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

[mamba]

I think the better way to approach the situation is to ask the other side "Whats important to you," and start from there. The answer will tell you if a true compromise is even possible.

that was tried a few times and the answer was ‘to play a tortle’, at which point there is no compromise possible and the player is out.

It probably didn’t help that no one insisting on playing a tortle did so because they actually wanted to play one but only did so for the sake of the argument

 

[Maxperson]

But folks arguing for a more collaborative approach have been very clear that playing a tortle, or dragonborn, or tiefling, are just examples. It's really about several things.

• Player agency and choice.
• A collaborative approach to DMing rather than a controlling approach.
• Prioritizing player fun over restrictive world building.

I'm all for trying to work out a compromise, but why does the DMs fun have to take a back seat?

If you are a restrictive world building DM who expects your players to cater to the setting you crafted, and you and your players are all on board and having a great time . . . keep on keeping on! But this is a DMing style that more and more of us are ready to leave in the past. I don't run my games that way, and I won't spend my time as a player in those types of games. Well, unless the DM is a good friend that I trust, then I'll just roll my eyes and play a human fighter . . . and continue to develop a more collaborative approach in my own games.

There's middle ground where the DM will try and work out a compromise(not capitulation), but still hold true to the world building. There are people here saying the DM should fully capitulate to anything the players wants to create for his PC.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet you are doing just that.

Player 1: I would like to play a tortle druid, a turtle-person species.

Player 2: Hmmm, I would like to play a human ranger WHO HATES TURTLES and has chosen them as their favored enemy,

Yeah, these two player concepts, totally on the same level. And totally something to worry about happening in your games.

I've seen that happen back when I was in junior high and high school, but I haven't seen that happen in a game with adults.

 

[Maxperson]

I kinda want to know how, if tortles are supposedly as rare and unknown as the DM says, the ranger specializing in Tortle hunting came from...

Turtle, not Tortle. Tortles just get caught up in it because they are also turtles.

"Player 2: Hmmm, I would like to play a human ranger WHO HATES TURTLES and has chosen them as their favored enemy,

 

[Dire Bare]

You don't seem to be using a lot of what the game has to offer so, genuinely, yeah, I reckon why you use D&D and not just some OSR system that'll only have your specifics

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be enjoying myself at @AlViking's table. But . . .

Throwing out all of the established norms, the "shared experience", of D&D in your homebrew world building . . . is about as classic, old-school D&D as you can get. It's cool to use the rules and setting elements you like and throw out what you don't.

But when you do veer hard from that shared experience, you're likely to run up against the issues we're arguing about in this thread, differing expectations from players who are expecting to be able to use the options in the official books.

If you communicate well with your players and they are all onboard . . . why not? If you wait until they ask to play a tortle and then sneer at them for being an "entitled player", well then, good luck with that.

Hey guys, I've been working on my own homebrew world I'd like to run a game in . . . but throw out your expectations because I don't use a lot of standard D&D tropes! Here's a brief synopsis I wrote up explaining some important things about my setting . . . .

 

[AlViking]

I disagree. I see the same false compromises on both sides.

In your example of the dragonborn. We have three options, "No, play something else," "I must play a dragonborn" or some compromise. This is really straight forward.

First we start with "play something else." That isn't a compromise as is. Neither is "I must be allowed to play a dragonborn." Both require complete capitulation. Same with "Let me play a tortle and this is how you can include them in your world," and "Play an approved race and Ill make the game fun." It's false compromises all the way down. All of these require copitulation.

Your example, "you can come from the Dragon Clan of barbarians and call yourself a 'dragonborn'" is a compromise. It is giving something, the word Dragonborn. It is a DM favored compromise, sure. But it is a compromise under the definition of the word. It's a compromise many players would take, in my experience.

Another compromise might be "you can have scales on your skin, but you'll be called human or elf." A third might be a lizard-man with dragonborn mechanics. Each of these are somewhere on the spectrum of compromises. Each has both sides giving something and getting something.

Looking back on this thread, I see none of these compromises, nothing close. Everything is either A or B. It's either "tortle" or "no tortle." No discussion as to how to give someone what they want from the tortle, while keeping the worldbuilding intact. Nope. No discussion that we should have the discussion at all, that talking is required. Nope. Nothing.

If people wanted to compromise, the answer to the question "Why do you want to play that?" wouldn't be "I just do, or I walk." And the answer to "Can I play a Tortle? Wouldnt be "No, its not on the approved race list, take a walk!" Both are simply demands of copitulation.

So no. All I see is a binary. A binary presented while screaming the word "compromise." A binary each side has now told me isn't a binary.

I think the better way to approach the situation is to ask the other side "Whats important to you," and start from there. The answer will tell you if a true compromise is even possible.

So what does compromise look like?

My attempt was fairly straightforward. Get the cultural feel and mannerisms of a tortle, the physical benefits of a tortle's shell. The character's species is still from the curated list but has the feel and characteristics of a tortle. People might think they're a bit odd. Heck, I think it's a bit odd and I'm going to have to put some thought into what it means and how to handle it. But there was no need for me to add a new species.

Now, I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but that's where conversations and compromises start. It doesn't start with "I must get everything I want 100%".

What else could a compromise look like if that's not it?

 

[SableWyvern]

• Prioritizing player fun over restrictive world building

I'm all for trying to work out a compromise, but why does the DMs fun have to take a back seat?

When I first read the line about prioritsing player fun, the question I asked myself is why start from the assumption that some level of restrictive world building is in opposition to player fun?

I can't imagine my players wanting me to stop running my varied, curated campaigns and replace them all with "play anything you want" games. That stuff is fun (for me, and for my players) occasionally, not all the time.

 

[TwoSix]

Not in a literal sense, but in a DMs are scarce, players are not, kind of sense. So if you want to play you acquiesce to a DM or you DM yourself.

The only exception is if you are part of a small group in a small town where players are also in short supply. Than as others have mentioned, things even out.

So yes. Fairness is kind of out the window here.

The debate I see only seems to be about the hypothetical implications of the culture, not the culture's existence. More whether its a problem, whether the DM should have that power, not whether they do. Any foray into online or public gaming makes their power pretty clear. I don't think you could reasonably make an argument they don't have it.

EDIT: for clarity

I mean, the real thing you can do is make sure to mention in online discussions that cosmopolitanism and inclusion of fantasy tropes should be the default in D&D and D&D-like games, and that the idea of defining settings via strict species curation is an outdated and moldy approach.

And you can make sure to take a similar approach in RL games that you play and DM.

 

[Belen]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be enjoying myself at @AlViking's table. But . . .

Throwing out all of the established norms, the "shared experience", of D&D in your homebrew world building . . . is about as classic, old-school D&D as you can get. It's cool to use the rules and setting elements you like and throw out what you don't.

But when you do veer hard from that shared experience, you're likely to run up against the issues we're arguing about in this thread, differing expectations from players who are expecting to be able to use the options in the official books.

If you communicate well with your players and they are all onboard . . . why not? If you wait until they ask to play a tortle and then sneer at them for being an "entitled player", well then, good luck with that.

Hey guys, I've been working on my own homebrew world I'd like to run a game in . . . but throw out your expectations because I don't use a lot of standard D&D tropes! Here's a brief synopsis I wrote up explaining some important things about my setting . . . .

Isn’t that what @AlViking does?

I know it is what I do. I always provide a synopsis with available options and extra things the players get.

 

[SableWyvern]

I mean, the real thing you can do is make sure to mention in online discussions that cosmopolitanism and inclusion of fantasy tropes should be the default in D&D and D&D-like games, and that the idea of defining settings via strict species curation is an outdated and moldy approach.

And you can make sure to take a similar approach in RL games that you play and DM.

I don't see any point in trying to define a "default", because there is literally no way to ensure people agree what it is. Or, while there may be some merit in making the attempt for purposes of passing the time in conversation on the topic, I don't see anything to be gained by trying to operate on the assumption any default will ever be accepted. It seems to me that, rather assuming people already know what your default is and agree with it, you're much more likely to avoid conflicts by just letting them know what sort of game you're running up front.

Speaking more generally, I already feel too many people try to talk other people out of doing their own thing, out of making the game their own. An atmosphere where there was an accepted default would only further inhibit creativity and provide ammunition to the people out there literally telling people they're doing it wrong if they don't do it according to some arbitrary, accepted norm (or 100% by the book). Note: I don't believe anyone in this thread is doing this, but it's definitely something that happens, and the people who do it would definitely use a perceived default as ammunition to try and talk new and excited players out of experimenting and having fun with the hobby.