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

[mamba]

Yes, Scott. Obviously when I use a general term I mean absolutely everyone, with no exceptions.

so what percentage do you mean when writing something like ‘the players don’t care about the setting’?

 

[Dire Bare]

so what percentage do you mean when writing something like ‘the players don’t care about the setting’?

What an odd reply.

 

[TwoSix]

so what percentage do you mean when writing something like ‘the players don’t care about the setting’?

85.7%, of course.

 

[SableWyvern]

Let's say someone decides they want to run a game specifically about a group of halfings who have to leave their idyllic home and go on one or more adventures.

Is this an unreasonable idea for a game? Does it indicate the GM lacks vision or can only run railroads?

Is it reasonable for players to advise the GM they're on board with the game, but want to play a gnomish illusionist or dwarven fighter instead of a halfling?

If players do suggest such characters, is it reasonable for the GM to indicate that they'd really prefer their halfing game have halfling characters?

For myself:

If I pitched a "halflings go on an adventure" game to my players, and they started coming back to me with non-halfing character concepts, I wouldn't fight with them about it. I would start by asking, "Are you actually interested in a game about halfings who have to leave their idyllic home and go on adventures?" If the answer is yes, then I'd suggest that halfling characters are far, far more suitable for the concept. If a single player wanted something different, I'd probably be good with it, but more than that and I'd feel the original concept was being undermined and most likely I'd be a little confused about why they're saying they want a halfling game but don't want to play halflings.

If multiple players simply didn't want to play halflings, then I would not adapt the game to become a non-halfing one -- I'd scrap the whole plan (or save it for another day when I have players interested in engaging with the idea) and come up with an entirely new concept, looking for something everyone is interested in.

Importantly, none of this process involves players vs GMs or one side trying to win while other side loses, it's just a group of people looking for consensus and, if the final consensus is, "this particular game idea isn't going to go ahead at this point," that's perfectly OK. There is absolutely no need for any hurt feelings or demands for capitulation.

That said, if the entire group has agreed to a halfling game, and one player suddenly decides they don't want to play along at all, they may end up having to sit out until the next campaign. Most likely, they won't do this in a petulant way, they'll just say, "You know, this game isn't actually for me, I'm going to bow out for now."

 

[mamba]

What an odd reply.

I mean, they are making a general statement, so apart from a few outliers it really should be everyone. Just curious what ‘margin of error’ they think their statement has / what they think the playerbase looks like. For a generic statement like that I’d expect something like 95%

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Your example, "you can come from the Dragon Clan of barbarians and call yourself a 'dragonborn'" is a compromise. It is giving something, the word Dragonborn. It is a DM favored compromise, sure. But it is a compromise under the definition of the word. It's a compromise many players would take, in my experience.

@soviet responded more or less how I would, but more politely, so I won't say that.

I see this so-called "compromise" as an open slap in the face. It would be like when my father promised my mother that he would only take one scoop of ice cream....and as a result, he began to intentionally scoop one HUGE-GIGANTIC SCOOP...so that he was functionally eating at least as much ice cream as he was before. A "compromise" that completely avoids actually giving anything party 1 desires, and gives absolutely everything party 2 desires, isn't a compromise, and it would be supremely rude to offer it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Honestly that seems like a bizarre take. Is that an issue when you play in something like Call of Cthulu set on 1920s earth. Is it "restrictive" to you that you know all the countries that exist in that world?

I don't choose to play CoC. Why do you think that might be? Even ignoring my dislike of eldritch horror, the fact the setting is so limited is one of its biggest turn-offs for me.

I have a decades old homebrew that I use for my campaign so naturally it has a lot of pre-existing lore. None of this makes it anything like a "prewritten play" and players have plenty of agency.

Okay. I would need to, y'know, actually see that. I apologize for this being harsh, but talk is cheap, and I've had people tell me they love agency, and then I see their actual games and realize that their idea of "agency" is...impoverished, shall we say.

I expect them to interact with the lore when bringing their character concept, but I will generally work with good faith attempts to create a appropriate character. What you're proposing sounds like some sort of mini-emotional tantrum directed at a DM who has the temerity to expect to be able to curate any aspect of the world they've created.

Okay. I want you to understand that the things people who agree with you have said look, to me, like "a mini-emotional tantrum directed at a player who has the temerity to expect to be able to play basic, core options of the game they were told they would play."

 

[Dire Bare]

I mean, they are making a general statement, so apart from a few outliers it really should be everyone. Just curious what ‘margin of error’ they think their statement has / what they think the playerbase looks like. For a generic statement like that I’d expect something like 95%

Still, an odd reply.

Your replies read as if you know perfectly well that @TwoSix wasn't speaking for all players, but for most players in their experience. You just seem to be nitpicking wordplay rather than presenting honest feedback or arguments in order to, I don't know, score internet points? That kind of reply makes folks (well, me at least) not want to take anything you say seriously.

In my own experience, most players DO care about the DMs world, themes and story . . . but not nearly to the same degree of detail and fidelity that some DMs pour into their campaigns. I'd say about 92% as a rough estimate, if you really need made up percentages.

 

[Dire Bare]

Let's say someone decides they want to run a game specifically about a group of halfings who have to leave their idyllic home and go on one or more adventures.

Is this an unreasonable idea for a game? Does it indicate the GM lacks vision or can only run railroads?

Is it reasonable for players to advise the GM they're on board with the game, but want to play a gnomish illusionist or dwarven fighter instead of a halfling?

If players do suggest such characters, is it reasonable for the GM to indicate that they'd really prefer their halfing game have halfling characters?

For myself:

If I pitched a "halflings go on an adventure" game to my players, and they started coming back to me with non-halfing character concepts, I wouldn't fight with them about it. I would start by asking, "Are you actually interested in a game about halfings who have to leave their idyllic home and go on adventures?" If the answer is yes, then I'd suggest that halfling characters are far, far more suitable for the concept. If a single player wanted something different, I'd probably be good with it, but more than that and I'd feel the original concept was being undermined and most likely I'd be a little confused about why they're saying they want a halfling game but don't want to play halflings.

If multiple players simply didn't want to play halflings, then I would not adapt the game to become a non-halfing one -- I'd scrap the whole plan (or save it for another day when I have players interested in engaging with the idea) and come up with an entirely new concept, looking for something everyone is interested in.

Importantly, none of this process involves players vs GMs or one side trying to win while other side loses, it's just a group of people looking for consensus and, if the final consensus is, "this particular game idea isn't going to go ahead at this point," that's perfectly OK. There is absolutely no need for any hurt feelings or demands for capitulation.

That said, if the entire group has agreed to a halfling game, and one player suddenly decides they don't want to play along at all, they may end up having to sit out until the next campaign. Most likely, they won't do this in a petulant way, they'll just say, "You know, this game isn't actually for me, I'm going to bow out for now."

I'm running an all mostly dwarven campaign right now using the LotR 5E rules. It's not something I imposed on the players, I simply gave them some very broad campaign frames I was interested in running (Greek myth inspired game, Castle Ravenloft game, or Middle-Earth game), they chose Middle-Earth, and then shared the adventure books I owned (Shire, Eriador, Moria) . . . they lit up when they heard Moria and immediately one of the players suggested an all dwarven party scouting Moria to retake the ancestral dwarven homeland. And yet, we still ended up with a Shire halfling and a wizard (even though PC wizards aren't a thing in LotR 5E). We later added a human ranger (of the North). We're having a blast!

When I was younger, I might have started with the all dwarf party idea and shot down any character concepts that didn't fit into that theme or the LotR 5E rules. I'm glad I don't run games like that anymore, the more emergent style of campaign building has been fun, collaborative, and best of all is that I'm constantly surprised by the choices the players make. The campaign is going in very different directions than I initially conceived, all based on player choice and actions, and it's been glorious. We're on "hiatus" right now and when we pick up again . . . I don't honestly know where the company is going to go next! I can't wait!

If I had decided to run our LotR campaign in a more restrictive way . . . would that have made me a bad DM? A DM who lacks vision or can only run railroads? No, but IMO, being more open, collaborative, and emergent makes me a BETTER DM than I would be otherwise. I'm certainly having more fun that I did DMing back in the 90s (college), although I had fun then too, and my players all seem enthusiastic.

 

[mamba]

Your replies read as if you know perfectly well that @TwoSix wasn't speaking for all players, but for most players in their experience.

I mean, I would not expect all, that is obviously nonsense. It should be a vast majority or the statement should not be made like that. So that are the outer limits.

The statement was not ‘in their experience’, it was about the global player base, and I wanted to see what they think that is like. I don’t care one bit about the players in their experience, it was not limited to that and it might be a self-selecting crowd. If you leave a game whenever you cannot play a tortle, you might be in a very different crowd than when you work with the DM with their bespoke setting.

You just seem to be nitpicking wordplay rather than presenting honest feedback or arguments in order to, I don't know, score internet points?

no idea what points you think that would score