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

[EzekielRaiden]

Why is it unreasonable?

You don't see how painting everyone you disagree with as demanding that they be an heir to an empire might be extreme? How it might present your opposition as demanding, I dunno, unearned power, respect, and influence? How it might portray the player as being petty, demanding, and wanting you to kowtow to their childish whims, particularly given your presentation?

Because there is a WORLD of difference between "One player demands to be the son of the emperor of the halfling empire" and "A player asked if they could take the Noble background as a halfling". Like...can you not see how the first is kind of...an enormous ask? And the second sounds so mild, so milquetoast, as to be shocking why someone would find it objectionable in the first place?

What you say is not the only thing that matters. How you say it, also matters. Presenting the exact same things in a gentle vs horrible light can make things sound unobjectionable or outright terrifying.

Consider, for example, the bloodthirsty cult which uses symbols of torture and execution, derives joy from recognizing the suffering of others, and celebrates the bond with their god by consuming symbolic representations of his flesh and blood. Then contrast that with the world's largest organized religion, which honors the suffering of both their divine prophet figure and those who have suffered for their faith, and celebrates their bond with their god by eating bread and wine as said figure instructed before his death. Both descriptions of Christianity, which I used in this case because I am Christian myself and have made no bones about that. One description makes it sound like a horrific danger that needs to be exterminated, the other sounds like a benevolent group that honors those who take on suffering for others. What you say is enormously affected by how you say it.

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.

See how small this becomes when we don't cloak it in extremizing language?

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?

Very truly I tell you, the mountain was already made out of the molehill when you spoke of it as players demanding to be the heirs to empires, rather than "Can I take the Noble background?"

 

[Belen]

I have.

Repeatedly.

I'll dig up the examples, if you really want them. Might take a bit though, I have errands to run here shortly.


Consistently the presentation has been nearly absolutely inflexible. The GM cannot incorporate a new race--ever. It's presented as though it is literally impossible for there to ever be any part of the world the GM didn't plan for in advance. Hence why I have made many of the criticisms I have made. Nothing can exist in the world that the GM didn't plan for ten years ago.


Yes, because being disparaging about why others have their tastes is definitely not being hostile and definitely not mischaracterizing your opposition, something you seemed so concerned about when I did it. Why are you doing it now?

Plenty of DMs in this thread with curated worlds said they will work with the player.

I have, repeatedly. I have mentioned several ways I’d allow it to fit. I may have some limits such as the MTG species.

I feel like this gets brushed over. I have a curated setting. I tend to be permissive but I do have limits although that often depends on the campaign theme.

 

[Belen]

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?
View attachment 426503

I ask for a backstory that fits into the region and culture of the starting area.

 

[Scott Christian]

Uhm, to be a little blunt, what sort of reasons would you expect? Choice of character is often a look-and-feel thing; its not massively preplanned, but its not any more arbitrary than any other character choice (though usually there's a little something more than can be expressed in classes and other character operation choices. But racial choices aren't usually done the same way).

See how you say "it's not massively preplanned."

See how the other side is saying: It took a lot of work and tons of preplanning.

Which one should have to compromise?

As for your question, I would expect an answer. A conversation to happen between to people who want to game together. One has accepted the role as a player, the other the DM. I might hear something like this:
Player: "So I have this cool idea based on the Ninja Turtles. I want to use nunchucks, be super agile, and have a protective armor. The tortle fits the bill. I really like the thought of using this shell on my back to jump and slide around in. I also like the idea of being able to hold my breath for an hour. And I know you said the world only has four races in it and no dimensional or astral travel. Will it throw the whole thing off if I am a tortle?"
DM: "Unfortunately it will. Not to spoil the premise or anything, but the entire campaign is based around all the races dying. Most have been extinct for thousands of years. I have written a lot on the only piece of land left with life. You know, how the four kingdoms act towards one another. Their trade. Their secrets. To suddenly have an anomaly kind of goes against the religious and cultural flavors of the campaign."
Player: "I got ya. So can we still try to build something like that?"
DM: "Of course. There is a human species on an island. Their whole culture is maritime based. Coincidentally, they are also known for wearing masks during pirate raids. Why don't you start there, build away. Be creative. And let me know what you come up with. If you need the racial feat or anything like that, feel free to take it, just make sure to not take both the human's and tortle's. For example, take the hold breath feat they have, but just explain it away as part of your insane monk-style training or give yourself an item that allows you to do, a breath pebble or nose plugs that shoot oxygen into you or whatever else you can come up with."

That is how I would expect it to go. And as far as I know, there is not a DM here that wouldn't acquiesce to that compromise. The only one not compromising is the one unable to give reasons and then start insulting DMs who have limits. Which is ironic, since they have limits too, it's just not a tortle.

 

[Scott Christian]

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?
View attachment 426503

If we have a session zero, I heard the pitch from the DM, and the DM said, "All elves are dead. They've been dead for a thousand years. But everything else is on the table." And I say, "I want to play a wood elf?" I would certainly expect the DM to question why. Same thing if they banned the sorcerer, and I wanted to play a sorcerer. I would expect the DM to ask why.

Why do you assume the DM is not hosting a session zero? Why do you assume there is no communication? The reason the DM is asking why is because they have already made it clear the tortle is not an option. Of course they will ask why. This is a campaign we're talking about, right? Not a one shot. A campaign where the DM pitched the idea. The players were interested enough to show up to session zero. The DM outlined the dos and don'ts. And then the play immediately (step 1 of character creation in 2014 - Choose a race) went to the don't side.

Don't you feel that would warrant a question from the DM?

 

[Scott Christian]

I have.

Repeatedly.

I'll dig up the examples, if you really want them. Might take a bit though, I have errands to run here shortly.

Please, dig them up. I do not think they exist.

Consistently the presentation has been nearly absolutely inflexible. The GM cannot incorporate a new race--ever. It's presented as though it is literally impossible for there to ever be any part of the world the GM didn't plan for in advance. Hence why I have made many of the criticisms I have made. Nothing can exist in the world that the GM didn't plan for ten years ago.

No. The DM pitched the campaign. The players accepted to have a look. Session zero had the DM outline the dos and don'ts. The player immediately jumped to the don't side. Most DMs have lore as to why they say no. (And I said this before, if they don't, and it's just some generic Forgotten Realms piece, then they should just say yes.) But they gave reasons. Then they gave compromise.

All the player did is go against the DM's wishes right away (step one of character creation). Then they refused to choose another race, even when the reason became clear.

You can view it through your lens all you want. But the player took the first misstep. Then, they refused to compromise.

Yes, because being disparaging about why others have their tastes is definitely not being hostile and definitely not mischaracterizing your opposition, something you seemed so concerned about when I did it. Why are you doing it now?

It is not disparaging for a DM to ask a player who directly went against the campaign's theme to ask why. That is literally how communication works. Questions get asked, responder gives answers, etc. If it is so offensive to ask someone "Why they like to play a tabaxi or a tortle or a sorcerer or a character of the opposite gender?" then I can't continue the conversation. That is not rude in my world, nor is it wrong. It is showing an interest in someone's choices. If you view that as judging, I can assure you that is because you're viewing it through a jaded lens. All the people I play with are open minded and curious.

 

[Mecheon]

If we hare in session zero, I heard the pitch from the DM, and the DM said, "All elves are dead. They've been dead for a thousand years. But everything else is on the table." And I say, "I want to play a wood elf?" I would certainly expect the DM to question why. Same thing if they banned the sorcerer, and I wanted to play a sorcerer. I would expect the DM to ask why.

Why do you assume the DM is not hosting a session zero? Why do you assume there is no communication? The reason the DM is asking why is because they have already made it clear the tortle is not an option. Of course they will ask why. This is a campaign we're talking about, right? Not a one shot. A campaign where the DM pitched the idea. The players were interested enough to show up to session zero. The DM outlined the dos and don'ts. And then the play immediately (step 1 of character creation in 2014 - Choose a race) went to the don't side.

Don't you feel that would warrant a question from the DM?

On the other hand we also have our current situation, where, let's say Lizardfolk exist in the setting. The players have encountered them. They're friendly. The players have even helped them out

But can't roll one because, whoops, DM only allows the 3.5e basic races. Players are more than justified to ask 'why' they can't roll one if, say, a new player joins and wants to play one of those lizardfolk the players helped out. Or they've had a character die and, hey, having a lizardfolk honouring that character's sacrificing by helping the party sounds like one hell of a cool in. Going and say "Yeah no lizardfolk" despite all that is going to get eyebrows raised.

I'm just saying, you're going to do far, far more damage and be far more unbalanced by picking half elf over lizardfolk. One is the strongest base option in 5e and only outdone by the ridiculousness that are yuan-ti. The other is a lizard guy.

 

[tetrasodium]

On the other hand we also have our current situation, where, let's say Lizardfolk exist in the setting. The players have encountered them. They're friendly. The players have even helped them out

But can't roll one because, whoops, DM only allows the 3.5e basic races. Players are more than justified to ask 'why' they can't roll one if, say, a new player joins and wants to play one of those lizardfolk the players helped out. Or they've had a character die and, hey, having a lizardfolk honouring that character's sacrificing by helping the party sounds like one hell of a cool in. Going and say "Yeah no lizardfolk" despite all that is going to get eyebrows raised.

I'm just saying, you're going to do far, far more damage and be far more unbalanced by picking half elf over lizardfolk. One is the strongest base option in 5e and only outdone by the ridiculousness that are yuan-ti. The other is a lizard guy.

I forget who (maxperson perhaps?) has already given an example of a race that does exist in their setting that they wouldn't allow players to play with a good reason given.

The particular race and reason was dragonborn and because he changed them in setting in some way that would make them too powerful for a PC

 

[Scott Christian]

On the other hand we also have our current situation, where, let's say Lizardfolk exist in the setting. The players have encountered them. They're friendly. The players have even helped them out

But can't roll one because, whoops, DM only allows the 3.5e basic races. Players are more than justified to ask 'why' they can't roll one if, say, a new player joins and wants to play one of those lizardfolk the players helped out. Or they've had a character die and, hey, having a lizardfolk honouring that character's sacrificing by helping the party sounds like one hell of a cool in. Going and say "Yeah no lizardfolk" despite all that is going to get eyebrows raised.

I'm just saying, you're going to do far, far more damage and be far more unbalanced by picking half elf over lizardfolk. One is the strongest base option in 5e and only outdone by the ridiculousness that are yuan-ti. The other is a lizard guy.

Who in here said they don't allow a race that actually exists in their world, especially a friendly race. If they did, I think they are wrong.

Now, if the lizard folk are cursed carnivores that are under the control of an ancient evil god who insists they eat human meat once a wekk, and the DM has asked for good aligned PCs... well, then they may have a reason to say no.

 

[Mecheon]

Who in here said they don't allow a race that actually exists in their world, especially a friendly race. If they did, I think they are wrong.

Viking. He said he's sticking to the old 3.5e ones no matter what

Which, yeah, frankly I disagree with if other races are around