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

[AlViking]

Hooboy. I think I'm about done for this thread.


Bingo. Which is why I am a big-bad grognard meanie and don't allow evil PCs in my world.



Bingo. And if you have mature, capable, intelligent players (and by gum, reading this thread, I realize I'm privileged to have fourof them), they will recognize that.



This entire flustercluck of a thread has demonstrated to me that yes, today's players want videogamey "I wanna be a dragonborn princess and start at level 1 with a +5 vorpal sword" stuff that frankly, doesn't work for me. Maybe it works for someone else. Whatever brings you the endorphins and dopamine.



It was 1_ "if you play a tabaxi in a world where sentient felines are feared, loathed and treated as evil beings, your tabaxi is likely to end up being lynched," and instead of accepting the argument,
2) We had the "B...bit then the PCs will burn the village down" which tells me that I'm kinda not going to get much further with that poster. In fact, that kind of attitude is exactly why session zero became a thing.

I wouldn't assume the vocal minority on this forum speak for anyone but the vocal minority.

I have absolutely no idea what percentage of people have what preferences. All I know is that I have players young and old that enjoy my games. That's good enough for me.

 

[tetrasodium]

Man, I wish I had the time to waste designing a setting that doesn't even have players yet.

That goes both ways. I shudder at the thought of playing in a campaign where action has do little consequence or concern that the gm doesn't even bother to consider tracking the impacts of play on it.

Maybe it's a symptom of a willingness to toss out anything previously established to be replaced by any spur of the moment throwaway idea supplied by a player during character creation?

 

[soviet]

Thats the hypothetical. You put out a message that you are looking to run a game, and prospective players indicate their interest.

If they are ready to play within the framework provided? Great. If they are not, then thanks but no thanks rando, get on board or find another game.

I only play with friends. My assumption is therefore that any player input comes from a place of being engaged in the premise and that their request to play a [whatever] is because they have a cool idea and think it can work.

 

[TwoSix]

You will have even less time when you become an elected official.

But, actually, it's easy. You just write out a list of all the things you don't want, including 'player input'.

Makes sense. I mean, why rewrite the Constitution when I can just say "L'etat, c'est moi!"

Same principle can definitely apply to my DMing.

 

[Scott Christian]

But thats a false statement.

Not to @TwoSix .

Yes. You should be accomodating the player. Your world-building interests are of lesser priority. I've said that like three times already.

You see, at his table, world building is of lesser importance. He just can't understand (or refuses to acknowledge) that at some tables, it is actually of greater importance, because it is the glue that holds the story together.

To each their own. You will never convince him, and at this point, I assume he is just trolling.

 

[TwoSix]

That goes both ways. I shudder at the thought of playing in a campaign where action has do little consequence or concern that the gm doesn't even bother to consider tracking the impacts of play on it.

Maybe it's a symptom of a willingness to toss out anything previously established to be replaced by any spur of the moment throwaway idea supplied by a player during character creation?

Man, you really have no idea how to run a game with minimal prep, do you? It's amazing how you simply assume that everything is random and unconnected.

 

[Belen]

Having better ideas doesn't make me better than you, not in some "how do we value other people" calculation. It just means I have better ideas.

Well, I appreciate you proving my point.

It makes sense for some D&D campaigns to go the cosmo route. I have run them.

I have also run points of light style games that needed more curation.

I have run thematic games where the world has been cut off from the planes.

I am not going to run the exact same paint-by-numbers campaign for life because someone decides that D&D can only be one style of game.

Your ideas are fine but no better than any other ideas or preferences about the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is working out a mutually-acceptable compromise always "the DM's fun hav[ing] to take a back seat"?

You are creating an us-vs-them situation by asking the question.

Because it's true. The DM's world building for a lot of DMs is a large chunk of his enjoyment in running the game. Forcing/expecting that to take a back seat to the player is basically the player being a jerk. The DM's fun is taking the back seat.

If the DM creates a world that is missing a race or two and the first thing a player does is decide that he has to play one of those two races, that's a huge red flag that the player is massively self-centered and disruptive to game play. That player will likely do the same thing with rulings, the decisions of other players, and ultimately is likely to ruin the game for everyone.

And there are people here saying the player should fully capitulate. In fact, nearly everyone advocating for "hold[ing] true to the world building" as you put it.

See above. When the player is being intentionally disruptive before the game even starts by picking one of the races that were excluded by world building, it's very likely that he's a problem player. I've played the game for more than 40 years, through hundreds of players and dozens of DMs and I've seen only two reasons why a player would do something like that.

1) he forgot/didn't hear that the race was excluded which happened about 90% of the time. When reminded one of two things happened.
1a) he said he would make a new character. This was overwhelmingly the choice of players who made a mistake.
1b) he said he was sorry, but asked if there was any way an exception could be made as he had put time into the character and had been looking forward to playing it. In these situations if the DM could not or would not make an exception, or the compromise wasn't good enough, the player made a new PC and we all had fun.

2) the remaining 10% of the time the player intentionally decided to be disruptive from the get go and pick an excluded race. One of two things happened.
2a) If the DM made an exception, very often the player became disruptive in other ways as game play went on. On a few rare occasions the player did not become disruptive later.
2b) If he couldn't get the race he wanted, he pouted, sulked and/or made a stink about it. If the DM let him to the table with a different character, it never once went well.

 

[Umbran]

Earlier I linked to/embedded a recent video from Daddy rolled a 1 covering gameplay throughout the editions and the shift to video game mentality. At one point in the nearly 2 hr video...

I really don't care if "Daddy rolled a 1" made an argument in a tediously long video. While there are some sources whose opinion I may take more seriously than others, "Daddy rolled a 1" is not among them, as I don't think I've ever even heard of them before this thread.

So, really, forget the video.

 

[AlViking]

The hypothetical example only comes up because someone in your group wants to play a turtlechap. The assumption is therefore that they are known to you and already on board with your game's premise and lore etc, they just want to add something to it, and presumably (if they are as familiar with the lore as you say) they have an idea of how it could be explained. It's an assumption that the player is acting in good faith.

I agree that if random strangers approach you in the street and shout 'Tortleman?' you should keep walking.

If they are in my game and have accepted the premises they know there are no tortles. They can always ask and in the extremely rare cases that has happened sometimes we find a compromise, sometimes we don't.

About the only requests I've flat out said no to were a drow and an evil character. The person that wanted to play a drow just shrugged and played something else. The person who wanted an evil character that no one else at the table wanted left for greener pastures.