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

[Scott Christian]

I think the GM and host are two different people in the example.

For me though, l can't say yes or no, depends on why the DM wants to exclude the other species not in the 3 mentioned books. I would hope in this case the DM would explain why not Tabaxi in particular, or allow them as they weren't intentionally excluded, just the book they are in as a whole excluded due to other options, and easier to start off by excluding them all than list one by one, until asked.

I left it open ended on purpose. There may or may not be a reason other than the DM only has those three books, and they want to run what they know. Or maybe there is a deep and elaborate reason. Does it matter?

 

[Maxperson]

Poster #1: Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

Maxperson with tired morning eyes.

 

[Maxperson]

Was it?

Seriously. Was it?

If I am the result of one mad wizard's cruel and insane experiments, does that mean "tortles" live in this world?

Yes. Yes it does. It does in fact mean that one tortle lives in that world. And it means that there was no compromise, because how you became a tortle being different isn't a compromise from you playing a tortle as it is in the books. The problem isn't, "Are there 10,000 of you." The problem is that you are a bipedal turtle. Having only 1 of you doesn't change that, so offering 1 isn't a compromise.

Or does it just mean that there's a single sapient turtle-man who will always be in some way alone, simultaneously the foundling and the endling of his lived experience?

It does mean that as well, yes. It's just not a compromise.

You keep acting like these compromises are 100% purified unqualified absolute implementations of everything "tortle" means. That's not true.

No. We're acting as if the compromise has to actually be.........a compromise. There has to be movement towards the other person's position or no compromise is being had. If the DM has an issue with you being a bipedal turtle, offering to be a bipedal turtle isn't compromising anything.

It's like if your "compromise" was that you'd call yourself a Shmortle instead. Nothing has really changed.

 

[Scott Christian]

Just so you know, I keep hearing people say they have too many players or there is a waitlist. Where do those players come from? In my example, that is just one way they enter the game. You can reshape it however you want. Player #2 invites one of his friends to try out the game, or the group decides to play in a public space like a game store, and they meet someone who seems nice and really interested.

Personally, our group has the same problem. We could have nine people if we wanted. But it is too much. I vet people before I invite them over or have people I trust vet them for me. But having a vetted stranger come over for a game, especially if it is a new campaign, is pretty normal for me.

And for the record, I look at Adventurer's League, con play, and online play as almost different games.

 

[Bae'zel]

Hmm if species doesn’t have any mechanical differences (ie Tasha’s) and the setting is a vanilla fantasy world… If I was the DM I’d have a convo about it but I’d probably be cool with it. Even if the Tabaxi is rare and unique… the PCs are also unique (in typical D&D fashion, assuming here that they’re not “old school brutalists” where PCs are pig farmers and rat catchers).

Unless the DM has a campaign pitch that hinges on the PCs being “standard” PHB races. If they did, I’d be OK with the DM politely saying no or working on a compromise of some kind (ie, urging the player to take a class that has cat-associations or shapeshifting, and has some cat like features).

 

[bsss]

The reason I stated the premise like this is because in my experience that is generally how new people are brought into a group. Basically an established player meets or knows someone that wants to play, there is an opening in the campaign (like starting a new campaign or a great spot to enter a campaign), and then they invite them over.

But all of that is beside the point. I have seen this example happen, and I have also been the person brought in. I have never, in my 40 years of being a DM or player, not seen at least one limitation set by the DM. Sometimes it's about backstory, other times it's about not allowing spells or classes, other times it's about not allowing a species, and other times it is about not allowing a certain rule. I have seen the reverse true too, giving players extra additions to their backstory, extra spells, extra classes, extra species, etc.

But this example is just a common way people join a gaming group. The host and DM are different people. It is a simple yes or no. There is no judgement on my part. I just want to see what people think.

I like your framing overall, but I think it has an accidental problem where the conflict is in the context of everyone already having sat down and gotten ready to play, combined with a social tendency that would often, I'd argue, drive people towards "gosh, I'm a guest / I'm a host, I better soften my approach to this situation". Maybe that's the point in terms of your common example/actual experience, in which case, fair enough. I've been reading this thread for the last ~2 weeks and finally got invested enough to post to point out that I think people are vacillating between a problem that speaks to what is allowed for a game in our hobby, and what is socially and logistically expedient or "optimal".

However...

Question: Based on the situation above, should the DM allow for the tabaxi?

A simple yes or no. That is all that is needed. It is not a trap, nor is it a gotchya. It is just to see where people are in this thread.

...I think this needs a "there is no universally right reaction" option as an answer to the question. Piles of pages ago (probably multiple times), proponents of both opinions presented valid reasons for a DM to say "yes" or "no, sorry" and for the player to say "cool, thanks", "oh, ok", "but what if...?", or "sorry, I'm walking". There is no shared context for the hypothetical in your question, so any of those exchanges could be right --- I could say "of course not" for reasons that are absent anyone else's understanding of the situation, but I can't even picture these people's lives well enough to come up with my own answer. I'd even argue there isn't a way to provide that shared context, and thus no judicious way to define what two people ought to do, absent suggesting there are RPG cops going table to table to enforce the law or DMs are being scored on their setting-building vs. player satisfaction.

I guess that's my overall answer, though --- I can't say what these people should do, and there is no law to guide us, and in my opinion that's a good thing.

 

[AlViking]

Just so you know, I keep hearing people say they have too many players or there is a waitlist. Where do those players come from? In my example, that is just one way they enter the game. You can reshape it however you want. Player #2 invites one of his friends to try out the game, or the group decides to play in a public space like a game store, and they meet someone who seems nice and really interested.

Personally, our group has the same problem. We could have nine people if we wanted. But it is too much. I vet people before I invite them over or have people I trust vet them for me. But having a vetted stranger come over for a game, especially if it is a new campaign, is pretty normal for me.

And for the record, I look at Adventurer's League, con play, and online play as almost different games.

I used to do game days and meet people there back when there was a game store nearby that ran games on the weekends. That's what I prefer but it's no longer an option because we moved.

After we moved I posted online to start a new group and then friends of theirs joined. I've had a couple people drop out because of moving or other reasons but I haven't had an open seat for long for years, I just keep accruing new people. Another group started up with someone my wife befriended and then she invited others and on and on.

I'm certain if I wanted yet another group I'd just have to post online somewhere.

 

[Remathilis]

My preferences are not going to match up to what everyone wants. At the same time I have no issue filling my table with players that like or at the very least perfectly fine with my preferences.

This is the heart of the matter. Do all your players align 100% to your tastes and preferences? Of course not. So what happens when you align 95% of the way? What is done to cover that gap? The answer repeatedly has been "the DM wins, the player loses". The DM gets 100% of what they want, the player less than.

Why would I add people to my table who don't want what I and the other players want?

That's a totally different question. If you asked your players "hey, would you all care if I added 10 new species to my next campaign?" How many would say "No, only want exactly the species you already allow and no one choice more!"? I imagine none. YOU want a world with limited species. Your players are at the very least willing to accept that. But its not necessarily their want too. Unless you and your players are Hive Mind.

I already have as many players (and groups) as I can want and can handle.

Which returns us back to players are a disposable commodity and you don't have to care what they want as long as they are willing to give you everything you want.

 

[AlViking]

This is the heart of the matter. Do all your players align 100% to your tastes and preferences? Of course not. So what happens when you align 95% of the way? What is done to cover that gap? The answer repeatedly has been "the DM wins, the player loses". The DM gets 100% of what they want, the player less than.

Why would they need to 100% as long as they have fun in my game? Does anyone ever get 100% of what they want all the time?

That's a totally different question. If you asked your players "hey, would you all care if I added 10 new species to my next campaign?" How many would say "No, only want exactly the species you already allow and no one choice more!"? I imagine none. YOU want a world with limited species. Your players are at the very least willing to accept that. But its not necessarily their want too. Unless you and your players are Hive Mind.

Which returns us back to players are a disposable commodity and you don't have to care what they want as long as they are willing to give you everything you want.

You keep banging this drum except that it's not making any sound any more because it just doesn't match reality. I ran a game yesterday and, outside of other D&D games, I don't remember when I've laughed so hard so much. People groaned when the bad guys got the upper hand, cheered when they won. We're just friends sitting around playing a geeky game and having fun, not some bean-counters hoarding fun points.

 

[Scott Christian]

I used to do game days and meet people there back when there was a game store nearby that ran games on the weekends. That's what I prefer but it's no longer an option because we moved.

After we moved I posted online to start a new group and then friends of theirs joined. I've had a couple people drop out because of moving or other reasons but I haven't had an open seat for long for years, I just keep accruing new people. Another group started up with someone my wife befriended and then she invited others and on and on.

I'm certain if I wanted yet another group I'd just have to post online somewhere.

Yeah, I have always used game stores as a place meet other players. I have moved quite a bit in my life (Florida, Alaska, Texas, California, Illinois, Virginia), and that is the best place, in my opinion, to meet players. Work is also a good place. My present group is a mixture. Four of us were playing a pay-for-DM game at a gaming/bar/restaurant. Once I realized we had a good group, I pitched the idea of saving money and just meeting at my place. Then I let the DM know he had three more sessions to wrap it up. (He was a good guy, and we didn't want to leave him hanging. It was $25 a person for two hours, and he was a young college kid. So that might have been a considerable amount of money he relied on.) Then, once we started, some co-workers wanted in. Those people invited others, etc, etc.

I am thankful for our table because they are all good people. We prioritize the game by meeting almost every Friday with the exception of holidays. It's a blissfully fun way to end the work week.