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

[Maxperson]

I'm glad we agree that banning tophats and green hair is ridiculous.

I don't know what that means. I skipped a lot of this thread because it's already very long and I recently discovered it.

 

[Belen]

It is one you created though. If the reason to play the tortle is the muses are guiding me and that is all I will play. Which is a limited but valid reason. Then the DM saying the muses are guiding me and there are no tortles in this setting is also limited but valid reason.

I have never seen a player or a DM take these type of stances, but the fiction works both ways.

Sure, but that is not the question I asked you.

I wouldn't. I hand the players the MM and say what do you want to play.

I didn't say that was fine and it has nothing to do with the question I asked.

I think I agree. I sure can't think of one.

I would say everyone loses personally.

I did post about the actual compromise from a world-building DM perspective is that the player who wants the option works with the DM to fit it into the setting.

 

[GobHag]

Tone, genre, and setting coherence aren’t minor knobs for a lot of DMs; they’re often a primary source of enjoyment in running a game. Saying “you have other levers” doesn’t really address whether it’s reasonable to ask the DM to give that one up by default.

So is it actually petty for a DM to defend something they value, or is it only being framed that way because it conflicts with player preference? If I DM, in large part, because I like the world-building aspect, am I just not welcome as a DM? Or inherently a bad DM? Is my enjoyment worth less?

Not welcome as mine

Oh genuinely no, I just won't care about the good qualities in regards to worldbuilding and verisimilitude. To help give an example--I think quantum ogres are fine as long as those Ogres are fun.

It is to me worth less yes.

 

[AlViking]

If "how can I make this work in a way that doesn't break your world" means the same to you as the player getting their way without compromising, then it sounds to me like your stance actually is that only the DM gets the final say and the player gets no say. I know you've stated that's not the case, but this very much reads like that is not true.

If I allow a tortle then I need to allow any other species someone wants to play. I don't want to do that but I am willing to give the person 99% of what they want.

This is about the roles the different people have in the game. As DM I make the final decisions about the world, the players control their characters. It's as simple as that.

 

[GobHag]

This is about the roles the different people have in the game. As DM I make the final decisions about the world, the players control their characters. It's as simple as that.

This is also my view, however, my interpretation is that control includes creating.

 

[soviet]

'There are no turtlemen in my setting whatsoever, and that's that' is quite a strong position to take IMO.

It rules out an entire possibility when most D&D worlds literally have dozens of sapient races and hundreds of magical beasts. It seems like a very specific thing to rule out when everything else is by default largely ruled in.

Not even one turtleman who planehopped here by accident? Or two turtlemen who were created by the experiments of a mad wizard? Or four turtlemen who live in a secret enclave in the city sewers?

I get it if the world is something like Middle earth or WFRP where the setting is more closely defined, but even then I would note that lots of people the Fellowship encountered seemed not to have heard of Hobbits before. Who really knows what other races might live here and there in small pockets in the far south or east of the setting?

 

[soviet]

No.

D&D remains a toolkit. If not, then it will loose market share. The fact that it can be used to run a variety of games and playstyles is its strength.

It has never been able to do this. People try to do it. Wizards (and TSR) market it like it can. But it can't.

 

[AlViking]

This is also my view, however, my interpretation is that control includes creating.

Creating what? Adding a brand new species to the world? Anything else like classes from some source I don't allow, guns, magic spells from a book I don't use?

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't. I hand the players the MM and say what do you want to play.

Dibs on playing a Solar.

 

[GobHag]

Creating what? Adding a brand new species to the world? Anything else like classes from some source I don't allow, guns, magic spells from a book I don't use?

I'm perfectly fine being a singular existence that has an inexplicable and unknowable origin. It is your desire for worldbuilding that makes this hard.