Search results

You could play them in my D&D game.* Heck I had a player be a giant once. Not a half giant, but a full on giant! *Not all of my games are anything goes, but some are

So a strength score off 10 is OK?! Have racial bonus ever been greater than +2?

I think those are both bad assumptions.

My issue is you seem take a comment or viewpoint in a forum post and try to extrapolate everything about the DM. One comment on a D&D forum does not a DM make. Heck, must of my discussion on these forums has little to do with how I actually DM. This is a discussion not a table of players.

IDK, I have never experienced anything like that nor have I seen many DMs talk about their game worlds like that. I would guess you are taking a few extreme cases and extrapolating them to the majority of even many DMs. I just think the DM you generally present is a fantasy. I can only think of...

That is not true in how we run games. I am sure everyone does it differently, but at our session zero we decided what kind of game we want to play (setting, theme, etc.) and its broad parameters. Then the players go make characters based on that discussion and the DM works on the campaign world.

@EzekielRaiden, I am not sure what point you are trying to make to Scott, but I don't think it is cool to quote people out of context. For example, taking my quote out of context complete obfuscates the point I was trying to make in the exchange (that being absolutist on either side gets us...

Where else would would you cook up nasty dungeons!

Oh I realize that is likely the case, I was just trying to be funny.

I too like all of the optional, variant rules, and monster building guidelines cut from the 2024 DMG. On the other hand, I am pretty sure WotC has some data that suggest a lot of people didn't get much use out of them. Heck, I still encounter people that don't know those rules are in the 2014...

Yep, there is an issue with your table. It looks like you might have spent about $15,000 on D&D wrapping paper! I hope that last you a long time!

The framing of the question I responded too, did not fit the parameters you present here. It was two absolute, non-negotiable options: tortle PC and no tortles. If those are non-negotiable, then there is no compromise that is acceptable that allows one of those positions. Look, I want to be...

Except I don't believe the DM would be unhappy with this solution. They don't want dragonborn. IMO, they don't really care about the character's culture and mechanics - they care that it doesn't look like a dragon person. From my perspective the DM didn't compromise at all.

I really wanted to make a Couatl PC! I hinted at it several times but no one took the bait. I think the idea of using weapons, magic items, etc. was so ingrained that they couldn't seem themselves playing a character without hands.

I disagree, that is a capitulation by the player, not a compromise. The premise was I want to play a turtle person. Something that doesn't look like a turtle person doesn't qualify. I want to be clear, I am not advocating these narrow perspectives. I was responding to a claim that simply...

That is precisely what someone was arguing for (not me btw) I just stripped the argument down to its core. Regardless, what are you confused about?

Yep. When I handed my players the MM and said pick any sentient creature from the book I warned them that some creatures are generally considered threats to civilized peoples and you could at a min. face extreme prejudice and possibly serial violence.

Of course there is, but that wasn't the question. The scenario was: The player will only play a tortle The DM will not allow tortles I can see no way to compromise those two stances.

Just be ready of some serious baddies coming your way!

Though I didn't see your post, I would argue that is a capitulation by the DM, not a compromise. The set up was simply: The player will only play a tortle The DM will not allow tortles I can see no way to compromise those two stances.