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

[Remathilis]

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?

Why do you?

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.

So what? You're avoiding saying the obvious. You have no system to handle a disagreement but to have everyone agree with you. Enjoyable tyranny is still tyranny. Hopefully, they understand that and agree that what you want is the most important thing and are fine with indulging your every desire. Hopefully, none of them ever want something different, because they will be on the outside looking in.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

No offense, but if this was a world I had played in quite a bit, and the setting wasn't standard Forgotten Realms, I would say no to the ten extra species. It would be a very hard "no" too. If I had travelled the lands, experienced the cultures, gained an understanding of economy and kingdoms, there is no way I would want ten new species to just pop up out of nowhere. I wouldn't even want it if it was described as a "refugee from another plane" experience.
Now if we were already playing the kitchen sink, then sure, go for it.

 

[Remathilis]

No offense, but if this was a world I had played in quite a bit, and the setting wasn't standard Forgotten Realms, I would say no to the ten extra species. It would be a very hard "no" too. If I had travelled the lands, experienced the cultures, gained an understanding of economy and kingdoms, there is no way I would want ten new species to just pop up out of nowhere. I wouldn't even want it if it was described as a "refugee from another plane" experience.
Now if we were already playing the kitchen sink, then sure, go for it.

I didn't specify that it would be the same world for that reason. That said, unless you explored every continent, all the under dark and everything in between, the odds of never encountering a new species (be it humanoid, animal, plant or monster) is decent. We still find undiscovered plants and animals on Earth today.

 

[AlViking]

Why do you?

So what? You're avoiding saying the obvious. You have no system to handle a disagreement but to have everyone agree with you. Enjoyable tyranny is still tyranny. Hopefully, they understand that and agree that what you want is the most important thing and are fine with indulging your every desire. Hopefully, none of them ever want something different, because they will be on the outside looking in.

Don't let the fact that we all enjoy the game get in the way of your negative narrative that doesn't exist.

 

[Scott Christian]

I didn't specify that it would be the same world for that reason. That said, unless you explored every continent, all the under dark and everything in between, the odds of never encountering a new species (be it humanoid, animal, plant or monster) is decent. We still find undiscovered plants and animals on Earth today.

We do not discover entire societies with a culture, language, etc. In a world where teleportation, flying (flying airships too), clairvoyance, etc. exists, I would be hard pressed to say, "Oh look, there are ten new species, each with a kingdom, language, and culture that just happened to be spread throughout the continents never ever trading and meeting the cultures we already know. And, oh yeah, they have avoided all the magic detection and scrying too."

You want to introduce 1 new species into the lore and explain it, sure, go for it. Ten? That would break my immersion.

And again, if you are using something like FR, no problem. It's a kitchen sink with many worlds and planes.

 

[Morrus]

Enjoyable tyranny is still tyranny.

Hey, Remathilis. 'Tyranny' is a big, emotive word, and there are people in this world experiencing actual tyranny. Let's not start calling each other 'tyrants' over something as inconsequential as gaming style, eh? Thanks.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sorry, I trimmed out all the irrelevant tangents.

I find it funny that you responded EzekielRaiden's post about the idea of the DM owing something to his players with "players are expendable, I have a wait list." This is the most Post-Capitalist mindset I can imagine. "I don't have to take care of my customers, they will take what I give and if they don't like it, they will be replaced with a new one." is why so many companies enslopifies their products and services. And the notion that players will put up with it isn't the point. The point is even if you are honestly a good person, this type of rhetoric reads that individual players aren't important to you and that they are so replaceable that there is no need to cater to them.

That is something bigger and more important than restrictions, its a feeling that if players are disposable, there is no reason to treat them as anything but.


I might not bounce because a few optional rules aren't available, but I'm sure as hell bouncing if have the PHB is gone!

I generally always allow phb stuff. Its more things from Mordenkainens or other settings.

Im not big on Warforged outside Eberron. Mainly because it makes Eberron less special if theyre allowed outside Eberron. .
Also I wa tito try Eberron. FR coukd probably have term somewhere via Gond. But that also makes Eberron less attractive to players if they can cherry pick the parts they like.

Disallowing PHB races would be very rare a d would be used for very specific dmsrttinhs. Dark Sun comes to mind, maybe Theros and Ravnica.

Very specific settings I might say yes to weird stuff if it suits the setting. Eg insect races on Darksun, other Greek type monsters in Theros.

PHB only woukd be more typical. That's rare as well mostly for newbies due to option paralysis or done newbie wants to use one race to show up their friends.

I've seen players essentially being incapable of creating a character due to wanting to spent hours creating a character session 0. Everyone else is done in around an hour snd wants to start.

That's a real life concrete problem. If you want to spend that long on character creation do it at home. Players who want to spend 5 minutes per round to think things over also get to to hurry up.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The answer has repeatedly been to TRY and compromise. If no compromise can be reached, one side has to back down or leave the game. When it comes to something like race or class, it should always be the player since the player can have fun playing something else, while the DM's fun is negatively impacted if the player gets his way.

A player who in that situation leans back and says/thinks, "Well, I could have fun with an elf, but I'd rather see the DM have less fun, so I'm going to insist on playing a tortle," loses my respect instantly.

 

[soviet]

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.

But your statement of the premise has your thumb on the scale. You're deliberately painting the person who wants to play a tortleman as a stranger invited into the GM's home. Why? Why can't Bob, who has played with the GM for 15 years, ask to play a tortleman? Why can't Jim, whose house all the game sessions take place at, ask to play a tortleman?

 

[mamba]

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.

sounds like you need to look up the meaning of compromise.

Also, so far it was mostly the player side that considered even the notion of having to compromise a red flag