D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[Chaosmancer]

And yet, you still dont understand the basic psychology. You have a table full of goodies but your only allowed to take a few yet all you have to do is ask. And at the other counter, the DM is allowing all the goodies. This will put the first DM at the first counter to offer all the goodies too.

This is what happened with 1ed UA. With the various handbooks of "insert class here" of 2ed and 3.xed. and the PHB 2+ of 4ed.

How many tables do you know that do not allow feats? Not a lot. How many tables do not allow the optional PHB races? Even fewer...

These rules are optional in appearences only. It will take a DM with a strong personality not to allow that book into his games.

You ask an interesting question here. How many tables do I know that do not allow feats?

None.

How many DMs do I know who would prefer to run the game with no feats?

Also None.

Not a single DM I have ever run into wanted to run a featless game.



How many tables do I know that ban Xanathar's?

None.

How man DMs do I know who would prefer to ban Xanathar's?

Also None.



I guess you might want to argue that secretly those DMs really wish they could cut out those options, but all of those optional rules I see in the game are there because the DM wanted them to be there. So, if none of the DMs I know want to cut out Tasha's... then I assume they are all going to run with Tasha's. Because they are going to want to include those options. If you want to not include them, and everyone else does... go ahead. You get to make that call.

Of course, some players might try and reach a compromise with you. They might question why you are denying the option. After all, they don't see any problem with it. And how you approach that moment is also entirely up to you.

But this idea that it isn't really an option, because players will want it, and DMs will cave and have to run games they hate... doesn't match my experience at all.

I both agree and disagree. It is a right to say no. It is not a responsibility to say no.

Yes it is your game. But it is also the players' game too. Whether you want it or not. Whether you like it or not. You are playing with other people. It is your duty and theirs to make a game to their and to your liking. This means that you might have to make compromises.

And, at some point, if a DM get too stubborn and refuses to adapt, one player will step to the fore and offer what the DM do not offer. This is why I have very democratic game groups. I saw that happen to others when I was young and it gave me a good lesson as the DM was a good friend of mine.

I want to pull this out, and examine it a little bit.

If the majority of the group wants a resource. Optional or not, homebrew or not, to the point where it affects their decision to play or not.... then as a DM who feels the need to compromise for the enjoyment of the game, you should listen to them.

You already acknowledge this. You already agree with this. So... why does it matter how Tasha's is labeled at all?

But, I am remembering your other posts, and I think I have an idea.

You are convinced you know what the players in your area will enjoy better than they do. You've said as much multiple times on this thread. That new DMs will allow this "without knowing what they do" and that many of the players in your area are young and won't see the implications of these rules degrading their games.

And you know what, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to say that you are right. That over in France in whatever city you live in, around whatever game shop you play in, those players are too inexperienced to make their own decisions about what they will enjoy. That you need to curtail your own democratic game process to protect them from these rules.

I don't need your protection.
My friends who are DMs don't need your protection
My friends who are players don't need your protection
The greybeards in my local gaming shop don't need your protection
The people I play with online from across the continent don't need your protection.

We are all old enough, mature enough, and game-rule saavy enough to make our own decisions about the game rules we allow. So, instead of saying how WoTC shouldn't print these rules because the 15 year olds in France don't know better, let us just assume that the majority of the people who will be buying and using this book know what they are doing, and are doing it on purpose.

 

[Helldritch]

Sleep effects are limited, attacks targeting HP are plentiful.

The issue of course is that if half-elves were +2 Cha +1 float, they'd be weak (weaker than elves) so they tried to boost them up with the extra +1 ASI. Same with mountain dwaves (free armor profs that don't benefit 2/3rds of the classes in the game). Which leads us now to where we are.

The obvious solution would be to revamp MD and HE, but that doesn't seem too likely. So here we are.

Good analysis. But that single +1 can change a lot on MAD builds. And this is exactly where we are going.

 

[Aldarc]

It is the responsibility of the DM to tell a good story. And part of that is maintaining the integrity of the world building. If it can change on the whim of a player you end up with a world with no set rules, and pretty soon suspension of disbelief is lost.

The bold is where you lost me with your argument. I don't agree with that at all. A DM who is there is to tell a good story is not there to play D&D; they are there to sell you on their unwritten novel. Players and DM both play to find out the story emerges from the gameplay.

 

[glass]

Players are within their rights to ask, but the DM has a responsibility to say "no".

There are no "greener pastures". The reason I DM is that there is no one else willing or able to do it.

Not everyone is you. Some of those people who are not you also GM.

_
glass.

 

[Helldritch]

The bold is where you lost me with your argument. I don't agree with that at all. A DM who is there is to tell a good story is not there to play D&D; they are there to sell you on their unwritten novel. Players and DM both play to find out the story emerges from the gameplay.

That is why I said that the game is a cooperative one. Players and DMs need each others. So better be on the same side on which rules you want to play with your players.

 

[Lefi2017]

If +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to you, why are you playing a dwarf?

in my opinion yes just make every a variant human feat or dark vion and let race be fluff the rest is just munshkinisem just make how they look and their culture be up to the player (you could leave away compleatly and it owuld work too)

 

[Maxperson]

Players are within their rights to ask, but the DM has a responsibility to say "no".

There are no "greener pastures". The reason I DM is that there is no one else willing or able to do it.

I disagree. It's not a responsibility to say no. It's definitely a right, but not a responsibility. At least not in all things. If all four of my players come to me and say that some rule or situation in the game isn't fun, I'm going to change it. It's not my responsibility to say no. It's my responsibility to provide a fun game. If one person is having an issue with something, it may or may not change depending on the impact it will have on the rest of the group.

 

[Azzy]

in my opinion yes just make every a variant human feat or dark vion and let race be fluff the rest is just munshkinisem just make how they look and their culture be up to the player (you could leave away compleatly and it owuld work too)

Man, you would have hated the editions of D&D that had no racial ASIs.

 

[Lefi2017]

Man, you would have hated the editions of D&D that had no racial ASIs.

acually know I owuld prefure it that way

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The bold is where you lost me with your argument. I don't agree with that at all. A DM who is there is to tell a good story is not there to play D&D; they are there to sell you on their unwritten novel. Players and DM both play to find out the story emerges from the gameplay.

True, and I was oversimplifying. But when it comes to creating a coherent world, that responsibility lies with the DM alone. Players have control over the actions of their own characters, they do not have any control over the rules that govern the universe in which those characters live.