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

[EzekielRaiden]

it was always about something negatively impacting the enjoyment of the game, from the very start. It’s just that we do not repeat that mouthful every time and use a shorthand like ‘dislike’

Never saw that myself, it was literally a surprise on this page to me.

I have consistently been using "dislike" in its ordinary, colloquial sense of "I don't particularly like that" or "I have a mild negative opinion of that".

But oh, remember that natural language ensures we can understand one another without need for silly jargon!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Dislike is a range. And no, it's not utter disgust. Disgust is a different word. Metagaming isn't allowed in my game. I dislike it the point where it has a major impact on my fun playing the game. I don't find it disgusting in the slightest.

You've dialed it up to 10 again. If it's something I dislike, but not to the point where it would impact my fun(see halflings, gnomes, Barbies, etc.), I'm not going to say anything. If it does rise to that level, I'm going to let them know how I feel. None of us are the kind of people who want to intentionally inflict negativity on others. There are more fun things that won't bother anyone in this game than we can play in our lifetimes. Literally. There's not enough time to play all the fun possibilities. Why wouldn't I choose one of those other things? Why wouldn't my players?

Okay.

Why do tortles or dragonborn (or whatever) cause you so much pain/disgust/upset/whatever that that would "ruin your fun" if a single player played one?

That, to me, looks quite petty. Like "it's MY playhouse, MY rules, NOBODY can play with that toy here!!!!"

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Same with the troll and metagaming.

Now you've done it!

 

[Maxperson]

And the real argument seems to me that GMs believe they are entitled to ride roughshod over everyone else solely because they elected to take on the significant responsibility of GMing.

Or, in other words, they feel entitled.

No. That's not the real argument. The real argument isn't nearly that extreme for most of us DMs.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay.

Why do tortles or dragonborn (or whatever) cause you so much pain/disgust/upset/whatever that that would "ruin your fun" if a single player played one?

That, to me, looks quite petty. Like "it's MY playhouse, MY rules, NOBODY can play with that toy here!!!!"

Tortles I don't give a fig about. Dragonborn are different, because of what they are. The blood of dragons wouldn't be so weak and pathetic that dragonborn would be on par with humans, elves, and halflings. Accordingly, I increased their power level significantly, so they are no longer an option as a playable race.

Now the original mechanics for dragonborn are just sitting in the PHB not really attached to anything. If someone wanted to make up a new non-dragonish race that used those mechanics, I'd be game to come up with something with them. For example, it might also be cool to make a mecha-dragonborn and have warforged that looked like dragonborn, but only had the stats from the PHB. I'd probably mix the abilities of the two races somewhat since being totally additive of both races would be too much I think.

Why do you think it's okay to intentionally inflict negative enjoyment on others?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Or at the absolute least, you'd want to design it so that the top, say, six or eight most-played races are clearly given space for if players would want to pick them. Right? Like why would you intentionally design a setting knowing that you're excluding stuff folks are very likely to ask for?

because there must be dozens upon dozens of dozens of games with that same basic boring selection of the standard popular species, and if i wanted to design a campaign that's just a little bit unique and doesn't include all or any of them why is that not my right? players aren't obligated to play in my campaign just as i'm not obligated to accommodate their desires, not to say i wouldn't consider, but i'm still not obligated.

 

[Remathilis]

because there must be dozens upon dozens of dozens of games with that same basic boring selection of the standard popular species...

You realize that is why when some people ask to play Dragonborn and tortles and get a little miffed when they are only offered the Tolkien selection again and again, right?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

because there must be dozens upon dozens of dozens of games with that same basic boring selection of the standard popular species, and if i wanted to design a campaign that's just a little bit unique and doesn't include all or any of them why is that not my right? players aren't obligated to play in my campaign just as i'm not obligated to accommodate their desires, not to say i wouldn't consider, but i'm still not obligated.

Two thoughts.

Firstly, you invoke the supreme creative freedom, and yet what do people keep doing, over and over and over again? The same old incredibly tired, incredibly over-used old-school stuff. There isn't that much interest in being "just a little bit unique". A setting where the primary playable species are the eight or ten listed above would actually be creatively different from what way too many GMs default to, time and time again.

Secondly, note the emphasis here. "My campaign", "my right", "to play in my campaign" etc. This is exactly what I was speaking about earlier. When someone puts as their far and away first priority "my campaign", that tells me an awful lot about what priority they put on their players. Namely, not very much at all, as I previously said.

You realize that is why when some people ask to play Dragonborn and tortles and get a little miffed when they are only offered the Tolkien selection again and again, right?

As usual, swordsage'd with a strictly superior statement! But I couldn't agree more.

 

[GrimCo]

no, it’s that players are not entitled to run roughshod over the GM either. Everyone will have to try to accommodate the others, and if that fails, then one of the two is out

Exactly. Sometimes DM has concept of campaign and that's only thing at that moment he is willing to run. There is limit to how much you can stretch something to fit into a game. If players aren't interested in that concept with it's inherent limits, they can decline to play. In same vein, if players come to dm with idea about game, and DM doesn't particularly feel like runing it, they can try to find something that works for both but if they can't, DM can also decline to run game.

Sometimes, players and DM want games so different that there just isn't middle ground. So they don't play with each other.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Tortles I don't give a fig about. Dragonborn are different, because of what they are. The blood of dragons wouldn't be so weak and pathetic that dragonborn would be on par with humans, elves, and halflings. Accordingly, I increased their power level significantly, so they are no longer an option as a playable race.

Nothing in the D&D rules suggests that Dragonblood has such power. If in your campaign they have, maybe then the Dragonborns are just a species that happens to be dragonlike. Maybe they're pseudodragon-blooded, or they came into existence merely because of lesser species existing in the vicinity of dragon, kinda a mutation from the power radiating from dragons. Maybe the Gods actually cursed the Dragonborn to be that weak, because the Dragons overstepped when they created their own servant species, but they didn't feel - or fear - going against the Dragon themselves.

Meh, here I am again, trying to explain people how to use some imagination to find solutions for imaginary players in imaginary campaigns...

---

I agree that I like that D&D both in game rules and among the community talks more directly about how to deal with common "social" issues, like disruptive players or GMs, settling the bounds of what people are okay for topics and what they can't stomache.