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

[AlViking]

And yet we've had multiple instances of DMs saying they'd tell players to hit the bricks if the players don't agree to everything the DM wants. The example of the player asking to play a tortle and getting shot down by the DM always ends in the DM's will be done and the player either acquiescing or leaving. Why not "Sure, you're a mad wizard's experiment" or "you're tribe comes from the deep southern shores and has had limited contact with other species" or "I don't have tortles, but maybe we can do something with lizardfolk which scratches a similar itch?"

A good manager knows how to win. A Great Manager knows when to lose.

Compromise always seems to mean the player gets to do what they want and the DM needs to stuff it. If I allow a tortle, do I also need to allow tabaxi, bugbears, centaurs, genasi, harengon and plasmoids? What about leonins, shifters, loxodons and grungs? After all I don't want to leave anyone out. Meanwhile I play in FR games where anything and everything is allowed and the main reason people pick a different species seems to be because of some perceived mechanical benefit.

When I invite people to my game I let them know what the restrictions are. I've also spent untold hundreds or even thousands of hours over the years thinking about my world, planning adventures, creating histories. It's not a work of art, it's far from perfect, but like most DMs I've put far more work into it than a player will ever put into coming up with something that will fit the themes and lore I've established. Want to come up with something different? Cool, we'll discuss it. You just won't get carte blanche and I reserve veto rights.

 

[Umbran]

Mod note:

Hey, @Scribe and @Remathilis
I just gave red text to three other posters in this thread. That you figure continued snark is going to serve you well does not speak well for you at this moment.

This thread has generated a half-dozen reports in the past 24 hours, which is too many. You people are getting snippy. Please don't be comfortable assuming continued patience and warnings, as the next step is probably folks getting threadbanned until things calm down.

I mean, unless you want to be threadbanned....

 

[AlViking]

Speaking of compromise ... if someone wants to play a tortle, why? The main benefit seems to be the 17 AC. So what if instead you play a dwarf that has training in clan armor that you inherited. For whatever reason you will never wear any other armor and it cannot be upgraded. It gives you an AC 17 but you lose other benefits dwarves normally get like their +1 to HP and their dwarven resistance to poison.

I'm willing to discuss that kind of compromise. I've even allowed other species here and there where it had in-world justification more than just "someone from far away".

 

[Belen]

CR is not perfect, but it is a better measure of relative monster strength than not having anything at all (other than the stats themselves).

The one issue is the ‘formula’ that says what CR is challenging for a party of a certain level, that needed tweaking / underestimated what a higher level party can actually handle

You had Hit Dice back in the day. I remember using it in 2e.

 

[Belen]

And yet we've had multiple instances of DMs saying they'd tell players to hit the bricks if the players don't agree to everything the DM wants. The example of the player asking to play a tortle and getting shot down by the DM always ends in the DM's will be done and the player either acquiescing or leaving. Why not "Sure, you're a mad wizard's experiment" or "you're tribe comes from the deep southern shores and has had limited contact with other species" or "I don't have tortles, but maybe we can do something with lizardfolk which scratches a similar itch?"

A good manager knows how to win. A Great Manager knows when to lose.

I think most people are nuanced about it and make exceptions if the player is willing to compromise on backstory or do the work to fit it into the game.

I have seen players who were not willing to do either. This is why I talk to new potential players before I bring them to the group. If I do not vibe with someone and they want different things, then we go our separate ways. I started taking new players to lunch about 13 years ago after my son for born and just finding out if we mesh. Before I started doing this, I encountered some folks that made me very uncomfortable and if someone is going to know where I live, then I want it to feel safe for my family.

 

[billd91]

Speaking of compromise ... if someone wants to play a tortle, why? The main benefit seems to be the 17 AC. So what if instead you play a dwarf that has training in clan armor that you inherited. For whatever reason you will never wear any other armor and it cannot be upgraded. It gives you an AC 17 but you lose other benefits dwarves normally get like their +1 to HP and their dwarven resistance to poison.

I'm willing to discuss that kind of compromise. I've even allowed other species here and there where it had in-world justification more than just "someone from far away".

Maybe because they were inspired by Master Oogway in Kung Fu Panda? It’s not a DM’s job to second guess why someone wants to play a character even if there are some reasons a DM wants to curate some options for the game they’re proposing to run.

 

[Bae'zel]

Fascinating: outside of the established, pre-defined fantasy kitchen settings, I always looked at D&D as a toolkit to “build up” your own settings, not as “shoehorn all of these options into your setting, no matter what”. Is a DM really considered a power hungry, narrow minded snowflake if their homebrewed setting doesn’t have orcs as a playable species? That’s hyperbolic but it seems to be the explicit opinion by some here.

This thread is like a microcosm of internet discussion. Everyone (including me) taking others’ statements in mostly bad faith and yelling past each other.

I’ve done the whole “collaborative world building, never say no to the players’ ideas” thing and it always ended up turning into the infamous Homer Simpson car. I had to give up all preplanning and just ended up improvising everything. That was fun for a session or two before I lost all interest or incentive to go on DMing it.

To each their own, but if the players tell me that they want to play a lore-adherent Witcher campaign using D&D, and someone still insists on being a Tortle, I’ll feel a tinge of annoyance. Yes this has happened to me (replace tortle with ninja cat furry).

 

[Remathilis]

Compromise always seems to mean the player gets to do what they want and the DM needs to stuff it. If I allow a tortle, do I also need to allow tabaxi, bugbears, centaurs, genasi, harengon and plasmoids? What about leonins, shifters, loxodons and grungs? After all I don't want to leave anyone out. Meanwhile I play in FR games where anything and everything is allowed and the main reason people pick a different species seems to be because of some perceived mechanical benefit.

thank you for proving @EzekielRaiden right...

Why are the only options:

• GM is always right
• The loudest jerk wins

Why? You have just pushed the exact thing I mentioned earlier. The players cannot be trusted. The GM must be trusted.

 

[Belen]

Maybe because they were inspired by Master Oogway in Kung Fu Panda? It’s not a DM’s job to second guess why someone wants to play a character even if there are some reasons a DM wants to curate some options for the game they’re proposing to run.

There is a point here though. I have seen multiple instances where someone chose a species only for mechanical benefits. My friend is playing an aasimar right now because of them. He does not care about any species as long as it helps him optimize and power game.

That said, he never complains if there are setting restrictions. He just chooses the most optimal species available.

It is a valid choice as that is the aspect of the game that this person enjoys. He always talks about the stories of the game years later so I know he appreciates it and pays attention but the guy loves to power game.

I do not mind compromise but it has to be two way.

Finally, someone made a point earlier in thread that special selections often make that character more prominent in the game. I have been thinking about it a lot and looking back at my own history and this is often the case. That character gets more screen time because they are outside the norm. For example, the Gnome Paladin of the Goddess of Love who's father owned Wocket's Rockets and whose holy vestments were diaphanous robes and who stopped anytime they saw an burrowing animal because they wanted to talk to it. Memorable character and made themselves the center of the game.

Then again, all my players will discuss there concepts with each other and often fit their backstories together so I just do not worry much about it. I have two wood elf and half-wood elf (werewolf) druid cousins in my game right now who constantly discuss elven family drama in game. (Yes, one of them played that darn Gnome!)

 

[TiQuinn]

outside of the established, pre-defined fantasy kitchen settings, I always looked at D&D as a toolkit to “build up” your own settings, not as “shoehorn all of these options into your setting, no matter what”. Is a DM really considered a power hungry, narrow minded snowflake if their homebrewed setting doesn’t have orcs as a playable species? That’s hyperbolic but it seems to be the explicit opinion by some here.

I think the problem is that some people seem to be really leaning into the power-hungry, narrow minded part as their reasoning for a hypothetical player asking to bring in a non-standard PC.

In practice, the times that I’ve played with a DM who has said “no species from these sources” gave much, much better reasons than evident amongst some of the posters here and didn’t play it off as a “my way or the highway” kind of thing.