D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Yaarel]

It's not recursive, the moment the argument is attempted in reality it gets shut down because the DM can in fact say "No" and kick the player out.

Hence it is a destructive argument, rather than a constructive argument.

Also it has nothing to do with game rules, because kicking someone out of ones home has nothing to do with the rules of any game.

 

[Lanefan]

But it is something being demolished. The game already exists. The PHB already contains the thing it contains. You are, by definition, removing things. That's why it's a limitation or restriction. Even you are using that word. The addition of restrictions is not art by itself. Otherwise, legislators would surely be the most celebrated artists of all time, given how many restrictions and limitations they create!

OK, let's flip-side this: the DM, already using everything in the book, decides to ADD something to the game that you-as-player don't like or disagree with.

What then?

 

[Lanefan]

How about dragonborn?

They're in the PHB. In 5.0, they were literally one of the weakest races in the game (hence why they got two revisions before 5.5e). They're a darling for getting banned banned banned banned.

What's wrong with them? They're a core race, low power, extremely popular (at worst #5 after human, elf, half-elf, and tiefling; the last data actually released by DDB indicated they'd risen to #4, overtaking tiefling.) They've been around in some form for two decades (literally, two decades! January 2006!),

If you include Half-Dragon, which is pretty much the same concept only with a different name, they've been around since 2001.

Didn't 3e also have a Draconic template that could be overlaid on to other creatures? Or was that not PC-playable.

and things like them have been around since at least 1e (1981, the Argas, from Dragon Magazine, lawful good draconic race-as-class that consumes metals and magic items to gain XP.)

Was the Argas intended to be PC-playable, or was it intended as a lawful-good monster type? It's a very long time since I read any 1981-era Dragon mag's, and I may or may not have ever seen this article.

 

[Lanefan]

I've read his posts. His players do engage in the sort of individual role teamwork I described. Mostly. He just doesn't try to force it and sometimes a PC doesn't play as part of the team. From what he describes, though, when a PC in his game doesn't play as part of the team in even a loose fashion, that PC is often/usually killed or kicked out, because it endangers everyone in the group.

More like if they do their own thing and that "own thing" usually turns out to be useful in the end, no problem; but if they actively work against the party then the consequences can be dire.

 

[Marc17]

It's not recursive, the moment the argument is attempted in reality it gets shut down because the DM can in fact say "No" and kick the player out.

I think they mean recursive on this site as I feel there are people on both sides that just like to argue on the internet too much.

 

[Lanefan]

So don't dislike something as trivial as a race in an RPG!

The move away from viewing the rules as a pure GURPSian toolkit to build a setting, and towards presenting the game as oriented around the D&D multiverse, with individual games being local variations of that milieu, is also an evolution I like.

Thing is, local variations of that milieu don't (and shouldn't) have to include the entire milieu. That's what "local variation" means.

A DM might say, for example, that while Tieflings exist on most D&D worlds for some reason they never came to this one; and if any ever did they'd be taken for Demons and killed on sight.

 

[Lanefan]

“Rights” has nothing to do with it. It has to do with what approach generates a more cohesive group, with the understanding that a cohesive group will generate a more entertaining game.

And to ensure that cohesive group (as best I can, anyway) I'll be a little bit selective about who I invite into the game.

Put another way, as DM I have the right to not invite them in the first place.

Keep in mind, however, I'm talking exclusively about home games here. At con games and the like you're kinda stuck with whoever you get, and I believe (though I stand to be corrected) the same is true of AL games and similar.

 

[soviet]

This comes down to their belief that DMs don't have the right to reject players.

Or your belief that players are interchangeable and disposable.

 

[Necropolitan]

Or your belief that players are interchangeable and disposable.

LOL.

The opposite in fact.

There are good players and there are bad players.

Bad players include the ones who can't handle being told "No" and act like they're owed spots in campaigns.

 

[TwoSix]

OK, let's flip-side this: the DM, already using everything in the book, decides to ADD something to the game that you-as-player don't like or disagree with.

What then?

The GM has close to carte blanche to introduce anything they deem fit, barring some kind of X-card scenario.