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

soviet said:

Note how you have made 'I want to play race X' the same as playing an evil PC, or making the game some sort of awkward sexual harassment experience involving children, or triggering the GM's phobias.

It's almost like you know that 'I want to play race X' is a difficult thing to object to unless you exaggerate it to something much worse.

Click to expand...

Evil PCs, certain races, R Rated games, that are all okay on their own. Some DMs just don't want to do that and thats okay, too.

Wr are talking here about a game about pretend and everybody has different red lines. Personally in my games you can play a tortle guy. My settings are full of everything and every race finds a place. I also run the occasional evil one shot (usually when to many players are missing a session) then they can play the antagonists of the current campaign for a session and make the lifes of the good party harder .

The Red Lines of Character-Players and GM-Player can be anything. They could be rational or complete irrational. They could be understandable for you or completly uncomprehenseble.
The tortle is just a stand-in for everything a player or gm may want or not want.
Evil PCs, erotica games, flying races, silvery barbs, cantrips, curated homebrew worlds, the lack of encumbrance enforcement - anything.

And if you can't even understand why a GM wants no turtles or why a player only wants to play this one specific thing, then it is better to not play in his game, because you are incompatible.

soviet said:

Note how you have made 'I want to play race X' the same as playing an evil PC, or making the game some sort of awkward sexual harassment experience involving children, or triggering the GM's phobias.

It's almost like you know that 'I want to play race X' is a difficult thing to object to unless you exaggerate it to something much worse.

Click to expand...

Why the hostility?

It's a valid concern. Your side of the debate is adamant than any DM restrictions are complete flaws. Where is the line drawn? Is DM discomfort allowed, in your opinion?

We're not just talking about "tortles" we're talking about the DM's actual gaming preferences. Is "I don't want any PCs who are Evil" still too restrictive and close-minded?

It sure comes across that way.

SkidAce said:

I guess I didn't highlight the change in what I quoted well enough to get my point across. I should have changed the "always" in the original to something else.

Mea culpa.

Click to expand...

I'm honestly shocked that I've yet to hear anyone say "Of course the DM doesn't get everything every time" and "sometimes a DM has to pick his battles." Or even the famous quote from M. Jagger "you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need "

Remathilis said:

I'm honestly shocked that I've yet to hear anyone say "Of course the DM doesn't get everything every time" and "sometimes a DM has to pick his battles." Or even the famous quote from M. Jagger "you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need "

Click to expand...

DM always gets there way if they're so inclined. Are the ENworld sekret police coming around to go "oi oi oi wut r u lot up to".

I dont think most of the fanbase has any problems over restrictions like no evil PC, table rules (some of which restrict PC actions).

Other restrictions I have.

Table Rules

1. No PvP
2. No evil PCs
3. Don't be a jerk or roleplay a jerk
4. Don't roleplay a lone wolf character
5. No stealing off other players

Have I mentioned my groups are very stable and don't self destruct?

Remathilis said:

I'm honestly shocked that I've yet to hear anyone say "Of course the DM doesn't get everything every time" and "sometimes a DM has to pick his battles."

Click to expand...

I mean, that is implied, it is the nature of compromise. I have not heard anyone say the DM should never compromise

M_Natas said:

Some DMs

Click to expand...

This is the nub of the issue. Some players also may or may not want those things. The DM’s role is different to the players’ role, but that does not make them, or their personal tastes, more important than any of the other participants in the game.

AlViking said:

Ah, the same old strawman. How do you go from "DM authors the world" to "players have no meaningful impact"? I create the sandbox, what the players do to it is largely up to them. They can make dramatic changes to the world's order or just run around making themselves wealthy. Up to them.

Click to expand...

I mean, we brought up a suggestion up thread. Let's say, a common, neutral Dungeons and Dragons species that's been playable a long time, such as lizardfolk, is helped out by the party, and this then inspiring them and being able to be used as a backstory in a following campaign, or if one of the people died as part of that assistance, being a shoe in for a playable lizardfolk.

Which you pretty much said "Yeah that isn't happening". That is... Pretty clearly an example of the players not having impact in the world

So, yeah, I would argue players don't have meaningful impact in your world due to that if they can't inspire others to become adventurers. Unless, I guess, if they're specifically part of the "Four variants of human, elf, dwarf or gnome" set

Bae'zel said:

Why the hostility?

It's a valid concern. Your side of the debate is adamant than any DM restrictions are complete flaws. Where is the line drawn? Is DM discomfort allowed, in your opinion?

We're not just talking about "tortles" we're talking about the DM's actual gaming preferences. Is "I don't want any PCs who are Evil" still too restrictive and close-minded?

It sure comes across that way.

Click to expand...

What DMs are being uncomfortable with a lizardfolk or a turtle man, realistically? Like, the regular fliers and yuan-ti discussion, that I get, or bringing over Pathfinder's Anansi.

We're talking about 'let's add another race to the game that isn't powerful'. Something beyond the 'four humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes', per the talks of banning popular tieflings and the incredibly underpowered dragonborn despite them being stock

mamba said:

I mean, that is implied, it is the nature of compromise. I have not heard anyone say the DM should never compromise

Click to expand...

The issue is not that as a DM I'm unwilling to compromise, it's that compromise doesn't mean "always give the player whatever they want". While I accept that the DM makes the final call on what compromise looks like whether I'm the DM or not, we're not in some weird DM/player adversarial struggle with winners and losers fighting over points like hungry chickens chasing after a June bug.

Zardnaar said:

DM always gets there way if they're so inclined. Are the ENworld sekret police coming around to go "oi oi oi wut r u lot up to".

I dont think most of the fanbase has any problems over restrictions like no evil PC, table rules (some of which restrict PC actions).

Other restrictions I have.

Table Rules

1. No PvP

Click to expand...

That's one I extended and added a clause with an inverted twist for. The party is almost always able to be summarized as a bunch of (maybe not so) wandering mercenaries who tend to regularly kill things for various reasons. If someone's pc is pushing too far and the player in question expecting the social contract to shield them any player can reach out to me discretely over discord email or whatever If multiple players say they want to deal with the pc in question in a short period time and I agree, I won't say who they were.... The problem pc just won't wake from a long rest one day. It's surprising how deeply some players start reconsidering their "it's what my character would do" type behaviors with that kinda sword of Damocles out in the open.

Nearly every case has one player reach out or two but over a long period for different reasons. From there I point out to the player the presence of thin ice with how their pc is $whatever and the player starts making ammends/adjustments with their pc (3-4 times across 5e∆). I've had to make good on that not waking up exactly once.


∆ it's hardly common

Mecheon said:

I mean, we brought up a suggestion up thread. Let's say, a common, neutral Dungeons and Dragons species that's been playable a long time, such as lizardfolk, is helped out by the party, and this then inspiring them and being able to be used as a backstory in a following campaign, or if one of the people died as part of that assistance, being a shoe in for a playable lizardfolk.

Which you pretty much said "Yeah that isn't happening". That is... Pretty clearly an example of the players not having impact in the world

So, yeah, I would argue players don't have meaningful impact in your world due to that if they can't inspire others to become adventurers. Unless, I guess, if they're specifically part of the "Four variants of human, elf, dwarf or gnome" set

Click to expand...

That's the player defining the world. Players have all sorts of autonomy, opportunity and ability to change the world - through the actions of their characters. This isn't exactly new, it's a foundational assumption to how D&D works and always has been. Different groups are of course open to change that assumption.

Mecheon said:

What DMs are being uncomfortable with a lizardfolk or a turtle man, realistically? Like, the regular fliers and yuan-ti discussion, that I get, or bringing over Pathfinder's Anansi.

We're talking about 'let's add another race to the game that isn't powerful'. Something beyond the 'four humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes', per the talks of banning popular tieflings and the incredibly underpowered dragonborn despite them being stock

Click to expand...

It's about vision and world building, typically not about an issue with any specific species.