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

[DinoInDisguise]

You did not ask me, but yes, plenty are.

But it's not a simple "oh yes that's always 100% safe" kind of thing. It's messy. Intent matters, for instance, and can go back a ways. Friendliness matters. If someone goes the extra mile and genuinely tries to make me happy, but despite that effort it just doesn't make sense and we have a long and positive conversation about why it doesn't, then I might be inclined to accept even many restrictions I would find irksome in other contexts.

"No, you can't have dragonborn, I don't like them" or "It's world consistency, if you don't like that, I can replace you" are the exact antithesis of that. That's throwing your GM weight around, pulling rank, emphasizing just how far apart the GM thinks we are, looking down from their lofty perch.

Someone who earnestly works with me even if it doesn't end up working? They've done the work to earn my respect. I'm willing to work with that. Hussar did some of that when he offered me a place at his table.

I agree. Absolutes, and door shutting are not a good look.

Well, just as a preliminary, I prefer a game designed sufficiently well such that splat options aren't any more nor less powerful than so-called "core" ones. So for a game I would consider well-designed, the "within the collective" part would be irrelevant. So, if it's a first party option, then I hold that if it's first-party, it's reasonable for the player to presume it's available unless, as noted above, the GM has done the work to get the player on board with less.

When I said "within the collective" I simply meant anything included in the rules. So that every DM had to allow all published races. The fewer races a system has, the less of an issue this is, of course.

I don't know what specific things count as "cultivate a game" to you, so I am hesitant to agree without knowing. However, I can guess. As part of that, I again want to point out the extremization going on here. Notice how your argument (in Socratic question form) is built on the presupposition that the GM must be so horrifically constrained that you don't see how it could still be possible to "cultivate a campaign", and thus invite us to defeat ourselves by revealing just how horribly limiting we (surely!) must be.

For me cultivating a game is about setting, tone, or genre. Because I assume that premise is part of the initial pitch for the game, and a group expectation that needs to be protected.

Is any player freedom allowable in your opinion? Or must the player always submit to whatever the GM says, no matter what? Why is an adjustment to help make your players more enthusiastic to play in your game antithetical to "curation"? How much control do you actually need to "curate" the campaign for the group? The human in the chair, do they have any ability to play what makes them genuinely enthusiastic without committing a red flag?

I have endeavored to match the congenial but clearly negative tone of the original questions, albeit including an extra question or two.

Yes, player freedom is vital to the game's core function. The GM has many freedoms themselves, also vital, and has a right to advocate for them. Just as a player has a right to advocate for theirs.

The adjustment is not antithetical to curation. The framing of this thread is often treating the same "issue" differently depending on role. Either side being a hard "no" on a conversation is an issue. Framing it as only one side has to compromise, as many in this thread do, is the problem.

To me, curation is about designing a cohesive experience; that can include selectively incorporating player ideas that enrich the game. It is not a bad thing when done in good faith. And I think those arguing against it run the risk of homogenizing much of the variety and creativity we see with the hobby.

As a DM, I need enough control to protect my own enjoyment, and to protect the expectations of the other players. If a player in this hypothetical, cannot work with me within those constraints, I see no place to build a bridge. Likewise, if a DM is arbitrarily denying a reasonable request, that runs into the same issues.

My expectation is that a player works with me to stay within setting, tone, and genre. Within those constraints, I would expect to reach a satisfying conclusion. I also expect a DM to accept my requests as a player, if those requests fit within those constraints and don't have other obvious issues.

 

[Dire Bare]

but I want to be a tortle

How about a DRAGON TURTLE ASPECT OF TIAMAT!?!?!

Your PC can be a tortle cleric of Tiamat, whose scales are a beautiful blend of the chromatic colors. Maybe you even have some sinister horns and ridges. We can probably find or create some feats or other character options to give you some sort of draconic abilities, maybe reflavor the Cult of the Dragon feats from the new Forgotten Realms books. Dragonborn who revere Tiamat sneer at you, but you know you are her chosen . . .

We're getting a little silly here, but . . . in all honesty, why not? I'd allow it.

 

[AlViking]

The latter does not follow from the former, which makes it sound more like an excuse than an argument.

Why not? I had a list of allowed species. If I make an exception that make no sense in-world then what do I say to the next person that wants to play a rabbit person instead of a tortoise person?

99% of what they want would be a huge change to what you've been arguing. That's fully conceding to the player. That's telling a player who wants to be a tortle from a northern prehistoric swampland, hey, can it be a mangrove swamp too?

The player can get all the mechanical aspects of a tortle. We can figure out the "cultural" and world view of a tortle. The only thing we aren't doing is changing the physical appearance.

Previously you were offering entirely different characters as alternatives, which is offering no compromise and asking the player to fully concede.

Was I? I was trying to start a conversation on whether or not compromise is an option. Turns out it's not, it's tortles all the way down and if I say no to a request I'm a bad, evil power hungry DM who doesn't allow the players to impact the world in any way.

I can agree with this to an extent. If we're talking pick up and play games at a store or event, or an online game where everyone is new to each other, some lines being drawn can be good. I do think that any lasting group worth its salt will have blurred those lines considerably.

That said, this is an opposing stance to what you've been arguing. This is the argument that favors the player having the only say in being the Tortle.

The DM makes the decisions about the world which includes but is not limited to what species exist. The players are expected to make characters that fit that world but there's a ton of leeway in what that looks like. I'm quite flexible on campaign direction, allowing the characters to pursue whatever goals they want which include discussions in our session 0. Campaigns regularly go in different directions than I had expected. But no, there are no tortles because they don't exist in my world.

 

[Minigiant]

Have you been reading the thread?

Some of the folks worried about "entitled players" are making this out as an irrational drive to play a turtle, all or nothing.

But folks arguing for a more collaborative approach have been very clear that playing a tortle, or dragonborn, or tiefling, are just examples. It's really about several things.

• Player agency and choice.
• A collaborative approach to DMing rather than a controlling approach.
• Prioritizing player fun over restrictive world building.

If you are a restrictive world building DM who expects your players to cater to the setting you crafted, and you and your players are all on board and having a great time . . . keep on keeping on! But this is a DMing style that more and more of us are ready to leave in the past. I don't run my games that way, and I won't spend my time as a player in those types of games. Well, unless the DM is a good friend that I trust, then I'll just roll my eyes and play a human fighter . . . and continue to develop a more collaborative approach in my own games.

There is often a disconnect and disagreement between groups of long standing friends who have similar interests and a lot of trust in the DM and newer groups where the DM doesn't have as much leeway nor authority due to the shorter time of knowing each other as well as well as not having all the same underpinning for fantasy.

This is often why core phb elements are so important in the second group.

D&D NEEDS a shared understanding of fantasy between all on thr table to function.

 

[mamba]

I kinda want to know how, if tortles are supposedly as rare and unknown as the DM says, the ranger specializing in Tortle hunting came from...

they were not that rare when the character chose it

 

[gban007]

Well, just as a preliminary, I prefer a game designed sufficiently well such that splat options aren't any more nor less powerful than so-called "core" ones. So for a game I would consider well-designed, the "within the collective" part would be irrelevant. So, if it's a first party option, then I hold that if it's first-party, it's reasonable for the player to presume it's available unless, as noted above, the GM has done the work to get the player on board with less.

So, now, if I may ask some Socratic questions of my own...

Is any player freedom allowable in your opinion? Or must the player always submit to whatever the GM says, no matter what? Why is an adjustment to help make your players more enthusiastic to play in your game antithetical to "curation"? How much control do you actually need to "curate" the campaign for the group? The human in the chair, do they have any ability to play what makes them genuinely enthusiastic without committing a red flag?

Slight tangent from these two bits - it may be a factor of changing life circumstances leading me to as a DM wanting to minimize my workload, and as a player wanting to play characters that interest me, in broadbrush strokes I tend to want to DM / play in one of the following four types of campaigns, all on basis that Dam acting as referee as such, even if running through a published adventure.

1. A Dnd / Pathfinder type game in a published setting - all published first party options are available, third party ones discussed as a group to work out if any mechanical issues etc. Just different combinations or world and classes and / or races may lead to different interactions. (I think Gurps falls into this as well, though character creation a bit different)

2. - a game in a homebrew campaign - ideally would follow something similar to my understanding of Fabula Ultima, where whole group would work together on creating world and what is in it.

3 - an IP specific campaign, whether Warhammer, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars etc - thinking on it same as 1 really, though one world / universe available as such, but all published options available, everyone has agreed to play in that world with an understanding of its lore. Only limits on options may be where would otherwise be clash- e.g. dont have followers of Chaos in same group as followers of Sigma, unless some sort of allies of convenience going on.

4- a rules light game (e.g. Adventures in Ankh Morpork framework) where anything should be able to go, as way characters are mechanically described can't really cause any issues game wise, just pick up any concept have fun and go.

 

[gban007]

And yet you are doing just that.

Player 1: I would like to play a tortle druid, a turtle-person species.

Player 2: Hmmm, I would like to play a human ranger WHO HATES TURTLES and has chosen them as their favored enemy,

Yeah, these two player concepts, totally on the same level. And totally something to worry about happening in your games.

I think you are taking the most uncaritable reading of my posts possible. As ultimately yes I have, as described, had this happen in games I've played in, with me ultimately stopping playing a character I liked because someone came in with a concept that clashed with mine after I had already been playing my character for some time.
Yes, the individual concepts arent the issue. It is two people choosing to play concepts that clash, at least one of who isnt happy with the clash, and ultimately that player who brought in a character diametrically opposed to mine shouldn't have been able to bring that character in.
The Tortle is hypothetical build on this- and I've seen clashing views as to whether they are common / readily available or not - same cpuld be true with Orc, Elf, Human, anything.
My point is a player bringing a character into play into an existing campaign needs to consider what other characters are already in play.

 

[Dire Bare]

I kinda want to know how, if tortles are supposedly as rare and unknown as the DM says, the ranger specializing in Tortle hunting came from...

Hmmm . . . .

In my (future) campaign, there is only one known, remote village of tortles. Where the tortles come from is a mystery, but local legend within the village claims that tortles were once humans who hunted a rare turtle species into near extinction, and were then cursed by local spirits and transformed into tortles. However, there was a band of hunters who were away from the village when the transformation took place and so retained their humanity. When they returned to find their friends and families transformed into turtle-people, they were angered and horrified, and left to found a new village. This new village developed a strong antipathy towards turtles, turtle spirits, and turtle-people and regularly make war on the tortle village. In response, the peaceful tortles developed a form of martial arts to defend themselves using only their hands, feet, and shells. Is the legend true, or is there another story behind the lonely, peaceful, and beleaguered village of tortles?

When humans from the turtle-hating village venture out in the world, they are often ridiculed for their hatred of turtles by those WHO JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!

Now, Pietro, a human ranger (with turtles as favored enemy, from the turtle-hating village) finds himself in an adventuring party with Niccolo, a tortle monk. To accomplish their mission to save the world, turtles, humans, and everyone, they must learn to put aside their old hatreds and work together. Can they? Or will the old hatreds doom the world?

You can spin anything, no matter how silly or ridiculous, into a good story. All you need is an open mind!

 

[tetrasodium]

. If a DM starts telling me what my character thinks or does without magical compulsion they aren't the DM for me. If a player demands that they must decide how my world works they aren't a good fit at any table I want to DM or play at.

Id add an exception for explaining common cultural/national knowledge because it comes up fairly often in my eberron games where I'll point out a common bit of (potentially incorrect propaganda sourced) bit of knowledge or attitude towards someone/something/somewhere among those who hail from the same region as one or more of the PCs.

What they do with that information is up to them, but it's also expected that they figure out a way to make it work other than just ignoring anything inconvenient

Really? This is a serious concern?

If this is something you are honestly concerned about happening in your games, you've got bigger problems than allowing or not allowing turtle-PCs.

When you have to start inventing problems in your arguments, perhaps you've lost the argument?

Think about it on an abstract level rather than just the highly specific edge case example
Flavored enemy:kobold
Kobolds goblins hobgoblins bugbears and gnolls might be somewhere between people and sorta people in eberron, but they are still largely considered dangerous monsters to be exterminated in most of a setting like Fr.

Just because Bob wants to play one of those in a setting where those are !people doesn't mean that Bob can stroll around like a human and expect to be treated like an elf or dwarf at worst.

Back when volos(?) first introduced a bunch of those as playable races I wanted to play a PC with one. In that game the majority of that PCs social interaction was looking nonthreatening when entering towns and such or making it clear that he was with that party of adventures. Everyone had a lot of fun because doing that involved their PCs under the spotlight rather than throwing them off stage behind the curtain. At one point the gm commented about how me wanting to stick with it even after being warned about the status of Kobolds as generally KOS monsters he expected that I'd get it killed off in a town by level 5 and was surprised how it played out instead.

Even when approved with an asterisk attached stinkeye, the onus of playing the character in a way that reacts to the reality of the game world rather than relying on "I'm a PC so must be safe" type plot armor to reshape the world

 

[AlViking]

Have you been reading the thread?

Some of the folks worried about "entitled players" are making this out as an irrational drive to play a turtle, all or nothing.

I discussed compromises. I came up with what I thought was a reasonable compromise. It was rejected because it was not a tortle. It's tortle or nothing for some people. Whether that's rational or not I'm not going to comment on.

But folks arguing for a more collaborative approach have been very clear that playing a tortle, or dragonborn, or tiefling, are just examples. It's really about several things.

• Player agency and choice.
• A collaborative approach to DMing rather than a controlling approach.
• Prioritizing player fun over restrictive world building.

If you are a restrictive world building DM who expects your players to cater to the setting you crafted, and you and your players are all on board and having a great time . . . keep on keeping on! But this is a DMing style that more and more of us are ready to leave in the past. I don't run my games that way, and I won't spend my time as a player in those types of games. Well, unless the DM is a good friend that I trust, then I'll just roll my eyes and play a human fighter . . . and continue to develop a more collaborative approach in my own games.

If you want to leave it in the past more power to you. Are there "more"? Heck if I know and unless you have some evidence to back it up that's just an unsubstantiated appeal to popularity.