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

[Scribe]

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

Frankly, thats not what you are saying.

The setting is what defines the options available. The players choose from the options available.

That, is how it goes.

Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

I mean, if you look at D&D Beyond or Baldur's Gate 3 stats, Humans & Elves (and Half-Elves) totally dominate play.

 

[Minigiant]

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).

So I as the player can force the DM to run a setting?

No.

The DM can't force a Player to play a character.
The Player can't force the DM to run a world.
Either side can walk.

The whole is is when a DM or Player is trying to narrow scopes to the point that they are forcing others to run things those others don't want but justifying it as normal.
That's wrong. From either side, it is wrong.

 

[SableWyvern]

So I as the player can force the DM to run a setting?

No.

The DM can't force a Player to play a character.
The Player can't force the DM to run a world.
Either side can walk.

The whole is is when a DM or Player is trying to narrow scopes to the point that they are forcing others to run things those others don't want but justifying it as normal.
That's wrong. From either side, it is wrong.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. As you yourself just pointed out, either side can walk.

If I'm only interested in running a Conan game with human-only PCs and very limited magic, while you insist that you want to play an elven arcane archer, then you will need to look elsewhere for your game and I'll need to look elsewhere for players. And that's OK. Neither side is wrong.

However, if I try and say, "you will play in my game, as a human," then I'm in the wrong and if you say, "I will join your game, but as an elf," then you are in the wrong.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And yet I've seen people on this very board badmouthing players who are only interested in playing what they want to play.

 

[Minigiant]

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. As you yourself just pointed out, either side can walk.

Agreed

If I'm only interested in running a Conan game with human-only PCs and very limited magic, while you insist that you want to play an elven arcane archer, then you will need to look elsewhere for your game and I'll need to look elsewhere for players. And that's OK. Neither side is wrong.

However, if I try and say, "you will play in my game, as a human," then I'm in the wrong and if you say, "I will join your game, but as an elf," then you are in the wrong.

No what I am saying is

The DM saying they are running a Conan game with human-only PCs and very limited magic and the only available options are human champion fighter, human thief rogue, and human berserker barbarians

is as close to the borderline as

The Player insisting that the DM let them run a Tortle Artificer and had Tortles and Artificers have a place in the setting.

At both points, you are nudging to the other side's turf. If not stepping on it. And the although the other side can leave, they are well within the realm of sanity to point out the proximity to the line.

 

[SableWyvern]

is as close to the borderline as

As close to what borderline?

At both points, you are nudging to the other side's turf. If not stepping on it. And the although the other side can leave, they are well within the realm of sanity to point out the proximity to the line.

No one inherently has any turf, beyond what's agreed on up front. If the group agrees to play a game where the group starts with group worldbuilding, then worldbuilding is everyone's turf. If it's decided the players do the worldbuilding without GM input, then it's the players' turf. If the group agrees to play pre-gens the GM has made, then character generation is the GM's turf.

Edit to add: If you aren't interested in a game where you're handed a random pre-gen, that's fine. If you find it important that you have as many options as possible in every game, that's fine. But you need to recognise that these are just preferences, not something that some pre-existing, hobby-wide social contract means every GM must adhere to the instant they suggest the possibility of running a game for you.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

I'm not the first person to point it out. That is NOT what you are saying but refusing to admit that some of the responsibility to make a character fit the setting/campaign themes tone and lore falls upon the players. Take your own example and look what happens when the player feels adapting to the setting is the abhorrent result of a massive gm overstep

I have a Space D&D game. The races and classes are limited.

There are no Dwarves.

Bob wants to play a gimli clone drapedcin every dwarven stereotype so heavily it oozes dwarf. He has a backstory all planned involving reclaiming his clan's lost subterranean city from the monsters who overtook it

If you wanted to play Dwarf because you like tough stout warriors, it has the Brown Dragoniods of Kalak 1-5

Maybe Bob picks this. His gimli clone has a beard speaks with a bad Scottish accent favors an axe and did he mention his clan's lost city this session yet?... If not.... Heck... either Way he's going to remind everybody he can every chance he gets no matter how often you need to stop the game to remind him of the dragonoid home world and culture. Why wouldn't he when 100% of the burden for making it work falls in the GM to the point nobody will even discuss players even having some share of that responsibility?

If you like being Scottish, where Planet Earth has Scotland and New Edinburgh is on Mars.

Oh no Bob very specifically envisioned his dwarf from Middle Earth and sins to reclaim the halls of moria. That's kinda important because he's going to keep downshifting earth and Mars technologically and culturally to match middle earth. Don't forget how important the balor nazghul and sauron are on earth.... Don't worry though, Bob picking this will be sure to remind you and voice outrage that he tried to work with you by picking earther/martian instead of dwarf and you aren't even trying to accommodate him.

If you like being Poison resistant, the Green Dragoniods are. And I'll let you RP being drunk.

Did Bob mention how many of his clan died trying to retake moria from the balrig while his shirt bearded axe wielding dragonoid was drunk this session yet?

Points is the DM should provide some options to replace the ones removed. Either as direct analogs or entirely new replacement entries.

Options are irrelivant if the player completely dismissed them and refuses to adapt their concept beyond writing something else on the sheet in place of your hypothetical dwarf example where the sheet says race/species. The player needs to share the burden of making it work and it's almost scandalous to even admit that might be an important detail worthy of discussion

But if you remove a lot, it's up to you to sell the setting. If a player can't find something interesting in your setting, one of you are messing up.

It's up to the player to adapt their original concept to what is available and ensure the result fits the setting being used for the game they agreed to join.

 

[Minigiant]

As close to what borderline?

No one inherently has any turf, beyond what's agreed on up front. If the group agrees to play a game where the group starts with group worldbuilding, then worldbuilding is everyone's turf. If it's decided the players do the worldbuilding without GM input, then it's the players' turf. If the group agrees to play pre-gens the GM has made, then character generation is the GM's turf.

The group has to agree.
You can be interested or like whatever you want. But if the group doesn't agree to it, you can't do it with that group.

An issue is many people don't make these formal agreements openly in their groups. Sometimes they agree to sit down, default to defaults, then arguments and hurt feelings occur because someone does not follow a default assumption.

I'm not the first person to point it out. That is NOT what you are saying but refusing to admit that some of the responsibility to make a character fit the setting/campaign themes tone and lore falls upon the players. Take your own example and look what happens when the player feels adapting to the setting is the abhorrent result of a massive gm overstep

The player should make a PC that fits the setting. Most settings aren't that narrow that a player can't make an appropriate PC they'd enjoy playing.

But some settings are narrow enough that a player can't make a PC they'd want to play.
And they can walk.
And you as the DM can't be mad about it.

And a DM is not forced to make an exception for a player's specific PC. The DM can ban a class or race or feat. Play your 2nd or 3rd choice.

The issue is DMs who narrow their setting down to a few choices or Players demanding a single PC concept and getting mad because the other side walks.

Stand on your preferences proudly or Come with options.
But coming with narrow mentality and being offended when people dip out is some junk.

Maybe Bob picks this. His gimli clone has a beard speaks with a bad Scottish accent favors an axe and did he mention his clan's lost city this session yet?... If not.... Heck... either Way he's going to remind everybody he can every chance he gets no matter how often you need to stop the game to remind him of the dragonoid home world and culture. Why wouldn't he when 100% of the burden for making it work falls in the GM to the point nobody will even discuss players even having some share of that responsibility?

Aint no lost city.

Oh no Bob very specifically envisioned his dwarf from Middle Earth and sins to reclaim the halls of moria. That's kinda important because he's going to keep downshifting earth and Mars technologically and culturally to match middle earth. Don't forget how important the balor nazghul and sauron are on earth.... Don't worry though, Bob picking this will be sure to remind you and voice outrage that he tried to work with you by picking earther/martian instead of dwarf and you aren't even trying to accommodate him.

Bob is asking for too much.

The DM can't force a PC on a player nor a Player force a setting on the DM.

 

[Minigiant]

Edit to add: If you aren't interested in a game where you're handed a random pre-gen, that's fine. If you find it important that you have as many options as possible in every game, that's fine. But you need to recognise that these are just preferences, not something that some pre-existing, hobby-wide social contract means every GM must adhere to the instant they suggest the possibility of running a game for you.

The social contract is that you can't force work on someone that they don't want to do.

It's not the DM handing a pregen. The player accepts a pregen.
It's not the Player forcing a race in the world. The DM is allowing a race in their world.