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

[TwoSix]

Other than the inclusion of a couple more words I'm not seeing a difference beyond two slightly different wording for the same basic concept. Can you elaborate on what the subtle difference is between the two in a way that sheds more detail/clarity on the duffi?

Strict curation is an action that is taken. Attraction to strict curation is a feeling, or aesthetic preference.

There are good ways and bad ways to do curated settings. When the curation flows from a shared understanding of the setting (like a published setting, a known IP, or a agreed-upon transmitted concept), I think that's better. When the curation flows from the GM's preferences into the shared fiction, I find that not as good.

The "attraction to strict curation" is the desire to simplify a setting with lots of optionality because it makes the setting feel better to the GM. My preference if you want a simpler setting is to see what options the players want to use, and then curate around those established pillars.

 

[Zardnaar]

So, what?

It doesn't have to be a dominant concern for most players to be an issue at someone's table.

If all we cared about was the dominant concerns of most players, we'd all still be playing Monopoly. Catering to niche and diversity is the strength of RPGs!

2 players have diametrically opposite beliefs. Who gets catered to?

Making everything optional accommodates the widest amount of people. You may need to find people that share your tastes.

Play how you want was what 5E was built on.

 

[TwoSix]

2 players have diametrically opposite beliefs. Who gets catered to?

I mean, a lot of the discussion here is about what determines that tiebreaker.

If Player wants X, and GM wants Not X, who has the stronger standing? I know my thoughts based on my priorities, but people have different priorities.

 

[AlViking]

I mean, a lot of the discussion here is about what determines that tiebreaker.

If Player wants X, and GM wants Not X, who has the stronger standing? I know my thoughts based on my priorities, but people have different priorities.

Do the priorities of the other players matter? If people sign up for a game with a curated list of species and someone else wants to play something not on that list, do they get a say? Do you set up some kind of secret vote so that you don't have to worry about hurting someone else's feelings?

That kind of balancing act can make these decisions can make things really fuzzy. I know I've proposed things like space fantasy game using third party and never pursued it because it would have been a lot of work and nobody really seemed enthused about it.

Of course my thoughts on it are the the GM puts in far more work running the game going so they make the final decision. But as GM I also take into consideration what everyone at the table wants, not just me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They do know that physical turtleman is an immovable point because I explicitly state that in the invite.

I'd have to see the exact phrasing before I assumed that's as clear as you seem to think it is here.

 

[Warnavick]

Some players likely do care, but looking at r/LFG and my own experience, I don’t think players reliably self-select away from games with restrictions. That makes it hard for me to see this as a dominant concern for most players.

If anything, D&D Beyond data suggests most characters cluster around a small number of races, which suggests that broad racial availability may not be a priority for many. In practice, players also seem to react much more strongly to class restrictions than racial ones. In my own r/LFG posts, restricting classes produces a noticeable drop in responses, while restricting races doesn’t.

Honestly, I’m increasingly thinking about restricting races as a way to filter out players who expect every official option to be available. In my experience, that expectation often correlates with friction in other areas, such as: magic item availability, objections to house rules, resistance to limits on spells like silvery barbs or counterspell, and sometimes push back against homebrew monsters. All of which, simply aren't worth my limited free time to resolve.

I don't understand your reasoning. If players in your experience don't reliably self-select away from a game than how is adding restrictions removing those players? Surely those same players will ignore your extra restrictions and apply anyway and then later try to go against those boundaries right?

Funnily enough I believe that the players that you lost from adding those restrictions are showing a more desirable aspect in a player off the bat. They have proven they actually took the time to read your pitch and restrictions and are reasonable enough to not rock your boat by not applying. At least with this line of thinking, it feels like you are not removing the players you don't want but are removing mature players that you could probably work with.

Not to say you shouldn't restrict things of course. My comment north of this is just because I don't get your reasoning. In fact I would prefer everyone to be completely transparent on things like magic items, spell changes and other restrictions. Everyone should play how they like and you should be upfront about how you run your game to potential players.

I guess sense I posted this, I should say something about the current topic. Most GMs and players are more reasonable and willing to work together than most here would suggest. Especially because a lot of groups are friends or at least someone you have gamed with for a while so it isn't a random stranger demanding to play a restricted species. Its someone you spent time with that you probably know enough to reasonably guess why they want to play that species ,and how to best accommodate that to satisfy both parties. I have found in my time in the hobby that there is very rarely people who are so absolute in their position as to not be able to compromise in some way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do the priorities of the other players matter? If people sign up for a game with a curated list of species and someone else wants to play something not on that list, do they get a say? Do you set up some kind of secret vote so that you don't have to worry about hurting someone else's feelings?

I'd say they probably should, and probably the secret vote is the ideal way, yes.

That kind of balancing act can make these decisions can make things really fuzzy. I know I've proposed things like space fantasy game using third party and never pursued it because it would have been a lot of work and nobody really seemed enthused about it.

Of course my thoughts on it are the the GM puts in far more work running the game going so they make the final decision. But as GM I also take into consideration what everyone at the table wants, not just me.

I understand the feeling the GM should have more weight in the decision making than an individual player. What I've questioned before is whether they should have more weight than all, or even a majority of them.

Let me present an example: you have a GM and five players. Some issue comes up that the GM wants one way, three of the players want a different (specific) way, two players don't care. I'd find the assumption the GM gets to win that one excessive. I mean, I can understand why he might not be interested in continuing to run the game depending on the importance of the specific issue at hand to him, but I still think the expectation he not only has the ruling vote there but that the players are in the wrong to stand their ground is unwarranted.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, a lot of the discussion here is about what determines that tiebreaker.

If Player wants X, and GM wants Not X, who has the stronger standing? I know my thoughts based on my priorities, but people have different priorities.

Anyone who's not brain dead knows the DM gets final say.

If im playing with unfamiliar DM first thing im asking is what do they allow snd what's the gist of their game.

If I'm playing with newbies ill probably play a support character. They dont need to see my under damage or control build. Make them better.

Fit into the table basically.

 

[Bae'zel]

Strict curation is an action that is taken. Attraction to strict curation is a feeling, or aesthetic preference.

There are good ways and bad ways to do curated settings. When the curation flows from a shared understanding of the setting (like a published setting, a known IP, or a agreed-upon transmitted concept), I think that's better. When the curation flows from the GM's preferences into the shared fiction, I find that not as good.

The "attraction to strict curation" is the desire to simplify a setting with lots of optionality because it makes the setting feel better to the GM. My preference if you want a simpler setting is to see what options the players want to use, and then curate around those established pillars.

Now I have a better idea of where you're coming from and I agree with you.

Whenever I've curated a campaign setting, it was to help maintain a previously agreed-upon theme (noir detectives in Night City, Bronze Age Greek heroes on a ship, human monster hunters in 15th century Poland). I never curate for curation's sake.

When someone breaks that previously unanimous agreement on a setting's theme, that's a player / personality / mismatched expectations issue and beyond the scope of what we're really debating here. Jerks will be jerks on either side of the DM screen. Always has been.

 

[tetrasodium]

Strict curation is an action that is taken. Attraction to strict curation is a feeling, or aesthetic preference.

There are good ways and bad ways to do curated settings. When the curation flows from a shared understanding of the setting (like a published setting, a known IP, or a agreed-upon transmitted concept), I think that's better. When the curation flows from the GM's preferences into the shared fiction, I find that not as good.

The "attraction to strict curation" is the desire to simplify a setting with lots of optionality because it makes the setting feel better to the GM. My preference if you want a simpler setting is to see what options the players want to use, and then curate around those established pillars.

That sounds an awful lot like saying one personal preference is superior to the other in the context of 2452/2464. The gm could say that assessment on why they choose to engage in strict setting citation is irrelevant because they find the result allows them to more easily and believably portray a dynamic living world that flows more smoothly in response to player actions in that world.