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

[AlViking]

thank you for proving @EzekielRaiden right...

Where have I said the DM is always right? Is the player always right? For that matter, who invests more in the campaign, DM or player? If the DM doesn't like the look or feel of a game how do you expect them to run an engaging game?

I'll go back to a question you haven't answered. If you want to play a tortle is there any "compromise" that doesn't end up with you playing a tortle?

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".

 

[Azzy]

OK. So, I'll take the burden of proof that 5e caters to videogamey overpowered munchkin builds.

YouTubers doing crap doesn't prove that 5e caters to anything. And, man would you have hated 3e and 2e's Skills & Powers.

 

[tetrasodium]

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".

That's a good question that I'd really like to see the "it's MY character, & it hay it may not fit the setting and that's not my problem to make it fit" crowd answer. Multiple posters have mentioned past games they played or ran where those types of changes were suggested. The closest attempt that I've seen to explaining the problem with that sort of question why this sort of compromise to fit the setting was endlessly introducing a different scenario where the player wants to play a tortle because of a stated reason like being smitten by a kung fu panda character as if a solution along the lines of "$ExistingRace but cursed by a hag to be half turtle" was somehow unthinkable in ways that wouldn't be able to meet the newly stated reason. The triviality of adapting like that to stated reasons makes the lack of answer even more of a glaring omission in a thread when the there have already been examples like "asimaar don't exist in this setting but you could say it or an ancestor was warped by a manifest zone and use the appearance/statblock though"

 

[dave2008]

Speaking of compromise ... if someone wants to play a tortle, why? The main benefit seems to be the 17 AC.

I think that is a huge assumption. I have never had a player pick a species for mechanical advantage (very difficult for them to even do that with how we do species now). The players I play with, as far as I know, have always picked a species because they want to roleplay being a creature of another species. It is about the feel and lore of the species, not the game mechanics.

 

[dave2008]

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

Yes, but IME, it was a much worse predictor of difficulty compared to 5e's CR.

 

[AlViking]

I think that is a huge assumption. I have never had a player pick a species for mechanical advantage (very difficult for them to even do that with how we do species now). The players I play with, as far as I know, have always picked a species because they want to roleplay being a creature of another species. It is about the feel and lore of the species, not the game mechanics.

Why does species limit how you role play the character? There is no lore for a tortle in my world because they don't exist. If you want to be affected by a hag in your past, we can do that in many, many ways.

 

[AlViking]

That's a good question that I'd really like to see the "it's MY character, & it hay it may not fit the setting and that's not my problem to make it fit" crowd answer. Multiple posters have mentioned past games they played or ran where those types of changes were suggested. The closest attempt that I've seen to explaining the problem with that sort of question why this sort of compromise to fit the setting was endlessly introducing a different scenario where the player wants to play a tortle because of a stated reason like being smitten by a kung fu panda character as if a solution along the lines of "$ExistingRace but cursed by a hag to be half turtle" was somehow unthinkable in ways that wouldn't be able to meet the newly stated reason. The triviality of adapting like that to stated reasons makes the lack of answer even more of a glaring omission in a thread when the there have already been examples like "asimaar don't exist in this setting but you could say it or an ancestor was warped by a manifest zone and use the appearance/statblock though"

If it was truly a one-off? I suppose it could be a magical accident. But why would it be? If I say "yes" to tortle even though they don't exist in my world, what justification could there be to no allow any species other players want to play? If I run NPCs reacting in a fashion I see as appropriate am I still the bad guy? Because they realistically should at least get all sorts of "What the **** are you?" questions.

Good or bad, a significant portion of the populace is going to be suspicious of someone significantly different from them or at least different from the norm. In a world where there really are things that go bump in the night I think it would be doubly so.

 

[saviirkad]

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.

I think this example highlights the disconnect between the "sides" here. It's not the only post to do so, just not interested in quote chaining them all. This is not a criticism of you, Belen, or the example you give here, as you are rightfully and simply expressing a lived experience.

But with regards to the broader conversation, the pushback from the "DM side" of things seems to center on wanting to counter problematic playstyles with an indiscriminate fix that burns the players who are not there to steal the spotlight or to pursue mechanics, they're just there to enjoy the game like everyone else.

This conversation ultimately just feels like looping around and around the perception of red flags in either the player or the DM corner, a conversation without resolution often because so many will force the other's response into being a bad faith interpretation.

From my perspective, the pushback from both sides often highlights real red flags within their own corners. When the positions become as intractable and universal as many of those shared here, those are huge red flags in my opinion. It's a 'my way or the highway' attitude, and whether it's from the DM or the player, it suggests continued problems down the line even if there's concession from the other. And I think a large reason for why it's being so often disregarded within one's own corner is that we can get so precious about what we do or create that we don't even realize when we've crossed the line.

Of course, by the nature of the internet and this being an online forum, I do acknowledge that just because the positions are often presented as intractable and universal doesn't mean that's true in actual practice.

 

[dave2008]

Why does species limit how you role play the character?

If you want to roleplay being a turtle person, then being a turtle person is a big part of that.

I am a forever DM, but growing up I had a huge reptile / dragon/ godzilla fetish. I owned, at one time or another:

• anoles
• chameleons
• basilisks
• iguanas
• skinks
• monitor lizards (savannah and nile)
• garter snakes
• rat snake
• corn snake
• king snake
• snapping turtle
• painted slider turtles
• caimans
• an alligator

I would definitely have wanted to play a reptile PC character.

 

[Minigiant]

And really... players pick specific races and classes outside of the DM's ban list for reasons.


A person might want to play an Eldritch Knight fighter because they think that the fighter class is very boring. So perhaps you might choose one of your custom. Fighter subclasses that has more interesting options.


A player might pick a red dragonborn because they want to be a wizard who throws fire out and does not want to take serious damage from fire spells dead. They are in the area of effect. So if you're setting allows tiflings, you might allow it to be an infernal

Or like the old days, a person might wanna play an orc because they want to play a strong fighter and want to boost their strength and they rolled a little bit too low. So you might let them reroll, or promise them that there is a strength boosting item end the campaign world.

Or somebody might want to play in half work. So they can play with the dynamic of being a discriminated character. So you might suggest that they can play as a discriminated species that you do allow.

For a person might want to play a warlock, so they can play as an in religious minority. And you might suggest that a cleric is available and suggest a minor diety that gets less respect that they can attempt to boost the standing of.

90% of the time, it's not that hard.

This typically only becomes a problem. When your setting is extremely narrow and for the most part d&ds rules does not really support narrow play. Nor does the community really like it..

This is why many of the third party RPG's is the first thing they do after they make their core books is make an option book that adds more stuff to it.