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

[Maxperson]

No, there really isn't.

@GobHag said straight out that with character creation the player should reign supreme and the world should change to conform around that, even if it doesn't make sense for it to happen. So yes, there really is.

 

[Maxperson]

Because as a DM, you shouldn’t be having fun by excluding things. Like, just don’t be that guy.

Um, no. You don't get to tell me that I can't have fun in world creation that has some limitations built in. Or that it's wrong for me to do so. If I build a world where elves disappeared 10,000 years ago and none have been seen since, it would destroy the world building for a PC elf to just waltz in. The entire world would change in response to that in ways that the DM's setting isn't prepared for.

Players do not have a right to be a disruption to the game.

Here’s a fun magic trick. You can exclude dozens of races if none of your players pick them. Just don’t use them as NPCs! No one else even needs to know!

I can exclude any race, and the players won't pick one that isn't there. It's pretty douchy for a player to pick a race that has been excluded from the game. It's intentionally disruptive and a considerate player wouldn't dream of acting that way.

Dragonborn as a PC race do not exist in my game. The weakness they have in the PHB diminishes dragons. A dragon blooded race wouldn't be anywhere near as weak as a halfling, elf or human. In my setting dragonbron are very rare, and also start of around CR 4 or 5 in ability. Far too high for a PC race.

 

[dave2008]

Okay, no compromise between two extreme positions no one is actually arguing for. I guess you're right. But I'm still a bit confused.

That is precisely what someone was arguing for (not me btw) I just stripped the argument down to its core. Regardless, what are you confused about?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

@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.

I don't disagree in hindsight. But it does meet the definition of the word unlike many "compromises" cited in this thread.

In my opinion my other two examples are far superior.

I also agree with @soviet's assessment in post #1540

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

There are parts of this I really want to quibble with, but that's not going to achieve anything worthwhile, so instead I will just say thanks for taking your time to share your thoughts on this.

Glad you're having fun getting actual gaming done in a style that works for you.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean. You're playing Dungeons and Dragons. People are going to assume some things exist in the setting simply because that's D&D stock knowledge and is such D&D stock knowledge it even transfers to D&D adjacent properties like Pathfinder or Warcraft. "There is an elemental plane where elementals that you can summon come from" and "There's multiple heavens and hells where various things can be summoned/come from who try to help or cause problems in the world". This has been kicking since Advance Player's Handbook in 1978, I think its a fair assessment anyone who joins a Dungeons and Dragons game is going to assume 'there are planes'

You don't seem to be using a lot of what the game has to offer so, genuinely, yeah, I reckon why you use D&D and not just some OSR system that'll only have your specifics

From day 1 people have home brewed the game. Many created(and continue to create) settings that have no other planes or worlds out there. Some create settings with only a few other planes(Like Dragonlance) Others embrace the Great Wheel. Settings differ and those without a multiverse are just as much D&D as those that are not. Hell, Eberron is cut off from the rest of the multiverse to the point where the rest of the multiverse might as well not exist.

 

[Maxperson]

Uh... that's not what a compromise is.

Uh... That's EXACTLY what a compromise is. It was meeting in the middle. What's not a compromise is the player just getting a Tortle.

 

[Maxperson]

This is because you think that compromise "would work" and they don't. You feel its a functional compromise where they don't; they have ideas they think are a functional compromise you don't.

It doesn't matter what they think. It's a functional compromise whether they want to agree to it or not. Here's the situation.

DM: The world has no tortles.
Player: I want to play a tortle! (ignoring the massive red flag there we continue on)
DM: The world has no tortles, but I have a compromise. You could have all the abilities of the tortle, but not the appearance since the setting doesn't have any turtle people. You could even wear turtle armor and stuff.
Player: No! You have to let me play a tortle.

Only one of those is a compromise, and it didn't come from the player.

If only one side gets to decide what "would work" that's not a compromise even if that side thinks so; someone could just as easily say they had a functional compromise and you "aren't interested".

It isn't one side deciding what would work. It's one side offering a compromise and the other demanding complete capitulation.

 

[Maxperson]

You don't even have orcs as a playable race. Colour me incredibly suspicious that your game has any freedom at all

I hope this is hyperbole, because if not it borders on paranoia. Not having a race isn't enough to be anywhere close to being a reliable indicator that there isn't any freedom in the game.

DM: I don't have orcs, but you can play literally any other PHB race, or even races from other books like Tortles, Loxodon and those cat people that I forget the name of.

Player: You fiend! There's no freedom in your game at all! How dare you force me to play one of the other 54 other races. I'm so constrained!