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

[Remathilis]

Yes, claiming a clear, upfront statement such as, "I want to run a human-only campaign" is a form of sneakiness suggests a definition of sneak I'm not familiar with.

That depends. Did you tell me that when you invited me or when I showed up at your game to play? If you told me "Remathilis, I am starting this new game that is going to be all humans and very GoT )or Conan)." I can say "yeah, that's not what I'm looking for" and no harm no foul. If you say "Hey Remathilis, join my new D&D 5e game." and I show up and you hand me a list of things you aren't allowing in game (no species but human, no full casters) then I will be rightly pissed for wasting my time and gas.

And yes, I've walked from games where the ban list didn't show up until I sat down to play.

 

[Minigiant]

This is a very weird, niche situation you’re proposing. Pretty sure this is all discussed at session zero/campaign setup and proposal. No one is somehow surprised all of a sudden at Dragonborn being erased off their character sheet. No DM is sneaking things in in regards to racial choices available. Now, if you’re making your dream character before you even discuss availability with the DM, that’s on you.

That's not what I'm proposing.

Here's what I am saying, with my cousin's friend group.

Larry want to DM. He proposed first idea to the group. Now Larry gets all into his head with his ideas. None of his friends want to play his setting due to the character creation restrictions. Good setting themes but from the outside looks boring as heck. 2nd attempt is rejected for similiar reason. Larry is demoralized. Whines that they dismiss his great ideas. I tell Larry to hire a writer if he wants to write a book, his setting seem lame to play without huge buy-in. They all eventually opt to run a published setting.

Then there is Mike. Mike is my cousin's good friend. I've DMed for Mike. Mike is a problem. He only wants to play weird stuff. Then play they poorly since he doesn't play attention (ugh). Mike often gets mad during Session Zero because he always comes with some predesigned mess that doesn't fit the setting. Ended up playing human fighter because the rest will D&D without him.

 

[SableWyvern]

That depends. Did you tell me that when you invited me or when I showed up at your game to play? If you told me "Remathilis, I am starting this new game that is going to be all humans and very GoT )or Conan)." I can say "yeah, that's not what I'm looking for" and no harm no foul. If you say "Hey Remathilis, join my new D&D 5e game." and I show up and you hand me a list of things you aren't allowing in game (no species but human, no full casters) then I will be rightly pissed for wasting my time and gas.

And yes, I've walked from games where the ban list didn't show up until I sat down to play.

I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that these sorts of things should be established clearly up front. In the case you mention, it's not the statement that's sneaky, it's the failure to make that statement. I have no idea why any GM would think it's a good idea to invite someone to their game without explaining what that game is about and I'm happy to state again that I think its a very poor way to go about things that is going to result in problems.

As I've also mentioned, this is not limited to race and class options and curation. Every effort should be made to ensure a prospective participant has the best possible understanding of what the planned game will be like in themes, style, rules, setting, etc before they are asked to commit to it. I maintain this expectation in my own, long established group, I would certainly expect the same courtesies and common sense to be extended to an entirely new player.

 

[Scribe]

I assume some rather uncharitable things

Yes. Thats been clear since the beginning.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes. Thats been clear since the beginning.

Life's too short to waste on D&D I won't enjoy.

 

[GobHag]

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

Setting coherence is something the DM cares, I myself am fine just being 'there' as a lizardman in the arctic.

 

[teitan]

A very surprising post by Keith Ammann of TMKWTD. I'm passingly familiar with the blog, I check it out every now and again and I've always been interested to see how Keith breaks down monsters and suggests how they'd work in a fight. This is surprising to me, at least, because in the 5e-sphere this blog and book series etc. are fairly well known, and this guy really is not jiving with 5e24.

The relevant part of the post starts after he's talked about the Colossus.

I apologize for the long quote, I considered picking it apart and just quoting the particular stuff but I think it's almost all important to the discussion.

He goes on to talk about how he's looked at 5e alternatives, other game systems, but isn't sure where to go next (I was tempted to leave a comment about A5E), but it seems like 5e24 is definitely not getting his attention going forward.

So he likes the monster power of MM25, but doesn't like how they executed it, giving guard captains 18 strength and the like. Actually, I've had this problem as well, in that in order to present a proper, believable challenge to PCs I've had to use unbelievable methods: upping NPCs and other creatures stats to levels that seem crazy in the context of the world, but they end up working satisfactorily on a mechanical level. This is largely how the MM25 operates.

Overall I have to say that his points all hit home for me, and I'm curious what y'all think... and, as per the questions he poses later on in the post, what direction you think he should take?

He summarized my exact feelings. Like I read 2024 and i want to like it but it’s a LOT like reading 4e to me. Like this is a great game but it is wildly different. Let’s say more like 3.0-3.5 really and how the game under 3.5 got really quirky and weird.

 

[Clint_L]

Wildly different from what? As I posted previously, my players didn't even notice that I switched from 2014 to 2024 rules, so they can't be that different. 99% of stuff is excatly the same, especially from a player-facing perspective.

 

[GobHag]

I would have been a big fan if it was wildly different yeah.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean if the base game lets you kill a mid-level character on a single roll, it lets the lackadaisical DMs and the killer DMs off the hook when they do it

Exactly. If death happens at the drop of a hat even when you're playing legitimately, it's that much harder to detect when it's done because a GM is behaving maliciously.

I don't think that kind of behavior can hide forever. But it's got MUCH better camouflage when it's hidden amongst rules that are, themselves, deeply capricious.