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

[SableWyvern]

As long as the DM allows for enough options that the prayers are still the ones making the choices on character creation.

If in the DMs excitement they only allow for Human fighters, thieves, and a nerfed wizard... that is choose to breaking the D&D social contract. If not doing so.

There is no universal "D&D social contract" that anyone is beholden to. A social contract is formed by the people at the table actually playing the game, not the community at large.

If no one else at the table wants a "human fighters, thieves and nerfed wizard" game (coincidentally, this sounds a lot like Mongoose d20 Conan), then that game won't get off the ground. But it won't be due to a breach of contract, just differing preferences.

 

[SkidAce]

These days, it's principle. In my experience, it's never just one option cut, and it starts the spiral of ever increasing limits. So my take is that if your vision is so limited that you can't find a replacement in your setting for an option that doesn't work in you setting, chances are you are too limited for me to have fun in your game.

If you knew ahead of time, would you have played in my all human campaign, where the goal was to highlight the class and things you learned in character, as opposed to what you "were"?

It was planed for a year and lasted about 14 months, up to 10th level.

 

[SkidAce]

If I'm considering joining a table of folks I don't know very well, or at all, and the DM has a list of seemingly arbitrary restrictions . . . I'm with you, I won't even bother. Experience has taught me that DM's who love to "ban" player options are not a fun time.

However, at my table . . . my players and I rotate the DM's chair, and we talk about upcoming campaigns and any possible restrictions. And I trust my fellow players that if they are the DM, and want to restrict dragonborn in the next campaign, they have a good story reason. I trust, because we discuss it! We've really bought into the "new-school" idea of "session zero", and it's made a huge impact on our games.

Context is important. It's not all one way or the other.

This is the way.

 

[SkidAce]

Maybe I should have finished reading the thread before replying, was not intending on belaboring a point, is/was honest question.

 

[tetrasodium]

As long as the DM allows for enough options that the prayers are still the ones making the choices on character creation.

If in the DMs excitement they only allow for Human fighters, thieves, and a nerfed wizard... that is choose to breaking the D&D social contract. If not doing so.

I'm going to flatly state that you are being arbitrary to an unreasonable degree and explain how. Your post here and a few of the ChAnGe YoUr WoRlD tO fIT MY ChArEcTeR folks in this discussion consistently place 100% of the responsibility to make things work on the GM who seemingly needs to meet a bar set at "the next Tolkien" while the need for players to also collaborate and work with the GM is not even vaguely implied. That's a critical omission because 5e removed the headroom previously allotted that the gm could use as leverage in that collaboration.

There was a great post earlier with examples of players doing just that in someone's game, and I even commented on it at the time, but the focus immediately shifted to an absolute hard-line one where 100% of the responsibility in making a player's desired character work & work coherently falls to the GM times however many players are at the table

 

[Minigiant]

There is no universal "D&D social contract" that anyone is beholden to. A social contract is formed by the people at the table actually playing the game, not the community at large.

There is kinda

The DM chooses the setting they are running.
The Players choose the characters they are playing.

 

[GobHag]

If people can only enjoy a game if there plenty of options to pick from, that's certainly their prerogative. We like what we like, and that's entirely fair enough. I hope such people find games (and GMs) that have complementary preferences.

However, I don't understand why people then have to turn around and say that if a GM wants to run a game with tighter focus than their preference, that GM has limited vision. Or the fact that the GM has a clear idea what kind of game they want that differs from your personal preferences instantly means you should worry that the GM wants to railroad the players. Why not just accept that different people can like different things, without having to try and convince everyone that different preferences are signs of incompetence or classic bad GMing?

Heaven forbid a GM is all excited about the idea of running a humancentric, Conanesque game. What an instant red flag!!! If such a game isn't for you, maybe just don't play it?

Indeed. But I'd be upset if D&D the system was a humanocentric, Conanesque game

 

[Minigiant]

I'm going to flatly state that you are being arbitrary to an unreasonable degree and explain how. Your post here and a few of the ChAnGe YoUr WoRlD tO fIT MY ChArEcTeR folks in this discussion consistently place 100% of the responsibility to make things work on the GM who seemingly needs to meet a bar set at "the next Tolkien" while the need for players to also collaborate and work with the GM is not even vaguely implied. That's a critical omission because 5e removed the headroom previously allotted that the gm could use as leverage in that collaboration.

Nah.

All I am saying.
The DM chooses the setting they are running.
The Players choose the characters they are playing.

The DM shouldn't narrow the game down to the point where they are practically creating the PCs without the player's permission.
The Players shouldn't force an PC incompatible with the setting to the point where they are practically redesigning the setting without the DM's permission.

 

[SableWyvern]

There is kinda

No, there isn't.

There may be general expectations as to what's typically involved in a game of D&D. But there is no "contract" of any kind other than what is agreed between the participants. If there is a contract, there is an implication that parties are bound to honour it, but no one is bound to honour any agreement other than one made with the other participants at their table (with the possible exception of games played in public needing to honour any rules set by the location).

The DM chooses the setting they are running.
The Players choose the characters they are playing.

If someone offers to run a game with five pre-gen PCs allocated to players randomly, that's not a breach of contract. That's an offer of a contract, which you can accept or refuse, as you prefer.

Every game I run tends to be different in some way. Before each game, even with an existing group, my first and most important task is to ensure everyone is on the same page about what type of game it will be. This is the point where we are establishing the details of the social contract for this game.

We introduced a brand new player into the group this year. I was very clear with them that my games might not match what they've seen in actual plays or in the handful of 5e D&D sessions they have experienced previously. I carefully and clearly explained the social contract that exists within our group, because that is the only contract that matters at our table.

 

[Bae'zel]

So, here is the thing about this discourse that I find weird: in big literary Fantasy hits of recent years, they tend to be more restrictive than Tolkien was (the Stormlight Archives has RPG has two playable Species, the Mistborn RPG will have three, and Sanderson is hardly unusual in this). Outside of D&D stuff in particular, Fantasy tends to be just as Humanocentric as ever, with Tolkien being above par in terms multiple Species on hand.

I think it's something about our hobby. In popular fantasy and sci-fi media, it's mostly human-centric (or nearly so, with your typical elves, vulcans etc.).

There's a strong expectation in D&D, more so than Star Trek and Star Wars even, to have the most exotic humanoid options.

I'm guessing that mainstream "normies" want to consume media, even fantastical, sci fi or supernatural, about protagonists who look mostly human. But here in D&D land, DMs better watch themselves if they dare to ban dragonborn, kenku and tortles.