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

[Maxperson]

First thing that comes to mind is monsters with abilities that negate player agency. Now, there are few of them in MM. But homebrew one with innate dominate person that targets cha save, that one would be very nasty.

I wouldn't find that objectionable. Bards, Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, and Warlocks would finally have a good use for the other half of their starting saves!

 

[TwoSix]

The idea that 5e is intended to be cosmopolitan isn't correct. In the PHB is tells the players as the very first thing to check with the DM to see what kind of game he is going to run. In the DMG under settings it tells the DM to let the players know about the setting expectations so that they can figure out what kinds of characters they can make.

That doesn't conflict with the default assumption of the 5e multiversal setting being cosmopolitan.

If I was going to a 5e table full of randos (which sounds awful), my assumption would be that 5e official material is on the table unless the GM says otherwise.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure. But that's not how I (or anyone I know) play.

Hell, 20-25 sessions here is just a toe-dip. But even then, it'd be nice to know that setting element N introduced in session 3 will still be the same in session 18 and-or that any changes to it will have a solid in-game explanation.

Why would it change just because I didn't prep it beforehand? Once something is introduced in the fiction, it's fixed into the setting. That's pretty core to pretty much all RPGs.

Having a setting bible doesn't help me be more consistent.

 

[TwoSix]

And as a player you should want to avoid asking for things anyone else, including the DM, dislikes.

All of my posts on this subject indicate that I agree with you here.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn't conflict with the default assumption of the 5e multiversal setting being cosmopolitan.

If I was going to a 5e table full of randos (which sounds awful), my assumption would be that 5e official material is on the table unless the GM says otherwise.

Even though the PHB says that you shouldn't do that? The very first thing in character creation is a paragraph telling you to ask the DM if there's anything about the setting/game that would affect how you make your character. That's the opposite of saying that you should assume that everything is on the table unless the DM tells you otherwise.

 

[TwoSix]

Even though the PHB says that you shouldn't do that? The very first thing in character creation is a paragraph telling you to ask the DM if there's anything about the setting/game that would affect how you make your character. That's the opposite of saying that you should assume that everything is on the table unless the DM tells you otherwise.

The game's been out for 12 years (and the D&D milieu for a lot more). All of us have a ton of character ideas floating around in our heads. If I have a cool concept for a halfling sorcerer in my head, and I get invited to a D&D game with a new GM, I'm allowed to be surprised (and possibly disgruntled) when the GM says "Yea, no halflings, I just don't like short races."

Should I be a jerk about it and insist? Of course not. There are lots of other concepts to play instead. But if this is someone I've never played with before, it's definitely a red flag that they might be the type to prioritize their setting vision over being a good, flexible, GM.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't have to exclude, because my players, being decent human beings, wouldn't want to play something that causes me even minor discomfort due to dislike. Just as I don't include things in the adventures I prepare that they would dislike. It's how social games work. All I have to do is let them know that I don't like something, and they immediately just drop it of their own accord and go with something else they like.

Are you bloody serious?

Your players are so gracious, they'll ignore their deep-seated desires just to make sure they never inconvenience you even slightly?

Pull the other one, Max.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When in a different thread the notion that "other players will not accept a [insert species] PC that a player insists on playing" just seemed absurd to me. Who gives a rats kiester that another player wanted to use a different option as long as they aren't breaking the game via power or play style? That just seems so crazy! "Sorry, Bob, I don't like halflings so you have to make a different character." would get me kicked from every group I've ever played with!

Same--or, rather, it would first be met with laughs and (virtual) clap-on-the-back for a ridiculous joke, only to then be met with confused anger if someone somehow insisted on such a thing.

Likewise, the expectation that if the GM expresses even the slightest discontent, that the players will instantly and permanently banish it from their minds and never even talk about it is just flabbergasting to me. That's a nightmarish dystopia as far as I'm concerned--one person doing little more than waving a hand and everyone immediately jumps to do their bidding.

 

[mamba]

Your players are so gracious, they'll ignore their deep-seated desires just to make sure they never inconvenience you even slightly?

if you have 10 ideas for a character (no idea why you call those deep seated desires) and one or two of them do not fit the campaign, choose one of the other eight to nine. Not sure why that would be a problem for anyone.

If you on the other hand can only have any amount of fun by playing a Tortle Barbarian Path of the Zealot, then maybe the problem is you

 

[DammitVictor]

Speaking of reasons I'm no longer a part of this fandom.