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

[Scott Christian]

If that's the only reason to have lore, why are you banning races? The only impact on the player is to deprive them of a choice.

Wrong, I have lore because my players like the internal consistency of my world. They have liked exploring my world. Learning about my world. And gaining an understanding of why things are the way they are. My dungeons have lore, and that lore is integrated into the lore that exists elsewhere in the world. It connects. My cities have a history. Long histories that connect to their culture. How they were founded. What they've experienced and live through. What influences they acquired. What events shaped their view and what influences they have come to dislike. That bleeds into the countryside. It bleeds into the little inn on the road far outside the city's gates. It also helps create NPC motivations. It informs me when playing an NPC or antagonist, what they know and how they respond.

The simple fact you run a theme park where lore pieces are not interconnected is fine. Good for you. I've run and played that too in D&D many times. Fighting undead one second, then dancing with halflings the next, then on an astral ship to jump inside a dead giant turtle ship (a la Rick & Morty), repelling githyanki pirates next, then marrying a hill giant and lastly, fighting Godzilla. All of it fun. All of it also is nonsensical. That is the game you may like to run, and maybe one you enjoy as a player. I certainly have.

But by no means does that make the opposite true. The curated world where lore is seeped into almost everything. It bleeds into small parts like a rug on a wall, a meal, or the architecture of a mage school. Players enjoy that detail. They enjoy the connections. And they enjoy the learning process of the world. Hence, they respect the DM's wishes when they say, "There are no tortles in this world."

But again, it comes down to trust, and it is apparent you don't have trust in your DMs.

I've played with 8 other DMs over the last decade or so. They've ranged from decent to very good. All of them have made choices I've disagreed with, or have philosophical beliefs about the nature of gaming I've disagreed with. And that's OK! Disagreement is part of the collobarative effort of RPing.

If you believe this, then you would simply say, "Yes, a DM can exclude the tortle for lore reasons. It's okay. Compromising and disagreements are just a part of gaming."

 

[TwoSix]

Your premise begins with the notion that somehow everyone knows the PCs are guilty. Apparently the PCs were dumb enough to do it in plain sight, leave witnesses, and announced their names as they did it. And everyone around saw the burned wreckage and knew it wasn't orc raiders or the cow kicking over a lamp but those adventurers who just a week ago helped us by saving the local mine from a kobold infestation. They are a menace! Let's shun them and provoke their ire! Have the Lord send his army after them, the same army who, you know, couldn't kick some kobold squatters out of a mine!

Consequences make sense when the circumstances permit, not when the DM has a video game like justice system and every NPC develops hive mind.

Most importantly to me, nobody is asking the important question, which is "WHY did the PCs burn down a village?" There seems to be an assumption that the players are just being chaos agent chuckleheads.

Now, granted, many players ARE chaos agent chuckleheads, and in the absence of players who step up to their story creation responsibilities, the GM may need to fill in the gaps. But we should always assume the players are going to try and do the right thing and push the story forward in a logical manner.

Our GM philosophies should never be shaped by attempting to proactively protect oneself from bad players. If you can't find a group of predominantly good players, just don't do TTRPGs.

 

[AlViking]

I understood burning down the village to be a metaphor even if no-one else did.

A metaphor for what? That characters can do whatever they want and never suffer any repercussions?

Your premise begins with the notion that somehow everyone knows the PCs are guilty. Apparently the PCs were dumb enough to do it in plain sight, leave witnesses, and announced their names as they did it. And everyone around saw the burned wreckage and knew it wasn't orc raiders or the cow kicking over a lamp but those adventurers who just a week ago helped us by saving the local mine from a kobold infestation. They are a menace! Let's shun them and provoke their ire! Have the Lord send his army after them, the same army who, you know, couldn't kick some kobold squatters out of a mine!

Consequences make sense when the circumstances permit, not when the DM has a video game like justice system and every NPC develops hive mind.

No, as I clarified I start with the premise that the world responds to PC actions in an appropriate manner based on many factors. Players can't assume they can get away with whatever they want.

A group of 4 to 6 individuals may be powerful but they are not an invading army. In my game world they are often not the most powerful individuals around.

 

[TwoSix]

So ... if I don't run my game according to your preferences I'm doing it wrong.

I don't do collaborative world building. I do collaborative world development as the world is affected by the actions of the PCs.

Obviously I can't act as some universal arbiter of correctness.

But if we define wrong using the criteria "A table that is right is one I would want to play in", yes, I think you're doing it wrong.

 

[tetrasodium]

Aka you will what I want and how I want.

Thank you for proving my intuition correct. I wouldn't touch your game with a 11 foot pole. I've played in games like yours and I know how it ends.

Not at all. You (as a hypothetical player§) could find a different table with a different gm. Why would a decent gm need to look hard in order find a different player if one bows out? there have been multiple points in time where I had players crossing their fingers and putting their contact details down onto my waiting list and multiple points where I simply threw it away for staleness or disinterest.

Based on your posts, it very much does not seem like you are vin diesel with a waiting list of excited GMs keeping their fingers crossed.

§ "player" implies we are talking someone who somehow found out about the game, choose to join, and has still made the choice to continue playing or attempting to do so rather than bowing out so they cease to be a player in that game.

 

[Scott Christian]

Or the DM could just not, you know, make that terrible decision and stamp it into their world-building.

100% they could. They could also erase the ten pages they have on demons and devils. They can erase the hundred pages they have on the world's cultures, civilizations, regions, and races. They could do all that - to allow one player to play a PC they were asked not to.

You see, you come off as the selfish one in this scenario. But if that is your jam, go for it.

 

[Umbran]

But again, it comes down to trust, and it is apparent you don't have trust in your DMs.

Eh. The trust argument cuts both ways, so doesn't usually support one side of this kind of argument over the other.

 

[Minigiant]

that was tried a few times and the answer was ‘to play a tortle’, at which point there is no compromise possible and the player is out

If somebody wants to play a particular aspect as a class or a race but can't tell you why they wanna play that class or race either: They're not being honest or they really don't know why they're so steadfast on it and shouldn't be so steadfast on it.

Honestly, if you wanna play something and you can't describe or say why you shouldn't play something.And you're not willing to show any leeway, then you should leave the table..


Unless they are like a child and they get a pass for being irrational

 

[TwoSix]

Wrong, I have lore because my players like the internal consistency of my world. They have liked exploring my world. Learning about my world. And gaining an understanding of why things are the way they are. My dungeons have lore, and that lore is integrated into the lore that exists elsewhere in the world. It connects. My cities have a history. Long histories that connect to their culture. How they were founded. What they've experienced and live through. What influences they acquired. What events shaped their view and what influences they have come to dislike. That bleeds into the countryside. It bleeds into the little inn on the road far outside the city's gates. It also helps create NPC motivations. It informs me when playing an NPC or antagonist, what they know and how they respond.

The point you seem to be blind to is that you can do all of that stuff without a ton of prep, AND without making choices to invalidate player options.

Player wants to play a tortle? Swap out those swamp goblins in the SE corner of the map for tortles and maybe some other reptilians.

 

[TwoSix]

100% they could. They could also erase the ten pages they have on demons and devils. They can erase the hundred pages they have on the world's cultures, civilizations, regions, and races. They could do all that - to allow one player to play a PC they were asked not to.

You see, you come off as the selfish one in this scenario. But if that is your jam, go for it.

It has nothing to do with selfishness. It has everything to do with the GM making poor decisions on how to maximize their effectiveness at GMing an actual table.