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

[Remathilis]

I don't think I'd play with someone who's both an unaccommodating DM and an unaccommodating player. That's not someone who wants to play a cooperative game. That's someone who wants to tell a story to a passive audience.

He's very accommodating as a DM. He just thinks every DM is/should be so accommodating.

 

[Mort]

The annoying part to me is the framing that it's binary. That you are either pro-DM or pro-player, that no nuance exists. That just because I believe a DM can restrict race and/or class options and not be a worse DM for it, that I must believe that DMs can do no wrong, and players no right. That if I believe, players can walk away, they have agency, that that means I think all DMs tyrants.

Extreme views do exist, and some may hold the very views people cite. But I have a sinking suspicion that most of us aren't so easily classified. That most of us value both roles, and desire a group that shares a vision. One that can succeed in having an enjoyable game for all, including ourselves, without subservience.

So I reject the premise of us vs them, that there is some grand conspiracy, some evil cult, that threatens the hobby by promoting and actively encouraging broadly anti social behavior by one role or the other. Instead I believe there is trench digging for the sake of argument.

That we are likely just people arguing over small differences of opinion. That our differences largely wouldn't manifest outside deeply entrenched threads of argument and poorly worded posts of persuasion. That our tribalism is a product of the lens through which we read the words of others.

If my theory is right, and the hobby is under no threat, and these forums aren't loaded with self-righteous narcissists who only value their own fun at the expense of others. Then maybe, just maybe, disagreements over table norms do not equate to moral failures, that maybe moralizing the fun of others is indeed unproductive.

But I'm an optimist, with nothing but positive experiences with the TTRPG community and here on Enworld.

One reality/danger of message board discussions is stated opinions tend to retreat toward extremes. When, in reality, things are MUCH more nuanced.

 

[billd91]

One reality/danger of message board discussions is stated opinions tend to retreat toward extremes. When, in reality, things are MUCH more nuanced.

I think an even bigger danger isn't retreating toward an extreme position, itself, as much as characterizing the other side's opinions or arguments in extreme ways, which serves, whether intentionally done or not, to widen the gap between your own position and the other side's.

 

[Minigiant]

He's very accommodating as a DM. He just thinks every DM is/should be so accommodating.

That's how most online discussions are. Most people default to the neutral rules or their experiences.

Just like many DMs here are in long standing tables or friend groups where Session 0 is barely more that base character creation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the many reasons I love Mythras for Dark Sun is because Mythras makes big things as destructive, dangerous and impervious as they should be. Half giants are actually half giants, with all that entails.

The problem with Mythras for Dark Sun is all the obscenely huge things in the setting end up as destructive, dangerous and impervious as they should be, and I found I had to shrink many of them in order for them to be even vaguely susceptible to physical harm.

Its an intrinsic benefit/risk with BRP derivatives.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am not saying they don’t exist, only that to me they are not warranted. People have different preferences and priorities, it happens, we all should learn to live with that without being offended

Its a vicious cycle though; people who see it at one end tend to do it at the other, and I'm not convinced the power dynamic is symmetrical.

 

[AlViking]

The annoying part to me is the framing that it's binary. That you are either pro-DM or pro-player, that no nuance exists. That just because I believe a DM can restrict race and/or class options and not be a worse DM for it, that I must believe that DMs can do no wrong, and players no right. That if I believe, players can walk away, they have agency, that that means I think all DMs tyrants.

Extreme views do exist, and some may hold the very views people cite. But I have a sinking suspicion that most of us aren't so easily classified. That most of us value both roles, and desire a group that shares a vision. One that can succeed in having an enjoyable game for all, including ourselves, without subservience.

So I reject the premise of us vs them, that there is some grand conspiracy, some evil cult, that threatens the hobby by promoting and actively encouraging broadly anti social behavior by one role or the other. Instead I believe there is trench digging for the sake of argument.

That we are likely just people arguing over small differences of opinion. That our differences largely wouldn't manifest outside deeply entrenched threads of argument and poorly worded posts of persuasion. That our tribalism is a product of the lens through which we read the words of others.

If my theory is right, and the hobby is under no threat, and these forums aren't loaded with self-righteous narcissists who only value their own fun at the expense of others. Then maybe, just maybe, disagreements over table norms do not equate to moral failures, that maybe moralizing the fun of others is indeed unproductive.

But I'm an optimist, with nothing but positive experiences with the TTRPG community and here on Enworld.

You mean your GM doesn't make you sign a blood contract that forces you to play their game?

How do they expect to lord their mighty power over you?

 

[tetrasodium]

No, the statement you are 'ing at is often linked to problems caused by a topic that came up earlier in the thread.

Spoiler: this one

So, my experience at tables so far (obviously a generalization) has been this:
Players who arrive with fully planned characters—complete backstories, a fixed personality, and a very clear idea of who the character “really is”—often engage less with the game world. Because the character is already fully defined, there’s little room for change or growth. The game becomes more of a stage to present the character rather than a space to interact with the world or the other PCs. They are not allowing themselves that their character can surprise them. As a result, these characters can feel like foreign objects dropped into the setting.

In contrast, players who come in with only a loose idea of their character tend to immerse themselves more deeply. They allow the events of play to shape who the character becomes, which leads to more organic development and, in my experience, a more satisfying role-playing experience for everyone at the table.

Even if you assume that first type of player simply for purposes of discussion, a statement like the "can I play a tortle" one I was responding to can have any claims of roleplaying reasons flatly dismissed on an objective level & I'll go deeper on why it can be done on an objective level no matter how in depth & detailed their unshared backstory personality & so on is.

There is a Core Problem with a statement like "can I play a tortle [in a 5e game]" & I bolded that because it's going to get referenced a few times It used to be that extreme character optimization was limited by outwardly visible character sheet entries & silo'd prior to 5e streamlining & simplifying away mechanical elements that served to place any form of hurdle in the way of the most extreme character optimization it took care and planning to make a statblock spreadsheet build of a PC where any narrative elements largely only exist to justify choices used to fill in the spreadsheet statblock rather than something that could be done with no preplanning & no outward headscratching worthy signs on the character sheet. Those hurdles were things like dual/hybrid classing systems that carry an opportunity cost locking a PC into the weight of locking in their later choice & prerequisites that lead to proactive questions about maxed cross class ranks in underwater basket weaving when that's normally a sign of a particular feat chain or PrC combo that seems oddly conflicted with any narrative claims. Without those signs & lock ins it becomes the logical inference to assume mere character optimization when it looks like that and the player has not bothered to share any hint of roleplaying with the table even if the player is in that first group simply because it is only novel writing or similar if there is not any hints of roleplaying occurring at the table. We could be generous & assume the hypothetical player asking for it is from the second group, but all we have is the Core Problem at this point so it's not reasonable to consider it a roleplaying choice until presented with some statement or action from the player that hints otherwise.

I'm not familiar with the site/blog, but I found this great article through google looking for a good solid definition of spreadsheet builds.

How to Create a D&D Character with Real Depth (Not Just a Stat Block)
4 Aug
Written By Robert Bradley
Most players don’t set out to create shallow characters. But when you're sitting at the table with a fresh character sheet, it’s easy to focus on stats, spells, and optimisation while overlooking what makes a character truly memorable… depth!

Whether you're a new player or a seasoned veteran, this guide will walk you through how to breathe life into your character. Below you’ll discover tools, prompts, and ideas that go far beyond choosing a race and class.

The original "can I play a tortle" is 100% a statement focused on stats and optimization. If anything my mention of a past player of mine who added "who is from Droaam" is the only element other than a question of pure stats.

Step 1: Define the Core Concept (But Don’t Get Stuck There)
Start with a broad idea. This could be as simple as:

"A dwarven monk who used to be a pit-fighter."

"An elven bard who gave up immortality for love."

Let this be a launch pad, not a cage. Your concept should invite questions, not limit possibilities. Ask yourself: Why does this character live the way they do? What happened before page 1 of their story?

Once again "can I play a tortle" lacks even a single word to suggest any sort of "concept" so it falls back to the Core Problem.

Step 2: Establish the Character’s Internal Conflict
Great characters are torn between opposing forces. Use these prompts to build their contradictions:

What do they want vs. what do they need?

What is their greatest fear?

What is something they believe that might not be true?

Who do they pretend to be?

This is your character’s emotional engine. It’s what creates drama, fuels development, and makes their arc satisfying.

Once again, the Core problem exists simply because regardless of if the player is the first or second type of player "can I play a tortle" does not share any hint of this with others

Step 3: Create a Living Backstory
Too many players feel that their backstory has to be this massive document that chronicles what they like for breakfast and how they tie their shoes. Backstories are not novels. Instead, write key turning points in your character’s journey:

A tragedy they never recovered from.

A mentor or rival who shaped them.

A vow they’ve made and might one day break.

A good backstory isn’t just history; it’s ammunition for the Dungeon Master and yourself to explore character-driven moments during play.

Ditto

Step 4: Build Dynamic Goals
Avoid static goals like "get rich" or "kill the villain." Instead, ask:

What is their current goal?

What will change that goal later?

What will make them question everything?

Dynamic goals mean the character isn’t locked into a single path. They change, just like real people. Too often, players can lose interest in their characters as they enter double-digit levels. This is often because the DM has covered off the resolution to their backstory, and by doing so has concluded that player-character’s story arc. But unlike a movie, a D&D Campaign works more like a television series. Imagine each session falling into a season. Every season of your campaign, the plot should shift, and so should your character’s goals. Of course, these need to make sense, so be sure to pay attention to everything that happens within the story. That way, you can allow your character to grow truly… Here are some examples:

1. Walter White (Breaking Bad)
Initial Goal: Provide for his family after a terminal cancer diagnosis.
Later Goal: Build a drug empire and feed his own ego.
Final Arc: Protect what remains of his family and legacy… on his terms.

D&D Parallel: A character who starts out as a reluctant hero might become corrupted by power, or obsessed with status and control. Think of a lawful good cleric gradually drawn into morally grey politics.

2. Zuko (Avatar: The Last Airbender)
Initial Goal: Capture the Avatar to restore his honour.
Mid-Series Shift: Question his father’s cruelty and his own identity.
Final Arc: Join the Avatar to fight for justice — and earn true honour.

D&D Parallel: A character driven by revenge or duty can later realise they were chasing the wrong thing. Their new goal might be redemption, atonement, or switching allegiances mid-campaign.

3. Jamie Lannister (Game of Thrones)
Initial Goal: Maintain his reputation and family’s power.
Mid-Series Shift: Survive captivity and reckon with his shame.
Later Arc: Seek redemption and purpose outside of his family — then tragically regress.

D&D Parallel: Players can deepen their characters by letting them grow past old loyalties — even if they sometimes backslide or struggle with identity.

4. Buffy Summers (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Initial Goal: Balance teen life with slaying monsters.
Seasonal Shifts: From accepting her calling, to losing loved ones, to confronting her own mortality and role as a leader.
Endgame: Redefine what it means to be a Slayer — for herself and others.

D&D Parallel: A PC might start as “just a fighter” but evolve into a reluctant leader, a spiritual seeker, or a reluctant god-slayer — shaped by the lives they touch and lose along the way.

5. BoJack Horseman (BoJack Horseman)
Initial Goal: Reclaim fame and feel good about himself.
Series Evolution: Confront deep-seated trauma, addiction, and selfishness.
Endgame: Try to become better — even when it’s too late to undo the damage.

D&D Parallel: This kind of long-form transformation suits campaigns that explore character flaws, slow self-awareness, or the fallout of poor choices. Not every arc needs to end in triumph — but it should be earned.

Once again, nothing but the Core Problem

Step 5: Add Specific, Memorable Flaws
Your character’s flaw should be more than "I’m too loyal" or "I trust too easily."
Think personality defects, emotional scars, or compulsions:

They always have to win.

They lie when they're nervous.

They can’t sleep alone.

They’re terrified of losing control.

Flaws help you play a more human, relatable character—and give your party something real to interact with.

and again

Step 6: Integrate Their Values & Beliefs
This is where your character's moral compass lives. Even villains have values:

What won’t they compromise on?

What do they believe about the world?

What would it take to make them betray that?

This creates a foundation for character-driven decisions in morally grey moments.

Still nothing from the player on this with a statement like "can I play a tortle"

Step 7: Make Them React, Not Just Act
During gameplay, let your character react to what happens emotionally:

Are they furious about injustice?

Do they freeze when things get personal?

Do they crack jokes to hide fear?

Reacting in character creates depth on the fly.

They probably don't have any chance or reason to be acting at this point if they are simply asking "can I play a tortle", but they aren't doing anything else either & we get stuck on the Core Problem again.

If you feel like I've unreasonably overlooked some sign of roleplaying found in a statement like "can I play a tortle" I'd be fascinated to hear more