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

Maxperson · Monday at 5:43 AM

EzekielRaiden said:
How?

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

Correct. There are also the tortle mechanics, which that PC has. It's a tortle in every way that matters.

EzekielRaiden said:
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.

False Equivalence. Those other dragon people didn't have dragonborn mechanics, so they were not dragonborn.

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

And that's just a very blatant "misinterpretation" of everything that I've said in this thread.

EzekielRaiden said:
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.

Ditto.

EzekielRaiden said:
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.

Your Slippery Slope is rejected.

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

Maybe try some good faith negotiation on your side and offer an actual compromise instead of, "I want to play a tortle, so you have to sacrifice your fun so that I can play a tortle as they are in the book AND despite the fact that I could spare you and have fun playing something else so that we both have fun."

Maxperson · Monday at 5:51 AM

Justice and Rule said:
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

Right. He said don't let it stop you, not that you should include it, which is how some here in the thread are using his words.

EzekielRaiden · Monday at 6:22 AM

Maxperson said:
False Equivalence. Those other dragon people didn't have dragonborn mechanics, so they were not dragonborn.

It's not a false equivalence. You've already explicitly said that if it looks like a turtle-person but doesn't have tortle mechanics, it's still a tortle.

That's your argument, not mine. Unless you've changed your mind?

EzekielRaiden · Monday at 6:25 AM

Maxperson said:
Right. He said don't let it stop you, not that you should include it, which is how some here in the thread are using his words.

Not at all what anyone actually said--unless you can dig up the quote otherwise.

What folks have said, repeatedly, is that if you decide not to include any first-party D&D material in an Eberron game, it is completely and exclusively because you, the GM, don't want to. You cannot invoke the "setting consistency" excuse or the "I already know there's no place for it" excuse or the "it wouldn't fit the tone" excuse or anything else that tries to pass the buck.

Eberron, and its author, makes extremely clear that the one--and only--reason that official-D&D content gets excluded from Eberron, is because the GM, purely personally, desired to exclude it.

It is not "I did not feel like including it". It is "I felt like excluding it". No Eberron GM can hide behind some other excuse.

mamba · Monday at 6:36 AM

EzekielRaiden said:
Not at all what anyone actually said--unless you can dig up the quote otherwise.

What folks have said, repeatedly, is that if you decide not to include any first-party D&D material in an Eberron game, it is completely and exclusively because you, the GM, don't want to.

apparently what Keith said is ““If it’s in D&D it has a place in Eberron” – it’s up to you if you want to put it there.”

What have YOU done with Eberron?

One of the core principles of Eberron is that you should make it your own. People often say “If it’s in D&D it’s in Eberron,” but the actual quote is “If it’…

keith-baker.com

So no, it is not exclusively not in Eberron because the DM ‘desired to exclude it’, as you put it. It can also not be there because the DM did not desire to include it, i.e. it simply was never added rather than actively excluded. Which isn’t really all that different from how it works in any other setting

Paul Farquhar · Monday at 7:06 AM

AlViking said:
It's because I want a specific theme or feel to my game.

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?

Zardnaar · Monday at 7:15 AM

Paul Farquhar said:
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?

DMs are allowed to do that. They dont need any justification.

Feel free to DM how you like.

In the real world players dont generally care.

Hell Darksun is easy to recruit players for because of its reputation and there's 7 races iirc.

Paul Farquhar · Monday at 7:24 AM

Zardnaar said:
In the real world players dont generally care.

Sure, often they don't, and are quite happy to go along with whatever the DM comes up with. But that doesn't give the DM the right to do whatever they want irrespective of the players. Simple good manners requires the DM, acting as host, to be attentive to the needs of guests (players). This is a moral code that goes beyond the game.

Zardnaar said:
DMs are allowed to do that.

DMs are only allowed to do what the players empower them to do.

Zardnaar said:
They dont need any justification.

Any decision made without a good (and honest) reason is going to be a poor decision. Again, this is something that applies in all things, not just D&D.

Maxperson · Monday at 7:25 AM

EzekielRaiden said:
Not at all what anyone actually said--unless you can dig up the quote otherwise.

What folks have said, repeatedly, is that if you decide not to include any first-party D&D material in an Eberron game, it is completely and exclusively because you, the GM, don't want to. You cannot invoke the "setting consistency" excuse or the "I already know there's no place for it" excuse or the "it wouldn't fit the tone" excuse or anything else that tries to pass the buck.

Eberron, and its author, makes extremely clear that the one--and only--reason that official-D&D content gets excluded from Eberron, is because the GM, purely personally, desired to exclude it.

It is not "I did not feel like including it". It is "I felt like excluding it". No Eberron GM can hide behind some other excuse.

You have that bass ackwards.

Eberron, and its author, makes extremely clear that the one--and only--reason that official-D&D content isn't included in Eberron, is because the GM, purely personally, desired not to include it.

The DM isn't excluding anything from Eberron, which is the point. Nothing outside of Eberron proper is included unless the DM adds it in, not excludes it.

For example. Elves are in the Forgotten Realms. As DM I would have to act to exclude them from my game if I didn't want them in my Forgotten Realms game. If I don't act to exclude them, they are in the setting. The rabbit people(I forget the name and don't care enough to look) are not mentioned anywhere and are not in any Forgotten Realms book, so I would have to act to include them if I wanted them to be there. If I don't act to include them, they are not in the setting.

SableWyvern · Monday at 7:48 AM

Paul Farquhar said:
Sure, often they don't, and are quite happy to go along with whatever the DM comes up with. But that doesn't give the DM the right to do whatever they want irrespective of the players. Simple good manners requires the DM, acting as host, to be attentive to the needs of guests (players). This is a moral code that goes beyond the game.

GM's don't have the power to do whatever they like irrespective of the players, so the fact that they lack the right is a moot point.

Paul Farquhar said:
DMs are only allowed to do what the players empower them to do.

Who disagrees with this? Maybe @EzekielRaiden with his unique ideas about absolute power. All the curating GMs in the thread agree.

Paul Farquhar said:
Any decision made without a good (and honest) reason is going to be a poor decision. Again, this is something that applies in all things, not just D&D.

In many cases, the good reason comes down to something along the lines of "Because it matches the sort of game I'm happy to run."

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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way

mamba

Legend

What have YOU done with Eberron?

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Zardnaar

Legend

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

SableWyvern

Cruel Despot

Similar Threads

Enchanted Trinkets Complete

Recent & Upcoming Releases