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

[Belen]

I am contemplating removing Orcs entirely from my settings moving forward. They have too much baggage. I already removed Drow for a similar reason.

I prefer Winter Elves in place of Drow.

I may switch to Hobgoblins or Gnolls. I like the idea of goblinoids though.

I, often, limit monster varieties because of the same reasons as species. There are too many for available resources.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Though I didn't see your post, I would argue that is a capitulation by the DM, not a compromise. The set up was simply:

1. The player will only play a tortle
2. The DM will not allow tortles

I can see no way to compromise those two stances.

 

[dave2008]

Dibs on playing a Solar.

Just be ready of some serious baddies coming your way!

 

[Mort]

That fine. I'm pretty sure your game would be too narrow and hemmed in for me anyway. I'd be a museum tourist allowed to look-but-don't-touch because anything that ruins your fun would get me booted.

I've found that initial restrictions (race, class, whatever) rarely actually have much to do with how much affect PCs have on the world going forward.

One of the worst campaigns I have ever had the misfortune of playing in - the DM allowed ANYTHING as playable, if a player wanted it, it was allowed in.

Great, right?

Unfortunately no, the PCs had absolutely no impact on the setting whatever. Nothing we did mattered at all, that's why the DM didn't care about what the PCs were.

 

[dave2008]

There's nothing in between those two extreme positions?

Of course there is, but that wasn't the question. The scenario was:

1. The player will only play a tortle
2. The DM will not allow tortles

I can see no way to compromise those two stances.

 

[tetrasodium]

But isnt this whole thread people saying "compromise" while restating their hard line? Be that a "worldbuilding project," or the "no restrictions" mantra?

It seems to me that only a few people like @EzekielRaiden have expressed a desire to actually compromise. Most just say, "My way must win."

Thsts not what is being said by the folks saying the player must adapt their PC to fit the setting or campaign though. Player implies that they found out about the game, chose to join the game, and are still choosing to play. If they choose to find a different gm because they are unwilling to adapt their PC in ways that fit it creates a scenario where they are no longer a player and it doesn't matter what they choose to get some other gm to allow unless that gm also tells them that the character they want to make doesn't fit for a player at their table.

That's such an obvious end to the whole question of why GMs aren't more willing to just fold to player desires that there's no reason to restate it over and over again.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But isnt this whole thread people saying "compromise" while restating their hard line? Be that a "worldbuilding project," or the "no restrictions" mantra?

It seems to me that only a few people like @EzekielRaiden have expressed a desire to actually compromise. Most just say, "My way must win."

It has not seemed to me that folks calling for compromise are actually saying "my way must win".

They are instead saying "you can't piss on my trouser and tell me it's raining."

Imagine a robber-baron "compromising" with someone he's stealing land from by saying he'll hire her, at a wage well above entry. From his position, he probably thinks that's a generous offer, he is after all agreeing to an employment contract. But from her perspective, this is a man trying to get her to be okay with him stealing her land, and buying her off with an above-minimum-wage job. That's not a compromise, even if one side thinks it is. If the robber baron has the power to unilaterally just make this happen, that doesn't suddenly make his proposal a compromise when it isn't.

An actual compromise would be the man agreeing to pay a fair price for the land, and her accepting that genuine offer, then they go their separate ways.

In a similar way, being told "well you can't play a dragonborn, but you can come from the Dragon Clan of barbarians and call yourself a 'dragonborn', but you'll be human" is not a compromise. And yes, that is a real example actually floated in a previous thread like this, from the pro-GM side. A "compromise" sincerely proposed, but clearly with the awareness that it would be rejected....something that was characterized as unreasonable, petulant demands from a player.

So yeah. There's a great deal of talk of compromise. I find most people on the "GM empowerment" side are very prone to proposing false compromise that barely even pays lip service to what the other side wants.

 

[dave2008]

I've found that initial restrictions (race, class, whatever) rarely actually have much to do with how much affect PCs have on the world going forward.

One of the worst campaigns I have ever had the misfortune of playing in - the DM allowed ANYTHING as playable, if a player wanted it, it was allowed in.

Great, right?

Unfortunately no, the PCs had absolutely no impact on the setting whatever. Nothing we did mattered at all, that's why the DM didn't care about what the PCs were.

Yep. When I handed my players the MM and said pick any sentient creature from the book I warned them that some creatures are generally considered threats to civilized peoples and you could at a min. face extreme prejudice and possibly serial violence.

 

[SableWyvern]

I am contemplating removing Orcs entirely from my settings moving forward. They have too much baggage. I already removed Drow for a similar reason.

I prefer Winter Elves in place of Drow.

I may switch to Hobgoblins or Gnolls. I like the idea of goblinoids though.

I, often, limit monster varieties because of the same reasons as species. There are too many for available resources.

I ran a game a while ago with the following PC races:

• Humans
• Hobgoblins
• Bogarts (roughly equivalent to a small D&D orc or large D&D goblin)
• Goblins (gremlin-like)
• Weird, solitary, alien-like elves.

There were basically no humanoid monsters in the region of the world where the game took place. This turned out to be quite a challenge for me, as there were wide expanses of wilderness, and I came to appreciate how easy it would have been to fill those areas with orcs or troglodytes or ogres or whatever. But, yeah, I will curate monster races for much the same reasons I curate PC races.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Its actually ironic, I don't have a tortle PC idea. I was using it because it was the original example. That said, I am DYING to play dhampir bloodmage (wizard with the blood wizardly from Taldorei Reborn) for a while now, but the curse of being a Forever DM means the character sits in my ideas folder. I would kill for a DM to let me use it, and I would absolutely use any possible means to get them played. But I would HATE the DM to tell me "Sorry. How about you play a human evoker and just wear goth clothes?"

If a DM invited you to play a dhampir bloodmage in a campaign where all PCs are asked to play dhampirs of human origin, would you participate in that campaign designed for formerly-human dhampir PCs? Or would you turn down that invitation to play a dhampir bloodmage because the DM isn't offering more species options?