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

[soviet]

We have plenty of new ideas, the campaigns frequently go in directions I don't anticipate. They change the world through the actions of their characters not through collaborative world building.

The campaign I'm talking about doesn't have collaborative worldbuilding either.

What specifically in your campaign lore stops Tortle characters from being possible?

 

[AlViking]

The campaign I'm talking about doesn't have collaborative worldbuilding either.

What specifically in your campaign lore stops Tortle characters from being possible?

I have a curated list of species. It's a preference based on what I want for the look and feel of the world I've created. People know about before they join my game so they don't have to join if it's going to be a problem. If you want to let people add whatever species you want to the game you play, go for it. I don't and nobody has ever had an issue with it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My compromise was everything a tortle had except for physical appearance. I wouldn't stop them from getting a hat of disguise I suppose.

So again, everything except the part the actually cared about. As I said--again--your redline and their point the exercise were identical. Why should the fact no compromise was possible there be surprising nor accusatory to either side.

The cultural aspects of tortles as stated in Monsters of the Multiverse

Tortles have a saying: “We wear our homes on our backs.” These turtle folk live on many worlds, most often journeying up and down coasts, along waterways, and across the sea. Tortles don’t have a unified story of how they were created, but they all have a sense of being mystically connected to the natural world. Carrying their shelter on their backs gives tortles a special feeling of security wherever they go, for even if they visit a far, unknown country, they have a place to lay their heads.​

​

Basically nothing concrete.

I wouldn't say nothing, but accept its minimalist.

Meanwhile the people who said tortle or nothing still occasionally frequent this thread. If anyone wants to discuss an actual compromise we can start again.

Since their primary interest is one you've already placed off the table, what's there further for them to talk about?

 

[Remathilis]

I tried to compromise. Every aspect of the tortle short of physical appearance. Nobody ever once gave a single counter proposal other than "I want to play a tortle." Nobody ever gave me a reason it wasn't good enough other than "I want to play a tortle."

When the player requests this

And you offer this.

If you can't see why some people would not take that seriously, I don't know what to tell you...

 

[soviet]

I have a curated list of species. It's a preference based on what I want for the look and feel of the world I've created. People know about before they join my game so they don't have to join if it's going to be a problem. If you want to let people add whatever species you want to the game you play, go for it. I don't and nobody has ever had an issue with it.

As GM do you ever introduce new NPC races/monsters/animals to the world that weren't there before?

 

[AlViking]

When the player requests this

View attachment 427011
And you offer this.

View attachment 427010
If you can't see why some people would not take that seriously, I don't know what to tell you...

They can play their character as seriously as they want with whatever look they want. They just can't have the physical form of a tortle. If that doesn't work then there is no compromise possible.

Sometimes there is no compromise possible. The one line I won't cross is physical form but I'm willing to compromise on everything else.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Only 200? The Grand History of Eberron alone is like 500 pages all on its own.

Page count doesn't matter, the only question of importance is if the GM is allowed to say no or not. If the GM can say no then they have that option and the player needs to adapt their character to become acceptable to the gm's game or bow out themselves

Yeah, but Eberron also specifically says it takes multitudes and you can fit in whatever you like, so it's not using its length as an excuse to cut down on people's character concepts, which is the point being made.

Or it can be both. The two are not mutually exclusive. If that was the case, I guess when people play Adventure Paths they aren't really playing in your eyes.

Adventure paths are scripts, not just lore. And God help me, those generally have enough problems that you can find dozens of "How you actually should run this" guides online.

Again, that was a hypothetical because people can't seem to answer a question. They have asked for nuance. They have asked for the why. I keep saying it doesn't matter, and that includes having 200 pages of lore.

We've asked for nuance because simply denying a player for no real reason other than "I don't want it" is really lacking as a reason. When I deny my players, I'll at least give them a solid justification as to why and still try to reach a compromise. The whole complete supremacy of the GM is very weird to me.

But since we're on that. Do you really believe at 200 pages of lore someone should stop investing in their worldbuilding? So all worldbuilders should stop. I guess Ed Greenwood should have stopped building the Forgotten Realms after year one. Here's the thing, some people like to dive deep. Others like to float around and never look under the water. Both are okay. Both can be fun. But neither one is wrong. If someone wants to dive thousands of feet down, let them. There are always areas to develop, ideas to navigate, and world logic to explore. And that is what it is for a DM who builds a world, an exploration.

I am adding this as an edit: Most of the great stories I have played in as a player have come from deep lore dives into a DM's world. I felt a great gravity on my character's shoulders because I felt the world, its cultures, people, and environments. I have had great stories without it too, but the gravity came from my character's feelings towards the other PCs at the table. When I had both, it was magical.

I mean, the Realms literally switched continents around to allow Dragonborn to come into the Realms, which tells me that, I dunno, maybe it does have flexibility. It's not just about having 200 pages of lore, it's using that as the justification as to why one can't do something.

And I would say that my best stories have definitely not been because players made deep dives on lore, but rather the players helping create something compelling with me. Lore is lore and it is a tool in a toolbox, but it is only one. I find it to be useful, but not something that has importance unto itself.

First, I don't see how it's much different than running a game in any other world built by anyone else. Are adventures in my home brew world really that different from games run in FR or Eberron or Darksun? As far as the campaign itself it's just like any other campaign. In my case it's a very open-ended game with the players always choosing the direction and what to pursue. I'm not telling "my" story any more than any other DM.

I don't have collaborative world building outside of minor stuff for character backstories because I've been using the same campaign world for a long time. I let people know before they ever join my game what the restrictions are they can always decide not to accept the invitation. While I enjoy world building I do it in service to my players and because I want depth to my world.

Hey, you do you. I'm glad you have a whole bunch of lore to draw upon and all that. Not that I don't make up my own, but I just don't see the point of me making up a bunch of stuff that may or may not come up. I just don't see the point of making the lore "inviolable" in some weird way. Like, retcons are a thing all the time in series, where new places are found, new dimensions created, new pathways discovered. You're saying there's no way to add something that you didn't conceive of before simply because you have all this lore in place?

As far as DMs telling their story, I've never run into it. Some DMs do linear campaigns and most published campaigns are pretty linear, but that's different.

lmfao I have absolutely seen it myself and I feel like there are dozens of D&D horror stories about it. The idea that you haven't heard tell of DMs who are just trying to inflict their own stories on people is kind of wild to me.

I was summarizing because it all just comes back the same arguments. Obviously there's more nuance and I didn't claim otherwise. But why is the player any different? They have a preference, I have preferences. Meanwhile I have a world I'm happy to run games in and most players, myself included, are quite flexible on what character they play. I don't have a take it or leave it attitude, I have a "This is my game if it sounds good come join us" attitude.

You like collaborative world building, go for it. I wouldn't want to play in that kind of game and no one over the decades has ever expressed an interest. If it was important to them, I might not be the right DM for them. I stopped trying to be the right DM for everyone a long time ago and I find that I'm a better DM for it.

I think it's not just about collaborative world building, but power dynamics. What is weirding people out is a GM just shutting down a character concept not because it's disruptive, mean-spirited, or something that has some sort of detrimental effect at the table. It's just "This doesn't work in my world" without any sort of real further explanation. Like, I've said no to people who want to do "Dwarves who really hate elves" because it starts as a(n unfunny) joke and inevitably becomes disruptive. But that's not just saying "No, it doesn't fit my world".

Maybe it's just stuff that helps me run a better game. We all have different approaches.

I think it's less that you have 200 pages of lore and more that you're using 200 pages of lore to cut down your flexibility. There should always be blank spots that you can write into, find exceptions, the extraordinary, the odd. The random Tortle that comes wandering out of the woods, whose story is waiting to be told.

 

[SableWyvern]

As GM do you ever introduce new NPC races/monsters/animals to the world that weren't there before?

I'm pretty sure certain @AlViking is aware they can introduce things into the game, so I'm genuinely not sure what this line of questioning is meant to achieve.

For whatever reason, in this hypothetical scenario, they aren't comfortable with tortles in the campaign. That maybe because it's a historical earth campaign and tortles are completely inappropriate, something similarly related to theme but less extreme, because of some trauma associated with TMNT, some strong but ultimately inexplicable personal preference or any of an infinite number of possibilities.

It has nothing to do with what is theoretically possible, or what other people do in other games.

So many people in this thread are arguing, "I do this in my game, so you should too," or "You can do this thing if you want, so there is no reason not to do it, even if you don't want to," or minor variations on those.

The things that actually matter:

• AlViking doesn't want tortles in his current game.
• There is no realistic scenario where this preference is going to damage his game or the fun of anyone at his table, so there's really no reason to introduce them.

 

[AlViking]

As GM do you ever introduce new NPC races/monsters/animals to the world that weren't there before?

No. There are new variations of fiends, outsiders and whatnot of course. There are only a few humanoid "monsters", goblinoids, orcs and gnolls. I don't use them often but they've been there forever. Most monsters are humans or one of the standard species.

Nonhuman monsters I limit based on region or what makes sense for the current scenario.

But it doesn't matter. I have a curated list of species. I don't have to explain it to anyone. My players are fine with the list. It's only a problem to people online that I will never meet in person.

 

[AlViking]

Yeah, but Eberron also specifically says it takes multitudes and you can fit in whatever you like, so it's not using its length as an excuse to cut down on people's character concepts, which is the point being made.



Adventure paths are scripts, not just lore. And God help me, those generally have enough problems that you can find dozens of "How you actually should run this" guides online.



We've asked for nuance because simply denying a player for no real reason other than "I don't want it" is really lacking as a reason. When I deny my players, I'll at least give them a solid justification as to why and still try to reach a compromise. The whole complete supremacy of the GM is very weird to me.



I mean, the Realms literally switched continents around to allow Dragonborn to come into the Realms, which tells me that, I dunno, maybe it does have flexibility. It's not just about having 200 pages of lore, it's using that as the justification as to why one can't do something.

And I would say that my best stories have definitely not been because players made deep dives on lore, but rather the players helping create something compelling with me. Lore is lore and it is a tool in a toolbox, but it is only one. I find it to be useful, but not something that has importance unto itself.



Hey, you do you. I'm glad you have a whole bunch of lore to draw upon and all that. Not that I don't make up my own, but I just don't see the point of me making up a bunch of stuff that may or may not come up. I just don't see the point of making the lore "inviolable" in some weird way. Like, retcons are a thing all the time in series, where new places are found, new dimensions created, new pathways discovered. You're saying there's no way to add something that you didn't conceive of before simply because you have all this lore in place?



lmfao I have absolutely seen it myself and I feel like there are dozens of D&D horror stories about it. The idea that you haven't heard tell of DMs who are just trying to inflict their own stories on people is kind of wild to me.



I think it's not just about collaborative world building, but power dynamics. What is weirding people out is a GM just shutting down a character concept not because it's disruptive, mean-spirited, or something that has some sort of detrimental effect at the table. It's just "This doesn't work in my world" without any sort of real further explanation. Like, I've said no to people who want to do "Dwarves who really hate elves" because it starts as a(n unfunny) joke and inevitably becomes disruptive. But that's not just saying "No, it doesn't fit my world".



I think it's less that you have 200 pages of lore and more that you're using 200 pages of lore to cut down your flexibility. There should always be blank spots that you can write into, find exceptions, the extraordinary, the odd. The random Tortle that comes wandering out of the woods, whose story is waiting to be told.

You don't know me. You don't know my game. So your arrogant "I know better than you" attitude is meaningless at best.