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

[TwoSix]

Even then it wouldn't be 'some rando'. It would be someone I already knew, or at least that someone else in the group knew or could vouch for. Our group has been pretty static for 25 years.

If I am playing an RPG with someone then by definition they are someone whose ideas I am interested in trying to work with.

Honestly, a player who doesn't give any pushback at all about weird restrictions is a player I don't want. I want players who take an active interest in shaping the shared narrative (and by extension, the setting that is the frame of the narrative.)

I want drivers, not passengers.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, I think I mis-read.
Yeah, I know, someone admitted they were wrong on the Interweb. It can happen.

 

[Scribe]

Exactly. I've been actively conciliatory on this board for decades now. I'm just taking a little break from couching all of my thoughts in digestible platitudes.

lol godspeed my man.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

If you have that much lore for the silly elf game to justify killing a PC tiefling, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[soviet]

I want drivers, not passengers.

Nice way of putting it, this is what I want also.

 

[Remathilis]

This comes off as “we do not want your bad/wrong ideas in our community. Go play a different game because we’re better than you.”

Which I was told several times in this thread.

Goose meet gander

 

[TwoSix]

If you have that much lore for the silly elf game to justify killing a PC tiefling, I don't know what to tell you.

Don't worry, I've spent quite a few posts this morning telling them exactly.

 

[Maxperson]

I dont understand. But interested.

Players take a liking to an NPC unexpectedly. DM roleplays interactions with the characters, taking notes, and carrying on with the game.

Next day (RL) the DM fills in any missing details for the NPC they might need.

Isn't this what DMs do anyway? Even if I had a "complete" statblock, I would still need to flesh out details on a random NPC that the group placed higher significance on than I expected. Heck, I would have to do that with a location, or building they randomly decided to "break and enter".

Now IF you are simply saying that statblocks need more non-combat info, or detailed equipment, rather than vagueness, well I kinda get that.

Sure. That often happens, but what happens even more in my experience is that during the initial roleplay that session, some of the creature's abilities often come into play as part of the roleplay. If stat blocks remove all of the abilities that either aren't applicable to combat, or would be subpar if used in combat, that's going to have a huge negative impact on my ability to roleplay those monsters during the initial session.

I'm all for tweaking the monster to make him a bit more unique in-between sessions with things that didn't(and wouldn't have) come up during the initial session. I'm also very much against the removal of the abilities that aren't optimal for combat. Separate those into a non-combat part of the stat block if you have to, but don't take them away.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree in general, but in this discussion I assume that is because everyone insisting that not allowing a tortle is bad DMing is not really all that interested in playing one in the first place, so they draw a blank.

In a real scenario I sure hope they would have better reasons than what they have presented here. They still might walk if they have to compromise, that is ok. I see their inability to compromise as at least as much of a red flag as they see the DM’s unwillingness to simply allow a tortle anyway.

Lack of compromise itself is not a red flag.

Lack of compromise without describing or explaining why one won't compromise is a red flag.

 

[mamba]

Man, I wish I had the time to waste designing a setting that doesn't even have players yet.

I think this is where the disconnect is, this is not a setting being designed for a new campaign, it is a setting that has existed for 10+ years already, seeing play over that period.

If a DM designs a new setting for a new campaign, sure, consider the players interests. Why wouldn’t they…

If you join an existing setting, you will have to be ok with the setting as is. The DM won’t change much of it around just because you insist on ignoring everything in the setting primer.