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

[AlViking]

Yes, and that's good

And that's good that players always get to decide species, or that the DM worked with the player to actually come up with a compromise?

 

[GobHag]

And that's good that players always get to decide species, or that the DM worked with the player to actually come up with a compromise?

The former of course. Do you think I'd respect someone that doesn't allow their player to wear a tophat or have natural green hair?

 

[tetrasodium]

They are also tiny when it comes to marketing and purchasing power.

Psst... while you are trying to dismiss everyone outside the 20-45 age range, I'm talking about a significant chunk of people who are 43-47. I know that it's common for people to say that it's been a long time since math class covered something but I'm sure that you can math out that overlap. It's roughly the same size as any 5 year group in both generations it bridges.

 

[GobHag]

Okay ... no tortles in my world but there are people that follow an animistic religion and identify turtles as their spirit guide. They have all the mannerisms, beliefs, culture and lore of tortles. Not only that, they've been granted the ability to wear holy turtle armor even if their class doesn't qualify. I give you ... Tortle Man!

View attachment 426251

That to me is compromise. If it's still not good enough then people don't want compromise, just admit you want to be the ones deciding what species are allowed.

Post 841

I'm not even against banning classes or races, just not if the reasoning is 'Wehweh I don't wanna see a green dude as a hero in my brain theater wehweh'. The class/race has a broken combo? It's unbalanced? It's features are too stressful for the GM to manage? It could cause Table Troubles because of it's mechanical premise(Friendly Fire as a baseline, trade-off debuff/buff that can be forced, etc, etc)? Sure, understandable. I'd be willing to talk and debate to self-nerf or choose another or something.

Just that I'll never consider 'setting coherence' as that big of a deal to ban something, like restricting the PCs to never have pompadours or being born with green hair. Ridiculous.

 

[Minigiant]

Psst... while you are trying to dismiss everyone outside the 20-45 age range, I'm talking about a significant chunk of people who are 43-47. I know that it's common for people to say that it's been a long time since math class covered something but I'm sure that you can math out that overlap. It's roughly the same size as any 5 year group in both generations it bridges.

Ration, do you think that wizards put that age range in?.

Because if they are slotted in as Gen X primarily because they're over 45, then they are a low amount of the player base for 5E.

 

[Remathilis]

Are you really so set in your ways that you can't just play a wise old druid who has a totem spirit turtle and has picked up many of the same mannerisms?

For me, I'm not playing a dwarf. I'm playing Kreko Kegshatter a dwarf who has shamed his family name because his mind was wandering when he should have been paying attention to the repairs to the rack holding the kegs causing it to collapse. He's now on a quest to not just reclaim his family's respect but also ... well that depends on the campaign because I'm not going to flesh it out further until a session 0. Even then the character is only really developed in play. Class, goals, personality? All of that matters more than species. Right now I'm playing an orc that was raised by dwarves and doesn't feel like he fits in anywhere. He also speaks with a "dwarven" accent unless he's raging. But I only finalized the character once I discussed it with the DM and the rest of the group.

Why can't Kreko Kegshatter be a human? Why can't your orc be a halfling who was raised by elves? Why can't all of those characters be represented by a human fighter?

 

[AlViking]

The former of course. Do you think I'd respect someone that doesn't allow their player to wear a tophat or have natural green hair?

If you can't accept the restrictions for my game then it's not for you. I don't really care because I have plenty of players. What I object to is people calling the player gets whatever they want hiding behind "compromise", that players are somehow entitled because they're gracing me with their presence when I do 90% of the work for the campaign, or that I'm somehow an evil controlling GM because I have a preference that doesn't match yours.

 

[Remathilis]

I don’t think you ever gave us a reason for why you want to play one, it just was ‘but I want to’. It’s not our fault that we have no idea about your motivation

Do I need to justify why I want to be a wizard instead of a fighter?. Do I need to justify why my character is an elf to play one? Because it interests me is sufficient enough motivation, unless you are going to force me to justify in writing why I made every decision on my character sheet, "because I want to" is motivation enough.

Gods, next your going to want an essay on why I chose druid...

 

[AlViking]

Why can't Kreko Kegshatter be a human? Why can't your orc be a halfling who was raised by elves? Why can't all of those characters be represented by a human fighter?

Those characters could have easily been any species. If we're discussing options in our session 0 and the group really needs a fighter and I like playing them then that works as well.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because they want to look like an anthro turtle too.

Sometimes the why is still critical so the gm & player can collaborate to make a PC fit the world. "Let me tell you about my fursona" is how the player who wanted to introduce nightmare fuel involving a romance between PC & the lady of pain came up as a proposal for a past game in a setting that might not even have actual gods like many other settings.