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

[Mecheon]

That said, there is one difference, at least for those arguing against the tortle on this forum - they can state why. They can give reasons why. So far, the player has not been able to give reasons other than, "I like the teenage mutant ninja turtles, and want to be like them."

What reason do you need beyond that? Its hardly the only one, I brought up earlier how 'old turtle guy' is a completely different vibe to 'old elf guy' for example, so, no, just because an elf can be impossibly ancient doesn't mean they'll be the same as an old turtle man

Plus I mean, we can do a take on the Tortollan from Warcraft instead. A turtle made it to the water.

 

[AlViking]

And to that I must return a similar question:

Is the GM actually getting player buy-in, or are they laying down the law?

Because the way it is ALWAYS presented is the latter. Consistently. Every single time. It is always discussed in terms of having to lay down the law. Never--never--as "well we need to have an adult conversation about this because I value your participation, but I also have things I want out of this." Conversation never enters; it's smacking down disobedient, disruptive, harmful players, every. single. time.

I explained above. The reason you can't play a halfling who's father is the king of a halfling empire is because there are no halfling kings much less halfling empires.

 

[soviet]

I explained above. The reason you can't play a halfling who's father is the king of a halfling empire is because there are no halfling kings much less halfling empires.

Do you think jumping to these extreme examples makes you look more reasonable, or less? Stop with the heir to the halfling empire and the jedi in middle earth shtick.

 

[Remathilis]

That said, there is one difference, at least for those arguing against the tortle on this forum - they can state why. They can give reasons why. So far, the player has not been able to give reasons other than, "I like the teenage mutant ninja turtles, and want to be like them."

Again, do you demand your players justify why they are playing an elf? A sorcerer? Do you say "Oh, an elf. You just like Legolas?" Of course not. Yet if its not a traditional choice, the player now needs to come up with a well-reasoned thesis on their choice.

My Reason?

 

[Remathilis]

I explained above. The reason you can't play a halfling who's father is the king of a halfling empire is because there are no halfling kings much less halfling empires.

I once had a player play a gnome Tempest Cleric who was certified insane. He introduced himself as Tesla, God of Lightning and honestly believe he was the God of Storms on the world. (The world was Eberron, btw). He obviously wasn't, and in his madness he wasn't sure where his cleric powers came from (He left it up to me to decide, and I did and it became relevant to the story). But He walked around declaring he was a God trapped in mortal form and soon he would win back his followers and be restored to his rightly Godly place.

Could I play that character in your game?

 

[AlViking]

Do you think jumping to these extreme examples makes you look more reasonable, or less? Stop with the heir to the halfling empire and the jedi in middle earth shtick.

Why is it unreasonable? It's an example from a previous campaign when the player wanted to have the noble background. Instead of being nobility they were just the kid of someone important in the community.

Y'all keep making mountains of of molehills. Do you ever get tired of telling people they're bad DMs because they don't do stuff exactly like you?

 

[AlViking]

I once had a player play a gnome Tempest Cleric who was certified insane. He introduced himself as Tesla, God of Lightning and honestly believe he was the God of Storms on the world. (The world was Eberron, btw). He obviously wasn't, and in his madness he wasn't sure where his cleric powers came from (He left it up to me to decide, and I did and it became relevant to the story). But He walked around declaring he was a God trapped in mortal form and soon he would win back his followers and be restored to his rightly Godly place.

Could I play that character in your game?

It would depend on the rest of the players. I wouldn't care, they might. If you did play the character don't be surprised if people think you're bonkers and react appropriately.

 

[tetrasodium]

Again, do you demand your players justify why they are playing an elf?

In a way absolutely and that way is the same one that the actual past player of mine failed to clear in 1360/777 failed to clear at first. Anyone playing an elf needs to decide if they are a vaelenar elf a native khorvaireian elf with the culture from one of the five nations or meet a higher bar to see if I will allow that player to play an elf who hails from one of the less known elf cultures from sarlona/xendriik. I very rarely allow one of those last two for elf players at my table because their lore is important and very different.

A sorcerer? Do you say "Oh, an elf. You just like Legolas?"

See above. I totally expect players tied to something to act accordingly because I do NOT want legolas in my world. That's not to say I skip over describing the relevant culture and negotiating any relevant details, but I'm not going to create a new elf culture just because a player would like to play legolas from condor or whatever Tolkien city I can't remember.

Wrt the sorcerer, it depends on if the player is attempting to claim any ties to dragons rather than a manifest zone or something

Of course not. Yet if its not a traditional choice, the player now needs to come up with a well-reasoned thesis on their choice.

You are making some pretty extreme assumptions there that I just took the time to explain otherwise earlier in this post.

My Reason?
View attachment 426503

I don't care if a player thinks something in conflict with the game world is "neat" . I'm pretty sure I've ever talked about drow and dwarves falling under a no or strongly discouraged area earlier in 777 and at least one other post.

 

[Remathilis]

It would depend on the rest of the players. I wouldn't care, they might. If you did play the character don't be surprised if people think you're bonkers and react appropriately.

I mean, he was a joke character the player played seriously (did all his clerical duties for healing etc). I just wondered if his eccentric take on divinity was a step too far on adding lore.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I explained above. The reason you can't play a halfling who's father is the king of a halfling empire is because there are no halfling kings much less halfling empires.

And, as always, you characterize the player as having insane, ridiculous, utterly unacceptable desires.

This, this right here, is precisely what I've been talking about this whole time. It's this simmering hostility underneath every example, every engagement. The player is ALWAYS a jerk demanding something stupid, ALWAYS an entitled little prince actively flouting any sense of propriety or respect. It is always pushed to these extremes, every single time, from the word go.

Do you think, maybe, possibly, you could consider giving examples where the player's desires, even if they aren't something you personally planned for, might actually be reasonable and sensible and worthy of respect, rather than painting everyone with the brush of "well I'M the PRINCE of all halflings and you're a HORRIBLE WICKED GM if you don't allow that!!!!!!!!!"