Further, simply the fact that so many players expect to be able to play out those stories, is evidence that they have reason to expect it.

So what? One of the defining elements of many of the stories you mention is the "monster" teaching the humies that their fear is unwarranted. There's no meaning playing the "monsters story" if you take the monstrous part out of it.

Rather than fantasy, the better example here is X-Men. Normal folk naturally distrust that which is different, to varrying degrees and part of what is so compelling about the story of the X-Men is how these weird, different, powerful mutants work tirelessly to convince the normal folk that they are not dangerous freaks who should be killed on sight. The story becomes better when you account for the mutants who are perfectly happy to behave like monsters, regardless of how normal folk treat them.

THAT is what makes the "monsters story" compelling. Being a "monster" when you're not even regarded as monstrous by the common folk isn't playing the monsters story, it's just playing.

 

[Dausuul]

To everyone asking "Why not just ban monstrous races," here's the answer: Because of folks like me.

See, I'd play a monstrous race in this campaign. And I would go to great lengths to hide my identity, and I would expect that if I got revealed, I'd have to think fast and jump faster. And if I did get revealed, and everyone was all, "Oh, a drow. Whatevs," I'd be disappointed. The challenge is what makes it fun.

It sounds like the OP did have one person playing a monstrous race this way, and it worked out great and was cool. But he's got other folks who don't get it. And so he's going to ban monstrous races altogether, which is a pity, but probably the right move. But if I were in that campaign, I'd be muttering at my fellow players, "See, this is why we can't have nice things."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So what? One of the defining elements of many of the stories you mention is the "monster" teaching the humies that their fear is unwarranted. There's no meaning playing the "monsters story" if you take the monstrous part out of it.

Rather than fantasy, the better example here is X-Men. Normal folk naturally distrust that which is different, to varrying degrees and part of what is so compelling about the story of the X-Men is how these weird, different, powerful mutants work tirelessly to convince the normal folk that they are not dangerous freaks who should be killed on sight. The story becomes better when you account for the mutants who are perfectly happy to behave like monsters, regardless of how normal folk treat them.

THAT is what makes the "monsters story" compelling. Being a "monster" when you're not even regarded as monstrous by the common folk isn't playing the monsters story, it's just playing.

That is one thing that can make playing those races compelling.

Not everyone who plays them is interested in playing in a world where some races aren’t considered people, even by “good” people.

The monster story you're talking about here, is just one kind of game including PC goblins and gnolls. Eberron and many other properties present stories where there is, again, fantasy racism, but the players can actually explore that meaningfully outside of a “hide, run, or fight” scenario, because they have some rights, are understood to have souls and free will, and have made alliances with the other races.

A lot of good fantasy like that of Saladin Ahmed explore a world wherein members of wildly different races can be memebrrs of the same cultures and religions, as does Eberron. Playing an Orc in a world where some people think Orcs are the same as worgs or whatever, while others get that they aren’t, is much more compelling to me than a story where the org just has to hide being an orc all the time or fight of violently racist townsfolk. In Eberron, orca have a faith that is essentially the same as one of the major faiths (Silver Flame), and other Orcs are druids that protect the world from aberrations. The juxtaposition of that with ravager tribes of orcs from the Demon Wastes is ripe for extremely compelling stories.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I will address the question you apparently asked me somewhere in a text wall.

Most fantasy media for he last 15 years or more has featured fantasy racism, but not so much “all monster races are kill on sight/simply because they’re monsters/these races ar just evil”.

Examples include the DnD worlds I already mentioned, and the majority of fantasy video games, from Skyrim, to WoW, to even Dragon Age, not to mention movies and shows from Star Wars to Lost Girl. They grew up with stories where the “monster” can be the good guy, where the trolls are good and the humans who hunt them are evil, etc. the racist colonialist tropes used in early fantasy and dnd have been thoroughly flipped and subverted in modern pop culture.

Further, simply the fact that so many players expect to be able to play out those stories, is evidence that they have reason to expect it.

How Skyrim, or Wow, or whatever doesn't matter because they are not D&D. D&D clearly sets up orcs, kobolds, and the like as being evil. Every party of PCs that runs across an orc or kobolds instantly assumes they will want to kill it. Adventures are entirely designed that way. You think all the NPCs in the game world will act the opposite of the PCs in their assumptions of monsters? Yeah, I don't buy it. I don't play D&D assuming that orcs there are the same as in Skyrim. That would be ridiculous on my part.

Not only should have the PCs assumed that playing monsters as PCs would be a problem by default, the DM even told them beforehand exactly what to expect and you called him a jerk for it. Then you changed your story and called him a jerk again.

From where I sit, this is entirely on the players because they knew before hand exactly what to expect and did it anyway. And I certainly don't think it's warrented for you to call a DM a jerk for doing what he's supposed to be doing. Check yourself, mate.

 

[Sacrosanct]

To everyone asking "Why not just ban monstrous races," here's the answer: Because of folks like me.

See, I'd play a monstrous race in this campaign. And I would go to great lengths to hide my identity, and I would expect that if I got revealed, I'd have to think fast and jump faster. And if I did get revealed, and everyone was all, "Oh, a drow. Whatevs," I'd be disappointed. The challenge is what makes it fun.

It sounds like the OP did have one person playing a monstrous race this way, and it worked out great and was cool. But he's got other folks who don't get it. And so he's going to ban monstrous races altogether, which is a pity, but probably the right move. But if I were in that campaign, I'd be muttering at my fellow players, "See, this is why we can't have nice things."

Yeah, but see, it sounds like that you as a player, making a conscious choice to play a monster, know that the onus is on you to go the extra mile to account for those extra challenges. It doesn't sound like you'd call the DM a jerk for having NPCs treat you like they would with any other monsters they happened to run across. And as you mentioned, this is why "might as well just tell them no" is something I don't agree with it. Because then they'd be called a jerk for not allowing something. I would allow it, but I'd let the player know what to expect, just like the OP did. And just like you said, it's then on the player to make plans on how to mitigate those other challenges.