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

[Scribe]

Like I've said, it's principle. If you are removing my options without considering alternatives, how about I do the same for you? Let me ban a monster type from your game we will never encounter and has no place in your world? You ban Dragonborn, I'll ban beholders. You ban PC goblins? I ban monster goblinoids. Seems like it would be fair; you are giving me restrictions to narrow focus and enhance creativity, I want you to have to same focus.

But I'm probably going to hear how unfair it is for players to ruin a DMs world and limit his ability to run the game he wants, aren't I?

No, I'm not going to claim its unfair, but I am going to state thats not how this works.

That said.

"We are playing Dragonlance, there is no Orc option for players, as there are no Orcs, and there are no Halflings, there are Kender."

One less player option, one less monster option. Cool?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Like I've said, it's principle. If you are removing my options without considering alternatives, how about I do the same for you? Let me ban a monster type from your game we will never encounter and has no place in your world? You ban Dragonborn, I'll ban beholders. You ban PC goblins? I ban monster goblinoids. Seems like it would be fair; you are giving me restrictions to narrow focus and enhance creativity, I want you to have to same focus.

But I'm probably going to hear how unfair it is for players to ruin a DMs world and limit his ability to run the game he wants, aren't I?

Don't either opt-in to the premise or opt-out? Both as a player and a DM.

If a player dislikes they restrictions, they opt out. If a DM dislikes what the player wants, they opt out.

Why is a moral value being placed on an opt-in decision? The is nothing moral here. Who cares? If I propose a game with 4 classes and 6 races banned, and you don't like it, opt out. If you are a player and want to play a goblin and the DM doesn't allow goblins, opt-out. If you are a DM and there is a player who wants to play a race you don't like... opt out.

I don't see the argument here. It's like saying "I dont like how some DMs choose system X, so I should be able to force them to use some rules I want." No, you opt out of that game. Why are restrictions different? Why are we moralizing people's version of fun?

 

[Minigiant]

Again I don't think we're actually talking about the real situation that causes these arguments and are using a settings with moderate restrictions as a proxy where they don't belong.

Because for the most part most players come to the table with multiple characters in their head. Especially in DND since your character can die so you might have your second characters idea in your head.

In most situations if you ban a few species, the player has other character ideas that could match the setting still in their heads that they can play and enjoy

The issue is in these two specific situations

1) the player wants to play one specific archetype of a character with a specific class and species combination and refuses to entertain any other character and species substitutions for that character

Or

2) the DM has several restrictions on character creation and does not have many additions in which a player coming to the table with multiple characters in their head cannot fit any of those characters into the setting.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Like I've said, it's principle. If you are removing my options without considering alternatives, how about I do the same for you? Let me ban a monster type from your game we will never encounter and has no place in your world? You ban Dragonborn, I'll ban beholders. You ban PC goblins? I ban monster goblinoids. Seems like it would be fair; you are giving me restrictions to narrow focus and enhance creativity, I want you to have to same focus.

But I'm probably going to hear how unfair it is for players to ruin a DMs world and limit his ability to run the game he wants, aren't I?

Wouldn't a DM who wants to run a narrowly-focused campaign be more than happy to accommodate players who want to run an even more narrowly-focused campaign?

DM: "I want to run a Conan-esque game where everyone's human."
Player: "If I have to play a human, then you can't use any creature type other than Humanoid."
DM: "Cool. So a Conan-eque game where everyone's human it is."

 

[Remathilis]

I don't see the argument here. It's like saying "I dont like how some DMs choose system X, so I should be able to force them to use some rules I want." No, you opt out of that game. Why are restrictions different? Why are we moralizing people's version of fun?

I find it hilarious that that's all I've ever argued and people keep insisting I'm forcing DMs to bend to my whims. Are DMs such snowflakes that they cannot stand the idea a player can have standards the DM cannot meet? I'm actually convinced DMs are so used to kicking players out of their games they cannot comprehend a player saying "no, I don't think your carefully crafted vision is a match for me, or even all that carefully crafted."

We have no problem criticizing the latest WotC book as being "lazy" or "creatively lackluster" or "not worth my time" but if a player says the same about a DM's creative endeavour? Scandal! How dare you criticize that poor DM! You're just an entitled player! You should just shut up and enjoy whatever the DM puts in front of you!

So how about this: if your campaign has less options than I want to play with, I'll just compare your campaign akin to "Spelljammer: Adventure's in Space", there might be some interesting ideas in there, but its too thin and lackluster to be worth my time. Some people will enjoy it, but its not for me. I don't have to praise your vision anymore than I have to buy every WotC book that comes down the pipe.

A radical idea, I know.

 

[Remathilis]

Wouldn't a DM who wants to run a narrowly-focused campaign be more than happy to accommodate players who want to run an even more narrowly-focused campaign?

DM: "I want to run a Conan-esque game where everyone's human."
Player: "If I have to play a human, then you can't use any creature type other than Humanoid."
DM: "Cool. So a Conan-eque game where everyone's human it is."

Player: Cool. No beasts, no undead, no demons, no aberrations.
DM: Whoa whoa whoa: you can't expect me to not have cultists summoning monsters or having attacks from dinosaurs!
Players: Consider it "flexing your creative muscles you wouldn't otherwise consider"

 

[GobHag]

Wouldn't a DM who wants to run a narrowly-focused campaign be more than happy to accommodate players who want to run an even more narrowly-focused campaign?

DM: "I want to run a Conan-esque game where everyone's human."
Player: "If I have to play a human, then you can't use any creature type other than Humanoid."
DM: "Cool. So a Conan-eque game where everyone's human it is."

COnan-esque game but no one is human and based on Japanese myth.

 

[Scribe]

You should just shut up and enjoy whatever the DM puts in front of you!

lol no. You should just walk if you don't like the options. It's not complicated.

 

[Alzrius]

Like I've said, it's principle. If you are removing my options without considering alternatives, how about I do the same for you? Let me ban a monster type from your game we will never encounter and has no place in your world?

The DM is already doing that, though. If they say no dragonborn, then they're also saying that they won't be using any dragonborn NPCs. So your tit-for-tat is already satisfied.

 

[Remathilis]

lol no. You should just walk if you don't like the options. It's not complicated.

Yeah I know, but you keep trying to convince me that your carefully created vision is Good Actually even though I've said its too limited for me to have fun in. I keep saying no thanks and you keep telling me I'm wrong for saying it!