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

[AlViking]

Do I need to justify why I want to be a wizard instead of a fighter?. Do I need to justify why my character is an elf to play one? Because it interests me is sufficient enough motivation, unless you are going to force me to justify in writing why I made every decision on my character sheet, "because I want to" is motivation enough.

Gods, next your going to want an essay on why I chose druid...

Do you not see the difference between choosing a standard allowed class and playing a gunslinger in a campaign where guns don't exist?

 

[GobHag]

If you can't accept the restrictions for my game then it's not for you. I don't really care because I have plenty of players. What I object to is people calling the player gets whatever they want hiding behind "compromise", that players are somehow entitled because they're gracing me with their presence when I do 90% of the work for the campaign, or that I'm somehow an evil controlling GM because I have a preference that doesn't match yours.

You're mistaken, I don't see it as compromise because there's nothing to compromise for. "I don't like you having a top hat, how about instead you now have a pope hat?" I've already stated my position on this just a couple of posts above it too

Sometimes the why is still critical so the gm & player can collaborate to make a PC fit the world. "Let me tell you about my fursona" is how the player who wanted to introduce nightmare fuel involving a romance between PC & the lady of pain came up as a proposal for a past game in a setting that might not even have actual gods like many other settings.

A possible negative consequences of my play culture preferences yes. Just like that Viking Hat GMs won't stop you advocating for more GM power in the current play culture, I'm not gonna stop saying that most racial restriction is a red flag on D&D games.

 

[GobHag]

Do you not see the difference between choosing a standard allowed class and playing a gunslinger in a campaign where guns don't exist?

It depends entirely on how the gun works in the system

 

[Maxperson]

Statblock creation for a unique character is done between sessions. Keep track of any decisions that were made on the fly until then.

Yeah, that doesn't work for a game that flows. I'm not going to just shut down the session so I can make something for the next session. I need it in the moment, not the next week.

 

[Remathilis]

Do you not see the difference between choosing a standard allowed class and playing a gunslinger in a campaign where guns don't exist?

The question asked was "what is my motivation besides I want to". It doesn't matter why I want to. My motivation is neither sinister nor malevolent. The reason I wanted to play him was because the muses inspired that concept in my head. The question is what, if anything, can be done to accommodate both our wishes.

The answer I seem to get is "nothing. @#&+ off!"

 

[AlViking]

You're mistaken, I don't see it as compromise because there's nothing to compromise for. "I don't like you having a top hat, how about instead you now have a pope hat?" I've already stated my position on this just a couple of posts above it too


A possible negative consequences of my play culture preferences yes. Just like that Viking Hat GMs won't stop you advocating for more GM power in the current play culture, I'm not gonna stop saying that most racial restriction is a red flag on D&D games.

Several people have claimed there should be compromise when they really mean the player gets to decide. I never said you personally stated that. It has little to do with power, it's me running the best game I know how.

It depends entirely on how the gun works in the system

You have your preferences, I have mine. Good luck with yours, mine works just fine for me and my players.

 

[Maxperson]

put anything not relevant for combat outside the stat block, I do not care whether you agree with calling that part fluff or not, that is missing the point

I don't really care if there's a separate box called non-combat with the rest of the abilities. They just need to be there on the same page as the monster so that I can access them as needed.

 

[Maxperson]

While I certainly agree with you, I think the GM's role here is not nearly as passive as your phrasing implies. (I'm not sure if you meant it to be so passive.)

That is, I find there are a handful of fairly reliable routes to getting your players to like an NPC, such as:

• Make them friendly and supportive, especially if they actually do helpful things for the party
• Have them trust the PCs with their secrets, so the party feels like valued allies
• Show the NPC's respect for the party, e.g. unshakable confidence or speaking up for them in a social setting
• Make 'em funny, whether by being witty/sarcastic, or bumbling and silly, a good laugh never hurts
• Give them relatable goals that the party can support, e.g. a romance between two ally NPCs, or climbing the social ladder
• When the party is in need, have the NPC act without restraint to support them

There will always be X-factors like "omg this character is just so COOL" or "I just love the stupid voice you gave her" or "you named him JAFAR, of course we knew he was EVIL" (that last one literally happened...except that "Jafar" came from a name generator! He is a jerk though, don't get me wrong.) But if you do some subset of the list above? You're well on your way to establishing a party ally. Most groups respond positively to most of these things.

Yeah. The roleplay part is mostly me. However, part of the roleplay often includes abilities of the monster/NPC. Those need to be there for me to access as part of the roleplay if needed.

 

[AlViking]

The question asked was "what is my motivation besides I want to". It doesn't matter why I want to. My motivation is neither sinister nor malevolent. The reason I wanted to play him was because the muses inspired that concept in my head. The question is what, if anything, can be done to accommodate both our wishes.

The answer I seem to get is "nothing. @#&+ off!"

I've given you several ideas of compromise that give you what you claim to want that doesn't involve playing a tortle. If all you really want is a game where the player makes the final call say so. If that is your stance, where does it end? Do you get to play a gunslinger? If there's a rules disagreement does the player decide? If other people at the table don't want a tortle why do you get to override their preference?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

A possible negative consequences of my play culture preferences yes. Just like that Viking Hat GMs won't stop you advocating for more GM power in the current play culture, I'm not gonna stop saying that most racial restriction is a red flag on D&D games.

Is any restriction by the DM allowable in your opinion? Or must the DM always allow any and every idea a player has that is within the collective of a system's rules?

The human in the DM chair, do they have any power to cultivate a game without committing a red flag?

Curious little me wants to know