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

[AlViking]

I believe I've said that's sometimes necessary. I just think "No one actually wants to compromise" is not an accurate description when what's actually going on is your acceptable compromises just are in different areas.

As I've said, the proper response to "I want to play a humanoid turtle" is not "Here's all these other things that are not a humanoid turtle" and expecting people to think it is--off. That doesn't mean you're required to give on that point, but when determining a compromise, you have to look at the core wants are and see if there's any potential compromise possible. Trying "compromises" that don't look at those core wants is a waste of everyone's time.

Repeating an invalid definition of compromise to mean that the player gets whatever they want doesn't change anything. Sometimes compromise isn't possible.

I did look at the core details, the answer was that no matter what I did the only acceptable answer was to allow a tortle.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why is there this persistent idea that DMs are forcing players to join games?

No one is forcing players to join games, but if they do it’s the DM’s job to entertain them and make sure they have fun. They are not the DM’s toys to disrespect how they like. And frankly, one of the reasons there are so many bad players and DMs around is that politeness makes it hard for people to tell them to take a hike.

 

[mamba]

Evil elves who live in darkness who want to take over the surface world

no, just a regular elf living on the surface like ‘everyone else’

 

[M_Natas]

...

Socially punished.

And if you think ENWorld as a community doesn't use social pressure to control or manipulate the behavior of others, then I'm not sure what to tell you, because it happens all the time. And I'm not talking about the moderators enforcing the rules. That's completely unrelated. I'm talking about cliques and social groups and exclusion and labelling. It happens all the time.

Dude, they can only punish you if you let them punish you.
And you can't fix those problems by making a rule "DMs have to do 100% what players want", but doing something against this social pressure, if you feel like people are pressuring you into doing things you don't want to do.
And this is not a high school where you are forced to go or family which you rarely can't avoid. I think this forum also has block function. Use that liberally against people you feel are pressurering you into things you don't wanna do.

 

[TheSword]

The one, and only, thing preventing any first-party D&D option from appearing in Eberron is because the GM personally decided they didn't like it.

Everything--everything--has a place in Eberron, unless the GM refuses. Which means the GM takes 100% of the responsibility for choosing to excise something. They cannot make recourse to "setting consistency" or "aesthetics" or any other excuse beyond pure personal like or dislike.

The one and only excuse I would ever accept is one of balance...and 5e isn't a sufficiently finely-balanced game to warrant being that picky about first-party 5th edition species or classes or spells. It's a hot mess, balance-wise; of course, it's not the thermonuclear trash-fire that 3e was in balance terms, but "better than the worst-balanced edition" is damning with faint praise. Simply put, nothing in 5e is so brokenly over- or under-powered that balance alone would justify its exclusion from Eberron.

You’re right that everything exists in Eberron but in truth Eberron is a collection of settings (much as the Forgotten Realms is but dialed up to ten). Just because it encapsulates a few dozen different thematic biomes and cultures on the planet doesn’t mean that everything from every one of those biomes works in every other one.

I think it’s perfectly possible for the campaign to be a political intrigue based campaign set in Thrane and a drow barbarian not to be a suitable fit for the campaign for more than just not liking drow or barbarians.

Sometimes the outsider archetype is a good fit, but it depends a lot on the player and the other players/party they play with.

I also think it’s worth saying that every published campaign can be changed. My Eberron can be different to Keith Bakers Eberron and different to yours. Campaign settings are a source of ideas not a set of rules or rails.

 

[AlViking]

"I don't do this bad thing, therefore this bad thing never happens" has never been a valid argument.

Coming from the guy that says "GMs who do this are jerks" that doesn't carry a lot of water.

I don't think having a curated list of species says much one way or another about the quality of the game. It does give a bit of an idea of the approach the GM takes. In this case to me it means they are more likely to have put thought and care into building their world and not just thrown together with a laissez faire approach.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, my poor beleaguered players who are laughing, getting excited about rolling crits, happily chatting away. Having tense moments when the rogue goes down and is about to be eaten by the black pudding. Then the monk does enough damage for it to split and the wizard takes them out with a thunderwave and they all cheer. AKA Sunday's game.

Poor pathetic souls.

I find it interesting that you respond to hypotheticals as attacks.

Why is there this persistent idea that DMs are forcing players to join games?

DM builds world, proposes campaign. Puts guidelines up for campaign.

Player says: Do I want to join this? Yes or No.

Player builds character as guidelines tell him.

There is no compulsion and no one is performing for others in this scenario.

much of this debate I've noticed is not framed as a social activity between equals, but on the context of a manager hiring players. A lot of the language used is that akin to hiring an employee rather than people deciding what to do on a Saturday night. There is no "what do you want to do?" "I dunno what are you up for?" Style of back and forth. There is pitch, offer, negotiate terms, and either accept the terms or move on to the next candidate.

I'm pretty sure that's because a group of friends deciding their Saturday night plans is made amongst equals (or near equals, depending on the ride situation) with a lot of compromise and concessions (we'll see a movie this week, but next let's go to the bar). Whereas the DM is hiring his players for an explicit activity (are you interested in my Dragonlance game?) and there is no expectation of reciprocity (sure, but how about we run Eberron next time?) there is only accepting the terms or not. And how much you can negotiate your salary (can I play a Tortle?) depends on who is hiring.

As someone who DMs primarily and plays occasionally, I see this from both sides. I feel though that the corporate hierarchy way of running the game is not as good as a more equitable method (Marx would have a lot to say on how D&D is run, but I don't want to run afoul of the politics rule). So suffice to say that for most of this conversation, the Tortle isn't the issue, it's the nature of power between DM and player that has been the core of this and I find it no surprise the argument has gone down the way it has.

 

[M_Natas]

No one is forcing players to join games, but if they do it’s the DM’s job to entertain them and make sure they have fun. They are not the DM’s toys to disrespect how they like. And frankly, one of the reasons there are so many bad players and DMs around is that politeness makes it hard for people to tell them to take a hike.

And the DMs are not the Entertainment-Houseelf of the players.
A game of D&D can only work if everybody has fun, DM included. Nobody should be disrespecting anybody and everybody should entertain everybody else on the table. The DM is a player, too.

 

[mamba]

The abyss elves who want to flood the surface world or whatever?

never heard of them. There are Dargonesti that live in the sea, but they do not want to flood the surface, they are peaceful and isolationist

My Dragonlance knowledge is weak

are you sure this even is DL?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

DM builds world, proposes campaign.

Players give feedback on the proposal. DM adjusts their ideas based on feedback.

Doesn’t build world until the players are agreed.

Or you have several players propose a campaign, the players vote on which idea they like best, and that player becomes the DM.

Puts guidelines up for campaign.

Players give feedback on guidelines, and they are modified if necessary.

Player says: Do I want to join this? Yes or No.

Or they suggest what changes they would like.

Player builds character as guidelines tell him.

The DM gives feedback on the proposed character, and suggests altererations that might make that character work better, or background details that can better connect them to the campaign world.

The difference between democracy and dictatorship is respect for others.