D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[FrogReaver]

I, personally, as a DM, would not impose a restriction on evil PCs. I don't have a problem with it.

I, personally, as a player, would respect that the DM has a vision, and will work within the boundaries the DM has established.

To me, it's a simple principle of respect and accommodation. If there's something you want to try as a player, I respect that. If I have a concern that a certain choice you're making might cause a conflict in the game, I expect the player to reciprocate my respect and accommodation with their own.

I don't have restrictions based on a certain vision of how the game is "supposed to" be played. The fact that I'm willing to accommodate all sorts of crazy ideas means that if I do restrict something based on a specific thematic or balance concern, I expect that my decision will also be respected, even if that means the player might not be able to do something. I hardly ever do it, so if I do, the player should understand and accept this is something that I've deemed quite important.

All that’s good but it’s not really reconciling this stance with the previous comments that DMs should allow pretty much whatever.

 

[TwoSix]

All that’s good but it’s not really reconciling this stance with the previous comments that DMs should allow pretty much whatever.

Because "pretty much whatever" encapsulates the 99% percent of stuff I'm OK with, and the 1% I'll need to take a firmer stance on.

I allow "pretty much whatever". I think other people, as DMs, should be open to generally saying yes to novel expressions of character concepts. I think if you have a cool idea for a campaign that does require more restrictions, like "Let's do a game where everyone is a warforged druid so we can be Transformers!" (non-hypothetical, this idea was discussed by one of my groups over the weekend), then we make sure everyone has buy-in, but also that nobody should try to be disruptive once everyone is onboard.

We had a question on these boards a couple years ago about whether it was OK to play a gnome in Dark Sun; canonically, Dark Sun does not have gnomes.

As a player, I would never ask to play a gnome, because I assume the DM wants to maintain the canon and atmosphere of Dark Sun.

If I was the DM, I would explain that Dark Sun doesn't canonically have gnomes, but we can absolutely make it work if he wants to be a gnome. Maybe he can be a lost gnome held in stasis, maybe there's a lost tribe of gnomes deep in the Wastes, or maybe just gnomes are actually common on Athas for this campaign. Most of my players would just decide not to be a gnome, and for the few that had a concept in which gnome was essential, would work with me to establish their place in the setting.

Man, this drifted really far from the point I wanted to make of "It's totally cool to use the 2014 druid and the 2024 druid at the same table."

 

[TwoSix]

I can't help but notice your example has the "compromise" as the gm completely lifting the restriction on a binary yes/no. That's capitulation not compromise.

Definition of CAPITULATE

to surrender often after negotiation of terms; to cease resisting : acquiesce; parley, negotiate… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I think you may have failed to notice where in the 3rd line of my hypothetical dialogue, the player was the first one to concede.

It's not the result, it's the attitude of reciprocal respect that matters.

 

[Corinnguard]

"Let's do a game where everyone is a warforged druid so we can be Transformers!"

Funny you say that. Druid: Circle Of The Forged (HB) - DND 5th Edition

 

[FitzTheRuke]

All of this recent side-discussion is dependent on everyone being reasonable and trustworthy. Something that you can enforce by only playing with reasonable and trustworthy players/DMs or by placing firm and understood guidelines and limitations.

Or in other words, while I work very much like @TwoSix does (in that I trust most of my players to Play Nicely With Others) and don't place limitations for (as I see it) limitations' sake, and therefore allow almost anything, within reason, I think I can understand why some folks feel that it's just safer to have well spoken session zeros and clear rules of conduct.

It's very similar in a lot of ways to the discussion on the Ignore function. I don't have anyone on ignore, because I trust my own ability to not be overly bothered by anything they say (it takes a lot of practice and I fail sometimes, but I do pretty well).

I can roll with most things that a player can throw at me, without disrupting the table. IF, on the other hand, a player's actions/choices ARE bothering the table (IE Not Playing Nice With Others), I will first talk to them seriously about it, try to get them to change, or ask them to leave.

 

[TwoSix]

Funny you say that. Druid: Circle Of The Forged (HB) - DND 5th Edition

Forgot about that one! Since there were 4 of us, we decided to do TMNT based characters instead.

 

[Corinnguard]

Forgot about that one! Since there were 4 of us, we decided to do TMNT based characters instead.

Turtlefolk (5e Race) - D&D Wiki The nice thing about homebrew, someone probably brewed it for you already. Ninja – 5th Edition SRD

 

[Oofta]

Because "pretty much whatever" encapsulates the 99% percent of stuff I'm OK with, and the 1% I'll need to take a firmer stance on.

I allow "pretty much whatever". I think other people, as DMs, should be open to generally saying yes to novel expressions of character concepts. I think if you have a cool idea for a campaign that does require more restrictions, like "Let's do a game where everyone is a warforged druid so we can be Transformers!" (non-hypothetical, this idea was discussed by one of my groups over the weekend), then we make sure everyone has buy-in, but also that nobody should try to be disruptive once everyone is onboard.

We had a question on these boards a couple years ago about whether it was OK to play a gnome in Dark Sun; canonically, Dark Sun does not have gnomes.

As a player, I would never ask to play a gnome, because I assume the DM wants to maintain the canon and atmosphere of Dark Sun.

If I was the DM, I would explain that Dark Sun doesn't canonically have gnomes, but we can absolutely make it work if he wants to be a gnome. Maybe he can be a lost gnome held in stasis, maybe there's a lost tribe of gnomes deep in the Wastes, or maybe just gnomes are actually common on Athas for this campaign. Most of my players would just decide not to be a gnome, and for the few that had a concept in which gnome was essential, would work with me to establish their place in the setting.

Man, this drifted really far from the point I wanted to make of "It's totally cool to use the 2014 druid and the 2024 druid at the same table."

This is going down the same rabbit hole we go down every time. I'm not a "Say yes" DM, I'm a "I want to run a campaign that is not only fun for me and everyone at the table". But part of that is that the world has to make sense to me. Yes, you could have gnomes in Athas as a one off but what happens when the next person wants to play a kenku or a tabaxi? What happens when most of the party is of species that don't canonically exist in that world? Because if I allow one exception, if I don't allow all exceptions then it starts to look like favoritism. But maybe it's just because I've been running in the same campaign world for decades and do my best to be consistent with the lore, even when running for different groups.

On the other hand, since I'm up front about restrictions and expectations when I invite people, it's never really been an issue. Well, except for the guy that didn't bother to read the less than a page invite that explicitly said no evil.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think you may have failed to notice where in the 3rd line of my hypothetical dialogue, the player was the first one to concede.

It's not the result, it's the attitude of reciprocal respect that matters.

No because you posted an example for @Lanefan's question of "How can there be compromise, though, on what is clearly a binary yes-no decision as to whether something will be included or not?" That is not compromise. The "work on another concept" you are pointing out is literally overridden by the GM in the very next words ""No, wait, hold on. If we just adjust this class feature Y to work more like Z, I think we can make this work. Let me check something..."that italicized bit is capitulation and you left out the how. Since the paladin smite spam being fixed has been brought up a few times and makes for an easy obvious binary use that to show us your "compromise" in detail.

 

[tetrasodium]

That player doesn't exist at my tables. Period. If I somehow ended up with someone like that as a friend, I simply wouldn't play with them.

Of course, I wouldn't say "I don't allow X" because I allow pretty much everything.

We aren't talking about "pretty much anything". We are specifically talking about cross edition PCs not "pretty much anything" like Alice using a splatbook for her PC or Bob stomping up in a glitterboy with his PC.