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

[dave2008]

Do you think Keith Baker is a poor person to cite for the design philosophy and construction of Eberron?

If not, then why is his authority so suspect?

I'm fine with KB. He has a lot of great ideas. However, they have little to no impact on how I would run Eberron if I ever did. I think setting authority / canon is of little value and, from my perspective, anti-D&D.

But this does exactly what I keep talking about. You start by presuming you have the trust, respect, etc. of your players.

Earning the players' trust and respect is one of the most important things a GM ever does. Why do we always skip over the "trust has to be earned" part?

I only skip over it because I play with people I already trust. I can only discuss earning trust in the context of D&D theoretically as it is not something I have ever needed to do. I am just not going to dive deep in uncharted waters. My advice - game with people you trust!

@Maxperson is one of them. There are others, but as I do not wish to run afoul of prior moderator admonishment, I will not mention some of them.

I disagree with you. I have seen many of @Maxperson's comments here and on other threads and that is not how I would characterize them as a DM.

Okay. We have people in this very thread who claim being GM instantly confers them absolute authority over all parts of the game. What am I to conclude from that?

My guess, without seeing the post, you either misunderstood the post or it was taken out of context or they were being intentionally inflammatory. or something similar

Because I believe--very passionately--that if the game is exactly as these folks describe, and they are extremely eager to cite passage and verse to prove how righteous their authority is, then that game needs to put ENORMOUS emphasis on how critically important it is to never, ever abuse such ridiculous levels of authority; to work as hard as humanly possible to earn the amount of trust being demanded from players; and to put player interests as the highest goal in most, if not all, situations.

I don't think you are seeing what they are describing though. You are seeing what you think they are describing and that, IMO, is a distortion of reality. As I have said before, that could equally apply to my perspective.

Given how much people have pushed back on even the very idea that the GM might occasionally need to sacrifice absolute maximum personal fun in order for the group to have a better time overall, I don't think this passion is unjustified. In fact, I think it is extremely justified, precisely because people push back SO hard on the very notion that putting your players first is sound policy.

IDK, again I don't see people taking it to the extreme you do. I think there is a lot of truth to what you say, but you always seem to take it such an extreme that it is very hard to agree with you. You seem to think if a DM says they will not allow dragonborn in their game that this is true for every game they run and and they don't compromise ever. That is not what I see from the vast majority of posters here (there is one I can think that is like that though).

I have tried many times not assuming the worst, when it comes to these conversations. Then I get folks--like @Maxperson --who resist every attempt I make, no matter how congenial, to get them to step away from claims like GMs having "absolute authority" over their games.

I have had many interactions with Max and disagree with them on some things, but think I know them well enough at this point to think you are wrong about them. I am not going to go fishing for them, but I have seen them make posts about compromise, working with players, etc. If they are arguing in the extreme is probably, like you, to make a point.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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



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.​

I am really interesting in the tortle looks, without being really familiar with them, I think I personally mostly picked up on that idea to provide an example that's different from Dragonborn or Tieflings. (THough actuallyf or the original point that was discussed in that discussion, they were a better fit, because they're core species and we were discussing how some campaigns were only be defined by taking away stuff, instead of actually adding).

But this cultural aspect here now actually makes them more interesting to me than before. I kinda feel like this is how I would play a tortle, too, even if I had never read that.

The idea that you carry your home with you, and always have a secure place to retreat to, kinda appeals to the introvert in me.
If absolutely, positively can't ever get the physical appearance: What can you give me to create this feeling - the idea that I always carry my home with me, so that I feel safe even when I am far away from any place I know? What can you provide in terms of story and mechanics that could provide that?

 

[Remathilis]

This thread has made me glad Enworld doesn't give relationship advice.

 

[tetrasodium]

I am really interesting in the tortle looks, without being really familiar with them, I think I personally mostly picked up on that idea to provide an example that's different from Dragonborn or Tieflings. (THough actuallyf or the original point that was discussed in that discussion, they were a better fit, because they're core species and we were discussing how some campaigns were only be defined by taking away stuff, instead of actually adding).

But this cultural aspect here now actually makes them more interesting to me than before. I kinda feel like this is how I would play a tortle, too, even if I had never read that.

The idea that you carry your home with you, and always have a secure place to retreat to, kinda appeals to the introvert in me.
If absolutely, positively can't ever get the physical appearance: What can you give me to create this feeling - the idea that I always carry my home with me, so that I feel safe even when I am far away from any place I know? What can you provide in terms of story and mechanics that could provide that?

Why do you assume he needs to "give" anything to you, what are you offering?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why do you assume he needs to "give" anything to you, what are you offering?

For the sake of participating in a thought exercise, he needs to, but he does not need to participate in the thought exercise, obviously. Maybe I should write could rather than can? Or would? Meh, feels overly pedantic.

 

[tetrasodium]

For the sake of participating in a thought exercise, he needs to, but he does not need to participate in the thought exercise, obviously. Maybe I should write could rather than can? Or would? Meh, feels overly pedantic.

No I think that a more fundamental component is being ignored, "participation" was already met when he said no tortles don't fit. At almost every d&d table the gm needs not "give" anything more in order to go on to run an enjoyable game with the other players even if the would be tortle player can't bring themselves to make a compatible PC.

The next step where someone needs to "give" something is the player modifying their desired PC to fit unless the gm is not allowed to say "no" for some reason. That brings things back to the original question of what is being offered in order to expect the gm to give more than the reasons tortle doesn't fit.

 

[AlViking]

The thing is, that's not true, is it? It has nothing to do with theme. You have already told us in this thread that the real reason you don't allow tortles is you think they are "ridiculous".

So, you are giving a list of bullsh*t justifications the DM can use to put their personal preferences ahead of the other players, and you wonder why you get pushback?

The reason they are not allowed is because they are not on my list of allowed species.

 

[Bae'zel]

The reason they are not allowed is because they are not on my list of allowed species.

Careful, folks will associate this statement with some kind of dogwhistle. The "wrong" playstyle means you're obviously the kind of person who abuses their spouse or supports nefarious political ideologies.

 

[AlViking]

Players don't "demand". That is a strawman erected by those who want to argue for DM absolute power to do whatever they like. If you listen to your players, which I'm sure you do, then you are already doing what is being asked for.

So if I listen whatever I say is okay?

Bob: "I want to play a species not on your list with no changes. They can't pass as one of the allowed species."
Me: having listened to the request answer "No."

Dang, if you had said that earlier it would have avoided a lot of arguments!

 

[mamba]

Keith Baker knows what went into creating Eberron, because he himself did it. So he knows--and can tell us--that the setting was built with maximum potential inclusivity. If it's first-party D&D, you can always find a place for it, no matter what.

yeah, he can say that he designed it like that, that doesn’t change that the effort to add a species is not all that different from doing so in FR or Greyhawk however