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

[AlViking]

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.

For the record I have nothing against tortles I simply don't want to run a kitchen sink campaign.

 

[soviet]

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.

It's meant to understand whether the 200 pages laying out everything that exists in the world are inviolable and preserved in amber for the GM as well as the players. AIViking has answered now, and said (largely) it is.

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.

None of which have been stated in this 3,000 post thread. The reason given is 'I don't want to'.

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.

The whole nature of the hypothetical is that a player in the game is asking to play one.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

The exact wording of what eberron "specifically" says including the clarification from Keith Baker himself attempting to correct the misuse of that wording to override the gm has come up twice in this thread already. It was a bad reading then and you are pushing a bad reading now.

Why would you quote but not answer the question?
The only question of importance is if the GM is allowed to say no or not.

 

[Zardnaar]

The exact wording of what eberron "specifically" says including the clarification from Keith Baker himself attempting to correct the misuse of that wording to override the gm has come up twice in this thread already. It was a bad reading then and you are pushing a bad reading now.

Why would you quote but not answer the question?
The only question of importance is if the GM is allowed to say no or not.

Even in Eberron DM an still say not.

A race might even exist and youre still not allowed to play it.

Drow being the prime example. They've been watered down so far to enable people to play them they're meh now.

 

[SableWyvern]

The whole nature of the hypothetical is that a player in the game is asking to play one.

And @AlViking knows that there is no realistic scenario where his preference not to include them is going to damage his game or the fun of anyone at his table so, in this hypothetical scenario, there's no harm in saying to the player, "Not in this campaign, please stick to the curated list."

None of which have been stated in this 3,000 post thread. The reason given is 'I don't want to'.

@AlViking stated it's because they don't want to run a kitchen sink game. This is a form of the second option in my list: something similarly related to theme but less extreme [than it being a historical earth campaign].

"Some strong but ultimately inexplicable personal preference" is also pretty much exactly, "I don't want to."

 

[Justice and Rule]

The exact wording of what eberron "specifically" says including the clarification from Keith Baker himself attempting to correct the misuse of that wording to override the gm has come up twice in this thread already. It was a bad reading then and you are pushing a bad reading now.

I'm sorry, but there isn't any sort of "clarification" from Baker attempting to "correct" anything. He says "if we didn't include it, don't let it stop you from using it". The lore is not the barrier for it, nor should it be. That's the point of what I was saying, but here you are trying to completely distort what Baker is saying as to be some sort of direct quote against the idea.

Why would you quote but not answer the question?
The only question of importance is if the GM is allowed to say no or not.

Maybe that is if you want to treat the GM's opinion as the only one that matters. I like to take more input from my players and say more than simply "No." It would be weird for the players to have less input at the table than me given that they are the ones playing the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

Even in Eberron DM an still say not.

A race might even exist and youre still not allowed to play it.

Drow being the prime example. They've been watered down so far to enable people to play them they're meh now.

Drow are a great example for so many reasons.

Drow as a race actually have a lot of eberron specific lore, it's just tied to the fact that they are one or two steps removed from deliberately unanswered big questions left to the gm and you need to really get into those areas to notice that drow are that close as a player. Not wanting players lore dumping fr drow trash and not having players trying to decide those various questions when they come up is why I attempt to strongly discourage players from playing drow. I've written about it before in the thread and even linked to a post/thread where I have a few posts on the subject from years ago

I'm sorry, but there isn't any sort of "clarification" from Baker attempting to "correct" anything. He says "if we didn't include it, don't let it stop you from using it". The lore is not the barrier for it, nor should it be. That's the point of what I was saying, but here you are trying to completely distort what Baker is saying as to be some sort of direct quote against the idea.



Maybe that is if you want to treat the GM's opinion as the only one that matters. I like to take more input from my players and say more than simply "No." It would be weird for the players to have less input at the table than me given that they are the ones playing the game.

Quite the ego for a player to think they get to exclusively take on the hantle of deciding what the gm chooses to add and how. I'll quote myself because it includes links and is still fairly applicable as written then. It doesn't matter why the gm says no for this discussion of a hypothetical tortle or whatever, only if they are allowed to say no. You did not clearly answer the the question of if the gm is allowed to say no and seem to dance around implying they can not without saying it outright. That's important even here because it also answers if the gm has any coverage under that "you" or if it is a totally meaningless waste of words from Keith Baker ECS ECG & RftLW giving players the right to import literally anything they want however literally they want it to be imported from other settings over the GM's objections or not

You are totally incorrect

This bad misconception you are arguing was literally covered earlier in the thread complete with quotes from ECS ECG RftLW and Keith Baker himself.

 

[Belen]

Maybe that is if you want to treat the GM's opinion as the only one that matters. I like to take more input from my players and say more than simply "No." It would be weird for the players to have less input at the table than me given that they are the ones playing the game.

Not a single DM in this thread has said they treat players that way. The player side has used charged language to place themselves on the moral high ground.

Players get plenty of input in the game. My experience has shown that most do not care about much beyond their own character even when I ask for more input or encourage them to do more.

I give my players a character gen doc to see if they want to play that spells out everything, including species.

I have never had a player ask to play a different species not on the list although many ask about feats or classes or spells.

I do have one that asked to be cursed as a werewolf and the party has been searching for a cure.

For my part, there probably are so red lines for me on some fronts. If so, I either do not run the game and no one plays or they would not play or they’d choose something else.

I give lots of options. My players like my games, so it’s been cool.

As I am the one doing the most work, I am not going to run if it would not be something that motivates me. I have a job, wife, kids, and they do not deserve it if I am unhappy.

For me, DM has final say under those circumstances. Period.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. Yes it does. It does in fact mean that one tortle lives in that world.

How?

There is a creature which is sapient and turtle-shaped. That's not everything there is to being "a tortle".

Just like how being a vaguely dragon-shaped person is NOT everything there is to being "a dragonborn". Otherwise you would have to admit that "dragonborn" were playable all the way back in First Edition, because a draconic humanoid that had a level progression based on consuming magic items was included in a Dragon Magazine from 1e.

So, unless you want to accept the idea that "a dragonborn" was an option from the very beginning--which I am supremely confident you would not do--there HAS to be a difference between "being a person with turtle-like physiology" and "being specifically a tortle".

And it means that there was no compromise,

Only because your position is, "You will NEVER be allowed to have what you want."

In other words, you were never coming to the table in good faith. You were never going to allow anything but the one and only thing you want: never ANYTHING even remotely actual-turtle-like.

When one person's position is "you will NEVER get what you want, you MUST accept what I want", that's not negotiation. That's one person demanding their way and threatening anyone who doesn't conform with expulsion.

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.

Yes, precisely. The problem is "you got ANYTHING you wanted". Hence: you are not coming to the negotiation table with a sincere effort to find a compromise. You are coming to the negotiation table to demand that the player do only what you want, and nothing you don't.

That's not negotiation. That's a demand with the pretense of negotiation.

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

My players actively support "supremacy of the GM" in these world-building decisions because they want a curated game, because they trust my judgement, because they're not especially invested in world-building themselves and because they feel that the more invested that I am in the game, the more fun they are going to have.

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.

What the official Realms material does isn't something I use a guideline for anything in my games (in my own, current FR game, the closest thing to canon is FR5, and even that serves ultimately as no more than a source of inspiration, not a book of hard facts).

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.

This is something a lot people were saying earlier: "I've found my games are much better when I open things up so the players are more involved in the worldbuilding." It's great you've identified that, but the fact that it works for you doesn't mean everyone should run games like that all the time.

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.

I'm confident that no one is trying to talk you into wasting time making lore if that's not something you will enjoy doing. Personally, I really, really don't like retcons, and will do whatever I can to avoid them -- although, on the other hand, I also won't play in the same setting for more than 2 - 3 years and, if I do happen to return to that setting, it will generally be with a fresh sheet; nothing that occurred in previous campaigns is likely to be relevant.

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?

No one is saying it's not possible. They're saying that, in some cases, they choose not to.

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.

The people in this thread speaking in support of GM curation all (or at least mostly) appear to have stable groups of like-minded players and are running games where everyone is having fun. Several people have made comments about how these GMs should be afraid their players will leave, but it's quite clear there is absolutely no reason the GMs in questions should feel that way. Similarly, that there are some GMs who have run games their players don't enjoy is surely true, but that has nothing to do with the actual, real world games being run by the curating GMs in this conversation.

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".

What I find strange is the idea that any player is so invested in playing a specific race and expects any given game to be adjusted to accommodate that need. I hope such players find groups where they can play these characters, but I genuinely can't imagine any of my players ever being so heavily invested in a concept that doesn't fit what I was envisaging when I made a game pitch.

In any case, I'm not going to judge people for having those preferences, but if a player expects whatever they want to be allowed every time, they're simply not going to be a good fit for my table. I'll work with you to bring a concept to the table, either now or in a future campaign, but sometimes my answer will be, "No, that doesn't really fit this game."

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.

Nothing @AlViking has said in this thread suggests to me that they aren't flexible or that they don't have plenty of room in their game for exceptions, the extraordinary and the odd. That doesn't mean that adding tortles to their game is an objective, unalloyed good.