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

[Azzy]

So I am asked to prove my assertion that 5e has become overpowered and videogamey, and I provide eight-odd links featuring nothing but people focussing on overpowered builds.
And that's now "anecdotes," not data?
I suppose finding 20+ more links to various other bits of evidence isn't going to convince you. Not sure what else I can do.

If we're going to use YouTubers as a bellwether to what 5e "caters to", do we just include the ones that confirm your narrative, or do we look at the fact that D&D YouTube is much more diverse in its base. Also, do we also ignore that most YouTubers use clickbait titles and hot takes to get views and are not representative of the actual player base? Do we also ignore that 5e is not actually overpowered?

 

[AlViking]

I think this example highlights the disconnect between the "sides" here. It's not the only post to do so, just not interested in quote chaining them all. This is not a criticism of you, Belen, or the example you give here, as you are rightfully and simply expressing a lived experience.

But with regards to the broader conversation, the pushback from the "DM side" of things seems to center on wanting to counter problematic playstyles with an indiscriminate fix that burns the players who are not there to steal the spotlight or to pursue mechanics, they're just there to enjoy the game like everyone else.

This conversation ultimately just feels like looping around and around the perception of red flags in either the player or the DM corner, a conversation without resolution often because so many will force the other's response into being a bad faith interpretation.

From my perspective, the pushback from both sides often highlights real red flags within their own corners. When the positions become as intractable and universal as many of those shared here, those are huge red flags in my opinion. It's a 'my way or the highway' attitude, and whether it's from the DM or the player, it suggests continued problems down the line even if there's concession from the other. And I think a large reason for why it's being so often disregarded within one's own corner is that we can get so precious about what we do or create that we don't even realize when we've crossed the line.

Of course, by the nature of the internet and this being an online forum, I do acknowledge that just because the positions are often presented as intractable and universal doesn't mean that's true in actual practice.

So again ... what is it about having established lore and feel to a campaign that "burns" a player if they can't play a species that doesn't exist in the world? Why is it a red flag that I have a preference that some people may not agree with?

That’s not what I said. Rather, I’m not going to get in a snit about someone wanting to play a tortle because they want to have a robust shell - or more to the point, because I think that’s the reason they want to play one. I’m gonna include or exclude the tortle for reasons of my own with respect to the setting, not because I don’t “approve” of the reason for them playing one.

When it comes to compromise, I'm willing to discuss options on mechanical changes if that's what the player wants. If they want it for RP purposes, I just don't get it. You want to play a tortle because of the lore? Tortles don't exist in my world so there is no lore. Want to play a person that was magically transformed into a tortle? Then just play that person, no need for a physical transformation. We can discuss options about how your character was affected by magic in the past and what it means. Would you really be okay with playing a human that is affected by a permanent illusion that they look like a tortle?

So if it's not lore and the personality being portrayed is not limited to a specific species (I don't see how it could be) then that leaves me with the mechanical benefit. Which I'm willing to discuss. I limit species because I want the feel of a persistent world that I've used for a long, long time. I have no issue with kitchen sink campaigns, I just don't want to change my world into one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So I'm curious. Is there a moral difference between the roles? Or are we confessing which role we prefer under the guise of compromise?

I think at least some of the answer to this question turns on whether you consider (in traditional games) the power dynamic in the two symmetrical. I've expressed my opinion on that enough times I don't feel a need to belabor it.

 

[AlViking]

I wonder. Are the DMs and players morally different?

If you humor me, and we assume the answer is no, a DM refusing a non-standard race and a player refusing a standard race are structurally identical positions. Neither is more reasonable than the other, neither is more unreasonable. But this discussion seems to be trying to make a distinction.

When we say “the DM should compromise” or we say “the player should compromise,” aren’t we really just saying “the role I sympathize with less should compromise?” Or "The role who's agency I value less should compromise?"

But that's weird to me. It's weird because compromise cannot be the goal. For bad compromise is no better than no compromise. So the goal has to be something else, perhaps compatibility. But compatibility isn't beholden to one role acquiescing to the demands of another. Not at all. It requires both sides have the same goal, the same end state. It's a higher bar than compromise.

Yet, in this discussion we are pretending that there is a moral difference between the roles, and that one role owes the other a compromise. That the onus of creating compatibility lays at the feet of one role, and not the other. A truly strange way to say, "I prefer this role."

So I'm curious. Is there a moral difference between the roles? Or are we confessing which role we prefer under the guise of compromise?

I don't see morality playing into this. As DM I need to be excited and engaged about the world I create for the players to interact with. I owe it to my players - all my players - to have logical consistency in the world and to have put thought into it. I'm not doing it because I'm a control freak, I'm doing it because I know that some of players appreciate that I put hard limits in and most don't care. If someone absolutely insists on playing a specific character that violates the handful of restrictions I've got then they shouldn't have accepted the invitation to join in the first place because I let people know up front what my limits are.

As DM I have a responsibility though to make the game as enjoyable as I know how for everyone at the table. Including me.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think you're to understand me better if I just say this statement.

I am primarily a DMs but I think most DMs are not great world builders. And I think that most dm's who create custom settings do not create custom settings that are good enough or deep enough to really put many hard lines. I'm not no well awarded writer. But DND is a game, so your world should facilitate the game and there is a line where if you're setting does not have enough "oomph" In it for the players you're no longer serving the game or the players.

You are blatant avoiding the question and it looks like a dog whistle or poor recollection of things discussed. Are you saying that applies to eberron darksun dragonlance forgotten realms and other official settings that have come up repeatedly throughout the discussion?

If so it seems like you are attempting to avoid saying it while using a dog whistle to declare that no GM can ever be good enough to have any authority over what is allowed in the setting used for their campaign

Because the DM has to run the world and the player can't force the DM to play a world they don't like.

It's the dm's world, so the onus is on them to state what's in their world? A player cannot put things in their world without the DM giving them permission to.

This again? Are you using chatgpt ?

Player implies we are talking about a person who somehow found out about the game then agreed to join and is still choosing to play in the game rather than admitting that the game is not for them. I previously said almost that exact string of words complete with quotes of myself from this thread suggesting players do just that if they don't like the game being offered by the GM in an exchange with you. I'm not finding it to link to. Meanwhile this thread actually has a player saying that they would keep playing rather than admit that a game is not for them when it was directly and explicitly brought up (by me)

 

[Minigiant]

You are blatant avoiding the question and it looks like a dog whistle or poor recollection of things discussed. Are you saying that applies to eberron darksun dragonlance forgotten realms and other official settings that have come up repeatedly throughout the discussion?

If so it seems like you are attempting to avoid saying it while using a dog whistle to declare that no GM can ever be good enough to have any authority over what is allowed in the setting used for their campaign

Those settings are made to provide many player options in mechanics and story.

Very restrictive settings have a chance of being very narrow and thus not good for the game that it's run under.

 

[Scribe]

Are the DMs and players morally different?

I do not believe its a question of morality at all.

Am I the DM? I establish the setting, and that includes species options.
Am I the Player? I do not establish the setting, and that includes species options.

Its that simple. I've been in both chairs, and my morality is the same.

 

[AlViking]

Those settings are made to provide many player options in mechanics and story.

Very restrictive settings have a chance of being very narrow and thus not good for the game that it's run under.

I could say the exact same thing about kitchen sink campaigns that allow all options. They're so permissive that species have no meaning makes it not good for the game. Personally if someone pitched a campaign with only humans I'd be fine with it. Every character we play will at it's core be a human in disguise.

 

[Minigiant]

I could say the exact same thing about kitchen sink campaigns that allow all options. They're so permissive that species have no meaning makes it not good for the game. Personally if someone pitched a campaign with only humans I'd be fine with it. Every character we play will at it's core be a human in disguise.

Depends, when it comes to kitchen sink campaign because the DM could write a culture and history for each species..

And again, species barely does anything
.

Really? It all comes down to your setting. Having enough mechanical options and cultural options that your character can role play their character in a manner that they enjoy. And run a mechanical skeleton that they enjoy..

If you're setting heavily limits that there are going to be a lot of players who do not belong at your table. And they shouldn't join your table and you should be okay them refusing.

 

[tetrasodium]

Those settings are made to provide many player options in mechanics and story.

Very restrictive settings have a chance of being very narrow and thus not good for the game that it's run under.

"Many" is not the same as making literally anything as is because roleplaying. I'm still waiting for you to stop dodging the question from earlier and fill in details on the inverted stormwind mentioned in 1133 that you consistently seem to be expecting GMs to follow