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

[Xenolith234]

I think the problem is that some people seem to be really leaning into the power-hungry, narrow minded part as their reasoning for a hypothetical player asking to bring in a non-standard PC.

In practice, the times that I’ve played with a DM who has said “no species from these sources” gave much, much better reasons than evident amongst some of the posters here and didn’t play it off as a “my way or the highway” kind of thing.

I don’t think any single person advocating for DMs has come across that way, but I’ve certainly seen ultimatums coming from the players talking about restrictions in this thread.

 

[TiQuinn]

I don’t think any single person advocating for DMs has come across that way, but I’ve certainly seen ultimatums coming from the players talking about restrictions in this thread.

There’s been a lot of hyperbole but I don’t agree that it’s been one sided at all.

 

[Belen]

There’s been a lot of hyperbole but I don’t agree that it’s been one sided at all.

I think @Remathilis is the only one who said that they might play if restrictions were followed up some additions.

IRL, my guess is that most people are more accommodating than comments suggest here; however, there has been a strong position that DM restrictions are bad followed up with comments like "power hungry, controlling, etc" as the only valid reasons for restrictions.

 

[Minigiant]

There is a point here though. I have seen multiple instances where someone chose a species only for mechanical benefits. My friend is playing an aasimar right now because of them. He does not care about any species as long as it helps him optimize and power game.

That said, he never complains if there are setting restrictions. He just chooses the most optimal species available.

It is a valid choice as that is the aspect of the game that this person enjoys. He always talks about the stories of the game years later so I know he appreciates it and pays attention but the guy loves to power game.

I do not mind compromise but it has to be two way.

Finally, someone made a point earlier in thread that special selections often make that character more prominent in the game. I have been thinking about it a lot and looking back at my own history and this is often the case. That character gets more screen time because they are outside the norm. For example, the Gnome Paladin of the Goddess of Love who's father owned Wocket's Rockets and whose holy vestments were diaphanous robes and who stopped anytime they saw an burrowing animal because they wanted to talk to it. Memorable character and made themselves the center of the game.

Then again, all my players will discuss there concepts with each other and often fit their backstories together so I just do not worry much about it. I have two wood elf and half-wood elf (werewolf) druid cousins in my game right now who constantly discuss elven family drama in game. (Yes, one of them played that darn Gnome!)

When I said DMs should figure out why someone likes a banned race, class, feat, or other element in your setting and find the equivalent in your setting because good settings usually have it in then, I was accused of hating DMs.

 

[Remathilis]

I think @Remathilis is the only one who said that they might play if restrictions were followed up some additions.

Yes. I get that orcs or Dragonborn or Planetouched don't fit some DMs vision, but MotM has 31 other species in it (29 due to promotion). If you are removing Dragonborn, how hard is it to find a species that could fill their place? I don't like the "there are 10 options, but I only allow 5" style of limitations because it tells me that you aren't willing to think outside the box when it comes to designing your world.

When Krynn removed halflings, the replaced with kender. Dark Sun removed gnomes but added muls, half-giants and thri-kreen. 3e Ravenloft removed half-orcs but replaced them with caliban (ok, not a good flavor replacement, but point stands). If you can't even do that, I don't have a lot of faith in the rest of your design.

 

[mamba]

You had Hit Dice back in the day. I remember using it in 2e.

yeah, that is part of their stats (as mentioned), and I doubt that was more accurate than CR is

 

[mamba]

It’s not a DM’s job to second guess why someone wants to play a character even if there are some reasons a DM wants to curate some options for the game they’re proposing to run.

they are not second guessing, they are trying to find a compromise that works for both sides

 

[TiQuinn]

I think @Remathilis is the only one who said that they might play if restrictions were followed up some additions.

IRL, my guess is that most people are more accommodating than comments suggest here; however, there has been a strong position that DM restrictions are bad followed up with comments like "power hungry, controlling, etc" as the only valid reasons for restrictions.

And I’ve read posters who’ve claimed that players wanting to play non-standard PC races couldn’t possibly be doing it for roleplaying reasons and must be doing so for purposes to undermine the game. Others have decried the entire 5th edition as powergaming and designed for people who want to play out video game fantasies. The hyperbole has cut both ways, IMO.

 

[Epic Meepo]

I don’t think any single person advocating for DMs has come across that way, but I’ve certainly seen ultimatums coming from the players talking about restrictions in this thread.

Well, I'm not advocating for DMs, because I'm not buying into all the "us vs. them" stuff, but I freely admit I'll lay down an ultimatum when it comes to running a game:

If I tell someone I'm in the mood to run a campaign using a particular set of rules, and they say they'd rather play in a campaign using some other set of rules, I'm not going to be their GM. Full stop. No compromise. I'm not sorry. I'll find someone else who wants to play in the campaign that interests me, and they can find someone else to run the campaign that interests them. Life's too short for either of us to be running or playing in campaigns we don't actually enjoy.

 

[AlViking]

Maybe because they were inspired by Master Oogway in Kung Fu Panda? It’s not a DM’s job to second guess why someone wants to play a character even if there are some reasons a DM wants to curate some options for the game they’re proposing to run.

So the compromise acceptable is player deciding what species are allowed? I gave one example of how I might compromise in a way that makes sense in-world without opening up the door to every race under the sun. Master Oogway is a personality caricature that can be played by any number of species.