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

[Sorinth]

Hah, "says who" good point!

Me, the DM, I guess.

I would just point out how the world and all the species were factually created really doesn't matter much if at all. How different cultures "think" the world was created might matter but whether it's actually true or not is basically irrelevant to how much it matters for the PCs since they are at best dealing with the beliefs regardless of the facts.

 

[AlViking]

And I might take other people with me to find a different game. Folks talk. If I'm not playing, other people who considered your game might walk as well because they wanted to play with me specifically. Or because I find another game they'd be interested in playing. To say nothing if some players are married or in a relationship, you annoy one of them you can basically count both of them out.

"Because I want to play the turtle guy" is really all the explanation you need. They're not overpowered, they're not breaking the game, the D&D community by and large considers them completely fine. So, yeah, your answers with detailed explanations that come down to "I don't want to fit them into my sandbox" is pretty worthless as it implies certain things about said sandbox and world

The world and adventures exist to serve the players and be played in. If they can't serve the player's purpose, then it doesn't matter how much time you spent building the world. An unplayed world is pointless. Like it or not, its a two way compromise. No matter how often you tell your players you really want to host that humans only dark fantasy setting set in the real world, if they do not care about it, you're not running that campaign without players.


Look, if tortle are on the chopping block, it doesn't exactly speak good things for other ones. And this is hardly a weird sauce at all. Barbecue sauce is a classic. Tortles have been around and in the game since X9


They're the perfect example for this because they're inoffensive and uncommon enough

I do not now, nor have I ever had a shortage of players nor have I ever had issues retaining players for years on end. If I'm not the DM for you so be it. Good luck and I wish you well on your gaming journey.

 

[Scribe]

And I might take other people with me to find a different game. Folks talk. If I'm not playing, other people who considered your game might walk as well because they wanted to play with me specifically. Or because I find another game they'd be interested in playing. To say nothing if some players are married or in a relationship, you annoy one of them you can basically count both of them out.

"Let me do what I want, or I sabotage the whole group."

 

[mamba]

The world and adventures exist to serve the players and be played in. If they can't serve the player's purpose, then it doesn't matter how much time you spent building the world.

and one of those players is the DM, they do not just exist as a servant to the ones having characters in the campaign.

If adding something to the world negatively affects / ruins the enjoyment for the DM, then adding that thing would be detrimental to the game overall.

If I do not enjoy running a game, then chances are no one will enjoy it all that much, not because I try to sabotage it but simply because I do not put as much effort in as I otherwise would (if I were to actually run it at all at that point). That is no different from you potentially not enjoying the game because you cannot be a turtle person or might not join it at all as a consequence.

So yeah, either you find a compromise with the DM, or there is no game you are in. It’s not like you can force the DM to cater to your wishes while ignoring their own just to accommodate you

 

[HatWearingFool]

I’m not sure why I’m still reading this thread at this point… maybe it’s the humour of my last big reading thread topic was about how easy it is to DM

Happy New Years everybody!

I sincerely hope everyone gets the games they yearn for in the new year.

 

[Scribe]

The world and adventures exist to serve the players and be played in. If they can't serve the player's purpose, then it doesn't matter how much time you spent building the world. An unplayed world is pointless. Like it or not, its a two way compromise.

This is categorically false, but I'm going to bow out now before I get into trouble.

Happy New Years!

 

[SableWyvern]

"Let me do what I want, or I sabotage the whole group."

 

[Remathilis]

Sure. You can turn up to the session with your tortle, and everyone at the table can ignore your character and play on as if they're not there, only interacting with the non-tortle elements of the world.

So you'd be a jerk about it. And then you have the audacity to tone police me?

It's more like you bringing gangster rap to my party and insisting on playing it loudly so everyone can hear.

I'm sorry a tortle killed your family.

 

[Remathilis]

Okay. And you can't work them in? Why not? @Remathilis gave multiple ideas of working in a turtle-race or a unique individual turtle person.

Sure, there are campaign themes where none of that would work . . . but very narrow campaign themes. But if you can find the players for your very specific and narrow campaign setting, that's great and everybody will likely have fun. But @Remathilis will probably not be interested in your game. Neither would I. Are you okay with that?

It's not so much, "Gosh darn, I was dead-set on playing a turtle-person!" but rather, "Wow, this DM is really restrictive and prioritizes his worldbuilding over collaboration with players, and that's not a game I think I would be interested in." It's a red flag . . . not that you are a bad DM, but that your DMing style doesn't match what I'm looking for in a game.

SO MUCH THIS.

 

[SableWyvern]

So you'd be a jerk about it. And then you have the audacity to tone police me?

No, I was suggesting that, for the purposes of the analogy I was responding to, ignoring the caviar is the same as ignoring the player.

As you've noticed, that isn't actually a productive or mature behaviour to display in real life. Hence my underlying point that the analogy, as presented, didn't work.

In case there is any doubt, I do not actually endorse inviting a player to a game and then having everyone ignore them.