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

[SableWyvern]

What I’ve found is that sessions are a lot more fun because, to a significant degree, the story is unfolding right at the table, taking turns I never anticipated. And that is entertaining for me!

This is pretty much always my aim, and occurs irrespective of how much curation I do. Again, I'm not here to say you should change what you're doing if it's working for you. I just find that having a big range of classes and races is on a completely separate axis to any rating of, "How much I'm liable to be surprised by what happens in play". An interesting PC is so much more than a race-class combination.

The most interesting thing that happened in the last session that I ran for my nieces and nephews is that they decided they should follow a demon boar (devil swine) into the depths of Stonehell, despite the lengths I went to to show that the creature was evil and not to be trusted. None of that has anything to do with their classes.

 

[Minigiant]

Going back to the Original Post.

Part of the issue I find is with the OP was the the belief that D&D always supported multiple styles of play. That it always was a toolbox.

Yeah it did. D&D always "supported multiple styles of play as as toolbox".

But it did so poorly.

D&D for the first 3 editions was heroic fantasy skeleton with a hodgepodge of sword and sorcery, high fantasy, epic fantasy, war gaming, and gritty fantasy bits and pieces in its classes, races, spells, traps, and other rules.

It relied on group using house rules to "fix it" to gear it to one genre.

What 4e and 5e did was say "75% of the game tropes are closest to Heroic Fantasy. Let's just write the game to that style in a stable manner. and have people house rule from something that is solid"

 

[Minigiant]

This is pretty much always my aim, and occurs irrespective of how much curation I do. Again, I'm not here to say you should change what you're doing if it's working for you. I just find that having a big range of classes and races is on a completely separate axis to any rating of, "How much I'm liable to be surprised by what happens in play". An interesting PC is so much more than a race-class combination.

The most interesting thing that happened in the last session that I ran for my nieces and nephews is that they decided they should follow a demon boar (devil swine) into the depths of Stonehell, despite the lengths I went to to show that the creature was evil and not to be trusted. None of that has anything to do with their classes.

But if they fight the demon boar, their side of the fight is 75-90% based on their class depending on level.

D&D is a class based game.

 

[SableWyvern]

But if they fight the demon boar, their side of the fight is 75-90% based on their class depending on level.

D&D is a class based game.

And, while magic missile is a first level spell, that has nothing whatsoever to do with my capacity to be surprised by what happens in play., so is equally irrelevant to the point I was making.

Also, their classes will be mostly irrelevant if it turns into a straight fight. They either flee or die.

 

[Clint_L]

This is pretty much always my aim, and occurs irrespective of how much curation I do. Again, I'm not here to say you should change what you're doing if it's working for you. I just find that having a big range of classes and races is on a completely separate axis to any rating of, "How much I'm liable to be surprised by what happens in play". An interesting PC is so much more than a race-class combination.

I often have players who come in with a very distinct character idea, that includes species and subclass that I'm not used to or hadn't considered for the setting. In the olden days, I would have been reluctant to accomodate them. These days, I ask myself, "why not?"

Usually my initial resistance is coming from my own preconceived ideas of what kind of story this should be. The more I let go of my own desires, the more rewarding my games get, because I am experiencing newness. Letting a player run with their concept, species and all, turns out to make the games more fun for me. And I want tp push back a bit on your claim that "an interesting PC is so much more than a race-class combination," because the extent to which that is true is a matter of perspective. I have had players who were very attached to a specific idea, and telling them, "Great, but do it with an elf rather than a lizardfolk" would kill it.

Edit: Again, speaking only for myself, but when I took a hard look at why I was inclined to say "no" to things it was often coming from a place of being controlling more than anything else. It was my world and, essentially, I didn't want to share. It was kind of about power.

 

[SableWyvern]

I often have players who come in with a very distinct character idea, that includes species and subclass that I'm not used to or hadn't considered for the setting. In the olden days, I would have been reluctant to accomodate them. These days, I ask myself, "why not?"

Usually my initial resistance is coming from my own preconceived ideas of what kind of story this should be. The more I let go of my own desires, the more rewarding my games get, because I am experiencing newness. Letting a player run with their concept, species and all, turns out to make the games more fun for me. And I want tp push back a bit on your claim that "an interesting PC is so much more than a race-class combination," because the extent to which that is true is a matter of perspective. I have had players who were very attached to a specific idea, and telling them, "Great, but do it with an elf rather than a lizardfolk" would kill it.

Edit: Again, speaking only for myself, but when I took a hard look at why I was inclined to say "no" to things it was often coming from a place of being controlling more than anything else. It was my world and, essentially, I didn't want to share. It was kind of about power.

It sounds like you're running pretty open settings in the first place and using common sense to allow concepts that fit. I don't think anyone is saying that is wrong (I'm certainly not), just that there are can also be reasons to curate. I would certainly suggest that it is pretty closed minded to assume that if a GM does say no, they are simply lacking in vision or on a power trip.

I'm definitely not saying you are saying this (you've been perfectly clear you're speaking about your own preferences and experiences), but there are certainly people in this thread essentially saying, "Curation is wrong, end of story."

I mean, I've been running games for a stable group for 25 years and I've only had a handful of years in the past 40-odd when I haven't been running games regularly -- yet, according to some posters in this thread I should be terrified that my approach is going to drive players away.

 

[Alzrius]

Dragonborn have not been around in playable form since 2E, what are you on about? Do you mean Draconians? They weren't playable until 3E!

I suspect it's a reference to half-dragons, which debuted as a PC race in 2E.

 

[GobHag]

I mean, I've been running games for a stable group for 25 years and I've only had a handful of years in the past 40-odd when I haven't been running games regularly -- yet, according to some posters in this thread I should be terrified that my approach is going to drive players away.

Ahh this is the difference between you and me, I don't have a stable group due to preference and not being in the western hemisphere I usually lurk in LFGs and the like.

 

[SableWyvern]

Ahh this is the difference between you and me, I don't have a stable group due to preference and not being in the western hemisphere I usually lurk in LFGs and the like.

I think a bigger difference is that if you joined a game pitched as an Arctic game, you would happily turn up with a character not suited to an Arctic game and tell the GM that's their problem, not yours; whereas if I agreed to join such a game I would arrive with a suitable character (otherwise, I would politely decline the invitation in the first place).

 

[Minigiant]

Again what is a character suited for an Arctic campaign anyway?