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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Half Dragons are not Dragonborn, and they appeared once in a niche 2E product (I love Council of Wyrms, and I own it, but its depiction of "half-dragons" does not match Krynnish half-dragons (who work completely differently, based on their very minor appearances in the lore).

Half-Dragons, Dragonborn, Dracha, Draconians and what they are called all serve the same role - play a dragon-themed being that's compatible for play. I don't think most players would be worried much if you can play one or the other, but if you can't play anything like that at all, it's definitely a thematic loss in choices that will bother some players.

ok, so a misunderstanding rather than unclear. In that case things get sorted out right then and there, just like in your example discussion


any player who thinks an Arctic Ranger is not suitable for an arctic campaign sounds like someone who runs into a lot of misunderstandings

I am not sure what disqualifies a Pyromancer though. The DM should definitely have been more explicit in your fictional exchange

I think the idea was that it would be OP for such a specialized campaign, but I seem to remember someone in another thread saying that the Arctic Ranger does a lot of cold damage stuff that would likely be useless against arctic monsters adapted for the environment.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The conversation in this thread has really helped me decide what to look for the next time I put together a gaming group. As a player, I think I'd prefer to play for DMs who have also been players for at least a few campaigns. As a DM, I think I'd prefer to run games for players who've also been DMs for at least a few campaigns.

If everyone at the table has experience with both roles, I'm less likely to encounter any binary, "my side vs. the Other" shenanigans in real life.

Rotating DM "duties" can help a lot, I think.
The two gaming groups I was part of in my life always had changing GMs, each running their own campaign,and they run concurrently.
Some simply used published adventures, others homebrewed stuff. And sure, some are better at it than others, and some like it less than others. And hey, maybe for some it just doesn't work out, you don't have to force anyone.

 

[TiQuinn]

There was a large number of words detailing that "no" is the forum acting up in some way causing you not to see the rest of the post?

You cannot objectively say that the player who wants to play a tortle character is less of a roleplayer than the player wanting to play an elf, or any other fantasy character. You can only offer your opinion, which in this case is simply that you do not like tortles as an option.

 

[tetrasodium]

You cannot objectively say that the player who wants to play a tortle character is less of a roleplayer than the player wanting to play an elf, or any other fantasy character. You can only offer your opinion, which in this case is simply that you do not like tortles as an option.

Except I wasn't writing that objective assessment about "a player who wants to play a tortle". I was writing it about the statement "can I play a tortle" because that is the question that was made earlier. That question can be judged at an objective level because it lacks any additional details.

Had you continued reading my earlier post beyond the first word you would have seen an explanation of the kinds of things that could be added to convey some form of roleplaying
.. I don't think English has a single word capable of explaining that

Edit: I made a grave mistake and failed to catch autocomplete or autocorrect inserting bector in place of "because it". That apparently made the entire post unreadable and has been corrected

 

[TiQuinn]

Except I wasn't writing that objective assessment about "a player who wants to play a tortle". I was writing it about the statement "can I play a tortle" because that is the question that was made earlier. That question can be judged at an objective level bector lacks any additional details.

Had you continued reading my earlier post beyond the first word you would have seen an explanation of the kinds of things that could be added to convey some form of roleplaying
.. I don't think English has a single word capable of explaining that

I read your first post up to the point that the lack of punctuation and grammar prevented me from understanding anything else that were saying, but based on what I could understand, I wasn’t confident that anything you wrote was going to be convincing regardless.

For example, what’s a “bector?”

 

[Dire Bare]

I can only speak for myself: over the years I have become increasingly open to developing the world and story through cooperation and consensus, and the game just keeps getting better!

I find that, for the most part, players are thrilled to have someone putting in the work and are very appreciative. When they have a character/backstory idea, I try to put aside my own preconceptions and think:

1. They obviously were excited enough about this idea to want to share it.
2. How can I accommodate them within the constraints of world stuff that is already in play, even if they don’t know it?
3. If I open my mind a bit, what new story beats could come from this? Fun!

Often my response is “Amazing! I love it!” Occasionally it’s “I love the concept; can we tweak it a bit like this, to make it fit better with some other stuff?”

What I’ve found is that sessions are a lot more fun because, to a significant degree, the story is unfolding right at the table, taking turns I never anticipated. And that is entertaining for me!

This is the way!

 

[Dire Bare]

I know you're not asking me but there is one campaign I would give you a hard no on playing a Dragonborn. And that's the Dragonlance setting. The draconians and their origin are too core and significant to the setting to muddle with another humanoid dragon species.

Well, actually . . .

Playing a "draconian" in a Dragonlance campaign could be awesome! Even if you stick to published canon (not that you'd need to).

In the original stories, the draconians were evil beings created by magic and were violent and aggressive beings perfectly happy being evily evil and serving the Dark Queen Tiamat Takhisis. But in later stories, co-authored by none other than Margaret Weis herself, we got a more nuanced depiction of draconians. Beings fully capable of being good, evil, or neutral, but with a shared traumatic past of being born into slavery and forced into being soldiers of the Dark Queen, and then discarded when no longer useful.

That sounds like an awesome back story for a dragonborn PC! The draconians even established their own nation post War of the Lance . . . but I'd even OK a draconian PC during a campaign set during the war. Would that bring challenges to the campaign? Hell yes! Sounds like fun!

Draconians don't have PC playable versions in 5E (that I'm aware of), but you don't really need them. Just use the PHB dragonborn species and call it a draconian! Throw in the death abilities of the draconians . . . if you want . . . or not. Ask the player to model their choices (draconic ancestry) after the existing draconian species . . . or not . . . in the larger Dragonlance lore, there were draconians based on all 10 chromatic and metallic dragon species . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

He's in the minority. This board is full of people who think DMs do no wrong. In fact, I'm pretty sure we were just having a conversation about killer DMs with people who didn't believe they existed in the numbers that match the stories told about them. That's so deep in denial that you can meet the Pharaoh. Thread after thread, DM supremacy is touted and players either get on board or get out. DMs don't compromise, they declare.

Are the folks complaining about "player entitlement" really in the majority on these boards? They are loud and they are persistent, but that isn't the same thing.

While I'm in general agreement with you that DMs who are very precious about their settings and are into world-building by subtraction are not my cup of tea, and in their extreme form can be toxic DMs . . . I don't think they are any sort of majority here or elsewhere.

And even if they are . . . so? How important is it to "win" in these types of never-ending debates?

 

[SableWyvern]

world-building by subtraction

This phrase got me thinking. When I'm planning a game, I usually start with a concept, settle on a system, then do the work to mesh the two.

If I was to end up with "these six core options, but not these two", it would not be because I started with eight and removed two, but because six were what matched the concept.

Realistically, it would probably be more like, "these core two, these two variants and these two new completely new options" but the main point is that I generally don't care about the system default and won't typically be interested in developing something that's defines itself by comparison to the default - - whether that means addition or subtraction.

My experience is that someone genuinely interested in the concept isn't going to complain about a missing class that isn't part of the concept.

On a related note, in my previous Rolemaster game, my starting premise was that I wanted a world where every single profession had a reason for existing and was incorporated into society in an internally consistent way.

 

[billd91]

Well, actually . . .

Playing a "draconian" in a Dragonlance campaign could be awesome! Even if you stick to published canon (not that you'd need to).

In the original stories, the draconians were evil beings created by magic and were violent and aggressive beings perfectly happy being evily evil and serving the Dark Queen Tiamat Takhisis. But in later stories, co-authored by none other than Margaret Weis herself, we got a more nuanced depiction of draconians. Beings fully capable of being good, evil, or neutral, but with a shared traumatic past of being born into slavery and forced into being soldiers of the Dark Queen, and then discarded when no longer useful.

Well, actually nothing. I'm still putting a hard stop on that one.