D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Minigiant]

not sure why that is a problem to admit, do you expect everyone to either love 2024 or mindlessly defend 2014 as the ‘perfect edition’? That monsters do not hit hard enough, esp at higher levels has been pointed out for years, that ranged attacks and mobility actions should be available for higher CRs is also not exactly new.

Because they don't admit the problems or ignore what the changes were designed to fix. Neither are perfect.

You can complain about beast master rangers having spirit animals but would not admit beasts aren't set up from dungeons as flankers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You seem to be asking if there's nothing which can be objectively defined as "bad." Given that the context for that question is with regards to personal enjoyment in recreational games of imagination, where the only metric is à chacun son goût, the answer should be obvious.

Not at all.

What I'm saying is that people float this idea that limitations breed creativity as though it is a conversation ender, when it isn't. Limitations include a huge space of things. Some of those limitations really do breed creativity. Others simply limit; they don't lead to any better results and often lead to worse ones. I can of course construct limitations that obviously suck, but it's not hard to point out a common one that clearly does not have a "less is more" effect.

"No, you can't play an X because I think they're stupid."

That doesn't create flavor. It doesn't spur creativity. It doesn't add to the thematic structure of the result. It doesn't improve internal consistency or enhance immersion.

The one and only thing it does is piss in the Cheerios of whomever liked that option.

And yes, I have been told, many times, by actual users on this forum, that they ban things plenty for the sole and exclusive reason that they think those things are dumb. Not because they're harmful, nor powerful (often they're anything but powerful), nor exploitable, nor super weird. Just because the GM thinks it's badwrongfun and no one can have badwrongfun at their table. I have seen numerous GMs, here and elsewhere, who gleefully delight in talking these things away from players, because it means the GM got to stick it to all the big dumb idiots who like that badwrongfun stuff.

Those are bad limitations. I don't need objectivity to call that out. They simply fail to produce the results claimed by the pithy but flawed maxim.

 

[Alzrius]

Not at all.

Notice how your choice of language here is absolutist, rather than being an opinion statement.

What I'm saying is that people float this idea that limitations breed creativity as though it is a conversation ender, when it isn't.

Well I don't know what "people" you mean, but as far as the discussion you and I are having, it's not a "conversation ender" so much as it is a repudiation of what you seem to be saying with regard to some limits being "bad," which is a personal opinion that you're putting forward as an absolute.

Limitations include a huge space of things. Some of those limitations really do breed creativity. Others simply limit; they don't lead to any better results and often lead to worse ones.

All of which is your opinion. Some people will look at what you deem to "really" breed creativity, and find that it breeds none. Others will look at what you think "simply limit," and see a lot of creativity and better results to be gained, despite your insistence that those limits cannot make such things.

I can of course construct limitations that obviously suck, but it's not hard to point out a common one that clearly does not have a "less is more" effect.

Even if some other people agree with you, that doesn't mean that what you're saying is inherently correct; shared opinions are not facts.

"No, you can't play an X because I think they're stupid."

That doesn't create flavor. It doesn't spur creativity. It doesn't add to the thematic structure of the result. It doesn't improve internal consistency or enhance immersion.

The one and only thing it does is piss in the Cheerios of whomever liked that option.

It's also an indictment of why a limit is set in place, which is a completely different conversation from the one we're having re: whether or not a given limit can be used to spur creativity, even if you personally don't think it can. Those are two different topics, especially since quite often published products don't include statements from the designers about why something was excluded.

And yes, I have been told, many times, by actual users on this forum, that they ban things plenty for the sole and exclusive reason that they think those things are dumb. Not because they're harmful, nor powerful (often they're anything but powerful), nor exploitable, nor super weird. Just because the GM thinks it's badwrongfun and no one can have badwrongfun at their table. I have seen numerous GMs, here and elsewhere, who gleefully delight in talking these things away from players, because it means the GM got to stick it to all the big dumb idiots who like that badwrongfun stuff.

Which, again, is a question of intent, not about what can be done with a limit.

Those are bad limitations. I don't need objectivity to call that out. They simply fail to produce the results claimed by the pithy but flawed maxim.

No, they don't; you're presuming that just because someone has ill intent in setting a limit, necessarily means that no one can therefore find anything worthwhile in said limit, which doesn't track at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which, again, is a question of intent, not about what can be done with a limit.

A distinction without a difference. But you have insulted me at least twice elsewhere in this post, so I have no desire to speak with you further.

 

[Alzrius]

A distinction without a difference. But you have insulted me at least twice elsewhere in this post, so I have no desire to speak with you further.

On the contrary, the distinction connotes a huge difference. Likewise, pointing out that your opinion isn't a statement of fact is in no way an insult, which makes it a shame that you seem to think it is.

 

[Pedantic]

Not at all.

What I'm saying is that people float this idea that limitations breed creativity as though it is a conversation ender, when it isn't. Limitations include a huge space of things. Some of those limitations really do breed creativity. Others simply limit; they don't lead to any better results and often lead to worse ones. I can of course construct limitations that obviously suck, but it's not hard to point out a common one that clearly does not have a "less is more" effect.

"No, you can't play an X because I think they're stupid."

That doesn't create flavor. It doesn't spur creativity. It doesn't add to the thematic structure of the result. It doesn't improve internal consistency or enhance immersion.

The one and only thing it does is piss in the Cheerios of whomever liked that option.

And yes, I have been told, many times, by actual users on this forum, that they ban things plenty for the sole and exclusive reason that they think those things are dumb. Not because they're harmful, nor powerful (often they're anything but powerful), nor exploitable, nor super weird. Just because the GM thinks it's badwrongfun and no one can have badwrongfun at their table. I have seen numerous GMs, here and elsewhere, who gleefully delight in talking these things away from players, because it means the GM got to stick it to all the big dumb idiots who like that badwrongfun stuff.

Those are bad limitations. I don't need objectivity to call that out. They simply fail to produce the results claimed by the pithy but flawed maxim.

I think you're catastrophizing a little here. There's usually a little more going on, particularly in a gaming situation where setting is the responsibility of one party. If the point is to present a well-realized, internally coherent setting to the players to interact with, setting limitations upfront about what will be in said setting is pretty obvious. I think it's become more common to seek input before one gets into establishing the setting norms in the first place and that's generally a good thing, but there's really nothing inherently wrong with the GM having a setting prepared in isolation and presenting it as is to the players for character creation.

"That's stupid" is obviously the most mean-spirited form of turning down a player proposal, but you can imagine a more reasonable "I don't have a place inside the structure I've built for turtle people or blood magic, because I constructed it without those, and it would be disruptive to other elements to introduce them now." It's clearly better to work out the overlapping shared stuff you want to play with ahead of time, but if it comes down to a GM not being interested in something, and we're dealing with a game where they're doing al the setting generation work (and presumably have already done a bunch of it) then I don't see a problem.

It should be possible to amiably work out some other character concept, perhaps to rework a whole new setting/theme, or to play some other game altogether.

 

[Mecheon]

"That's stupid" is obviously the most mean-spirited form of turning down a player proposal, but you can imagine a more reasonable "I don't have a place inside the structure I've built for turtle people or blood magic, because I constructed it without those, and it would be disruptive to other elements to introduce them now."

Though equally there is a point where people can go "This is a legacy creature that has stats in every edition, why are you even playing Dungeons and Dragons if such a re-occurring Dungeons and Dragons creature can't exist in your setting?". Even orcs occasionally stumble into Dragonlance, if a setting is so hard set on things that Tortles, a legacy race who have been in the game longer than I've been alive, can't fit in a setting? Then, genuinely, I wonder why you've even put your setting in Dungeons and Dragons to begin with.

That's before I even get to blood magic which is a swords and sorcery staple

 

[Pedantic]

Though equally there is a point where people can go "This is a legacy creature that has stats in every edition, why are you even playing Dungeons and Dragons if such a re-occurring Dungeons and Dragons creature can't exist in your setting?". Even orcs occasionally stumble into Dragonlance, if a setting is so hard set on things that Tortles, a legacy race who have been in the game longer than I've been alive, can't fit in a setting? Then, genuinely, I wonder why you've even put your setting in Dungeons and Dragons to begin with.

That's before I even get to blood magic which is a swords and sorcery staple

Well now you're into the toolbox vs. self-contained genre option. Personally, I would much prefer a game that is internally consistent enough to support a singular rules derived setting (or set of setting norms). Changes to that setting would then prompt rules changes, perhaps guided by some sort of GM or DM targeted guidebook.

That is not the reality of the game in the wild though, where material that exists isn't complete or coherent, and it's thus treated as a toolbox to be modded and matched much more loosely.

 

[tetrasodium]

Though equally there is a point where people can go "This is a legacy creature that has stats in every edition, why are you even playing Dungeons and Dragons if such a re-occurring Dungeons and Dragons creature can't exist in your setting?". Even orcs occasionally stumble into Dragonlance, if a setting is so hard set on things that Tortles, a legacy race who have been in the game longer than I've been alive, can't fit in a setting? Then, genuinely, I wonder why you've even put your setting in Dungeons and Dragons to begin with.

That's before I even get to blood magic which is a swords and sorcery staple

It falls upon the player to figure out how to fit the setting not the gm how to build a gordian knot around 3-5pc backstories generated in isolation. I once had a player tell me that I should rewrite eberron's history surrounding the giant empire being caught magic/uplifted by dragons and everything with the dhakaani empire along with the extraplanar invasions that caused their respective collapses and the orc druids trained by Vvaraak because he wanted to use a backstory started in someone else's 4e game that involved a romance between his aasimar and THE LADY OF PAIN FROM SIGIL. because it got in the way of something about celestials that were somehow involved having previously uplifted humans to help protect humans from the monstrous races. All of that was the result of me saying "no eberron deities are very different from most settings [details]. I'm ok with letting you play an aasimar if we say it is the result of you having an a errant mark [lore description].


This happened around STK well before rising came out. I wish I was making that up or remembered more details but was so horrified and frankly incensed when he brought up "what about yes and, I'm trying to work with you here and you aren't even trying". Restrictive setting rules like the old darksun and ravenloft books included pages on help to ensure that happens smoothly

Edit::I'm pretty sure this player was old enough to buy alcohol for at least a couple years

 

[Mecheon]

Well now you're into the toolbox vs. self-contained genre option. Personally, I would much prefer a game that is internally consistent enough to support a singular rules derived setting (or set of setting norms). Changes to that setting would then prompt rules changes, perhaps guided by some sort of GM or DM targeted guidebook.

That is not the reality of the game in the wild though, where material that exists isn't complete or coherent, and it's thus treated as a toolbox to be modded and matched much more loosely.

It does get into the vibe though that D&D is its own setting. D&D isn't a generic fantasy toolbox, its a Dungeons and Dragons toolbox, and has a set of its own tropes and expectations that come with it. One of those D&D Things is just, a bunch of random races running around. That's going to be a player expectation

It falls upon the player to figure out how to fit the setting not the gm how to build a gordian knot around 3-5pc backstories generated in isolation. I once had a player tell me that I should rewrite eberron's history surrounding the giant empire being caught magic/uplifted by dragons and everything with the dhakaani empire along with the extraplanar invasions that caused their respective collapses and the orc druids trained by Vvaraak because he wanted to use a backstory started in someone else's 4e game that involved a romance between his aasimar and THE LADY OF PAIN FROM SIGIL. because it got in the way of something about celestials that were somehow involved having previously uplifted humans to help protect humans from the monstrous races. All of that was the result of me saying "no eberron deities are very different from most settings [details]. I'm ok with letting you play an aasimar if we say it is the result of you having an a errant mark [lore description].


This happened around STK well before rising came out. I wish I was making that up or remembered more details but was so horrified and frankly incensed when he brought up "what about yes and, I'm trying to work with you here and you aren't even trying". Restrictive setting rules like the old darksun and ravenloft books included pages on help to ensure that happens smoothly

Edit::I'm pretty sure this player was old enough to buy alcohol for at least a couple years

A character going wildly off the rails is a little different to "Hey you know this race that's existed since 1986 and is just, a turtle guy who can fit in anywhere given the general D&D existence of wilder things than turtle guys? I want to play one". In a setting with lizardmen, rust monsters, illithid, and the giant dragons, "Yeah there's just some turtle people around" shouldn't be a wild ask

Dark Sun wasn't as restrictive as people said it was and blatantly had expies of the things it said it was removing, to say nothing of stuff like kenku and yuan-ti being setting standard, and Ravenloft was just a hot mess of a setting where they had to go "Oh, we want to keep the horror theme so uh. You hear of a brain in a jar, the most 50s sci-fi thing ever, take a fear check at the ~~horrors~~" in the hope the DM could do something with that, because boy the books couldn't write gothic horror to save their lives