D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Lanliss]

So if you are willing to work with a Player to fit a Dragonborn into your game then where is the problem?

Why are you self describing as a "lazy" DM when it seems to not be the case?

Your stance seems to be that, if a player wants to play Dragonborn/Monk/gunslinger, they should be allowed, regardless of how that fits the actual world. I can agree, as long as they are willing to work to make it happen. I cannot agree if it is simply them wanting, and not doing anything about it.

If I have misunderstood your stance this entire time, I apologize. Easy to miss subtleties in 200 pages of posts.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Do vegans generally keep steak waiting in their house for guests to ask for them? This is a case of the guest wanting the Host to go to the store, and spend money on food that the Host refuses to even eat. Now, as I mentioned in my post above, if a guest brought their own steak, and asked to throw it in the grill, I would be happy to let them, and maybe even cook it for them. I am not going out of my way for someone who demands things that take work to aquire/make work, but refused to do any of that work themselves. At least, that is the direction I am coming at this conversation from. Maybe my players have given me a bit of a bias, but I am not much a fan of people "wanting", yet refusing to work for things.

I think you may have misread my post or something.

You appear to be operating under the assumption that I agree with the analogy of demanding your vegan host go buy you a steak and cook it for you, when I have actually asked for an explanation as to how that analogy can possibly be more accurate than the analogy of a guest bringing and preparing their own steak for just them to eat at the same table.

 

[cmad1977]

One person does significantly more work on their world (the DM/host) regardless of how collaborative the game is. Players know the parameters of the world(vegan household).

It really isn't hard to understand. Expecting to play whatever you want knowing the boundaries of the game you're going to play in is entitled behavior. If that's a problem you can find another table where your desires are allowed by the DM. The vacant player chair will be filled in moments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Caliban]

How so? Walk me through it, because you clearly see the situations differently than I do.

I see the player wanting a thing, and the DM having to do nothing more than allow them to have that thing - like someone bringing their own food to my house, and me not having a fit at them because I don't want to eat it.

Ah ah ah, don't change it to yourself, we already know you'll give in.

Instead, you're bringing steak to a vegan's house and expecting to eat it in front of them. (Meat is murder! Check your privilege! Your steak was raised on antibiotics and hormones! GMO food is the devil!)

Now you aren't bringing just any food, but food that they don't want in their house. You may not like their reasons for it, but it's their house, their rules.


Now if it's a casual game or we've previously agreed "all weirdness allowed" then it's one thing. But if it's my campaign world that I've developed out of my own imagination, time and effort - then input from the players is appreciated and considered, but it is not automatically accepted or allowed.

 

[Lanliss]

I think you may have misread my post or something.

You appear to be operating under the assumption that I agree with the analogy of demanding your vegan host go buy you a steak and cook it for you, when I have actually asked for an explanation as to how that analogy can possibly be more accurate than the analogy of a guest bringing and preparing their own steak for just them to eat at the same table.

AHh, I see. In that case, it is a matter of camps. I believe there are four broad camps in this subject. "My World my rules", "Players won't help, so they don't get anything new", "Players bring their own work", and "kitchen sink/everything goes". I am coming from the "Players won't help" camp, so that has colored my opinion on the conversation. The "Players work" and "everything goes" are easily mistaken for eachother, so I apologize for thinking you were in the latter.

To answer your question, they are both 100% accurate, depending on the outside situation, which will differ from one DM to another. Some DMs will have players who refuse to work, and some will have players that bring their own work. I was not there for the start of this particular tangent, so I do not know which situation the origin involves.

 

[Shasarak]

Your stance seems to be that, if a player wants to play Dragonborn/Monk/gunslinger, they should be allowed, regardless of how that fits the actual world. I can agree, as long as they are willing to work to make it happen. I cannot agree if it is simply them wanting, and not doing anything about it.

If I have misunderstood your stance this entire time, I apologize. Easy to miss subtleties in 200 pages of posts.

There are many different variables to consider. Ideally for me there is a session 0 where characters and backgrounds are worked out as a group so that everyone is on the same page. It could be as simple as the Player saying they want to play a Dragonborn and the DM saying yup, you are playing a Dragonborn. But frankly expecting more then a sentence or two from a player is pretty unrealistic. Between Magic, Planeshifting, Spelljamming or even DM Handwavium it is pretty easy for a DM to introduce at least 1 Dragonborn Monk. Being a Stranger in a Strange Land is a very common literary trope. I dont even know what to make of someone banning Monks though, a real head scratcher that one.

 

[Lanliss]

There are many different variables to consider. Ideally for me there is a session 0 where characters and backgrounds are worked out as a group so that everyone is on the same page. It could be as simple as the Player saying they want to play a Dragonborn and the DM saying yup, you are playing a Dragonborn. But frankly expecting more then a sentence or two from a player is pretty unrealistic. Between Magic, Planeshifting, Spelljamming or even DM Handwavium it is pretty easy for a DM to introduce at least 1 Dragonborn Monk. Being a Stranger in a Strange Land is a very common literary trope. I dont even know what to make of someone banning Monks though, a real head scratcher that one.

One of my players, who sometimes DMs, is thinking of doing exactly that. He hates monks. Highly mobile, competent damage, multiple attacks, a touch of magic. They are just too flexible for his liking. He is also willing to allow them to remain, so long as they take a nerf-stick to the head. There is also flavor to consider. Much like I would not want a Gunslinger in my Neanderthal vs. Dinosaurs game, someone may not want a Monk in their Edgar Allen Poe/Lovecraftian Horror game. Wall running and Kai Blasts doesn't always mesh with everything, so it is understandable, IMO, to sometimes not want them involved.I

On the other matter, I do expect more than a sentence or two, unless those are the right sentences, to get a new "thing"(here meaning anything from laser gun to a Dragonborn) into my world. I expect them to actually know the relevant lore (i.e. The basic history of the area their thing is supposedly from, or how their thing might function under my worlds physics.). Learning how to help me help them is enough work, for me personally, to get some leeway in getting off things into my world. For example, I would not just want them to say "My Dragonborn was caused by a chaos eruption". I would want to hear how their Dragonborn feels about that, how it influences their behavior (hint, Chaos generally leads to Chaotic behavior), and how they imagine people respond to them. If they won't put at least that little amount of work in, they don't really want it, IMO.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But if it's my campaign world that I've developed out of my own imagination, time and effort - then input from the players is appreciated and considered, but it is not automatically accepted or allowed.

Saying "No way that's happening," as your initial response - which is what was being discussed here in this thread - is not a sign that "input from the players is appreciated and considered," It's the exact opposite - a refusal to consider anything.

And working together to find a way to make something work is not "automatically accepted or allowed."

 

[cmad1977]

Ah ah ah, don't change it to yourself, we already know you'll give in.

Instead, you're bringing steak to a vegan's house and expecting to eat it in front of them. (Meat is murder! Check your privilege! Your steak was raised on antibiotics and hormones! GMO food is the devil!)

Now you aren't bringing just any food, but food that they don't want in their house. You may not like their reasons for it, but it's their house, their rules.


Now if it's a casual game or we've previously agreed "all weirdness allowed" then it's one thing. But if it's my campaign world that I've developed out of my own imagination, time and effort - then input from the players is appreciated and considered, but it is not automatically accepted or allowed.

How dare you sir!? Having a creative vision for the world you created! Selfish! I want to play my pixie/water-elemental your internal logic be damned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Caliban]

Saying "No way that's happening," as your initial response - which is what was being discussed here in this thread - is not a sign that "input from the players is appreciated and considered," It's the exact opposite - a refusal to consider anything.

Yeah, but I never said "no way it's happening" in my initial post (although that would still be an acceptable answer from the DM). It seems like you didn't really read it, or you are combining my post with someone else's and responding as if I'd written both.

And working together to find a way to make something work is not "automatically accepted or allowed."

Again, you seem to be mixing up my response with someone else's. I never talked about "working together to make something work" - that was the troll.

However, I generally do try to work together with the player, but not always. There are some races that simply don't fit, or I'm simply not willing to deal with. That's my prerogative as a DM.