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

[TwoSix]

I'm sure that you and your players enjoy your choice to run eberron like that...

They did, actually. Using recognizable D&D names like Mephistopheles made them feel more of a connection to the game.

I run Eberron partly BECAUSE it shields the game from ThatGuy who thinks that having read every drizzt novel & then some entitles★ them to use that player knowledge in place of character knowledge and share it across the group. In fact I've even seen ThatGuy respond to me answering a second (much newer) player's lore check by saying "no that's not right" & then proceed confuse the newer player by telling them how what really happened was the dwarves came along first & then were invaded by giants so that writing should use dwarvish runes.

It's pretty central to my GMing philosophy that I'm playing with a group of players I trust. You can't collaborate with people who don't play in a trustworthy fashion.

I have no GMing philosophy around dealing with bad players because if I had to deal with bad players, I would just quit the hobby.

 

[TwoSix]

I think being open to different approaches, at least trying to have a conversation, not insulting or denigrating other approaches is better, yes.

I would agree with that, which is why it's certainly fortunate I do all of those recommendations.

There is an enormous amount of rhetorical space between comparing two things and finding one better, and actively denigrating something.

Saying "I don't like X" is a statement of a mindset, not denigration or insult.

 

[tetrasodium]

They did, actually. Using recognizable D&D names like Mephistopheles made them feel more of a connection to the game.

to each their own. Grognards familiar with stuff like that make up a small fraction of my players

It's pretty central to my GMing philosophy that I'm playing with a group of players I trust. You can't collaborate with people whom don't play in a trustworthy fashion.

I have no GMing philosophy around dealing with bad players because if I had to deal with bad players, I would just quit the hobby.

Agreed, this was an open AL game at a FLGS though & I said "PARTLY", I also happen to like the setting. I should probably edit that AL footnote into the original post. I've never been moch of a fan for the great wheel & absolute morality stuff

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree that as a player, if you agree to a curated setting, you're being problematic if you later on try to renegotiate that curation.

But I still think the GM needs to examine why they are so attracted to that strict curation in the first place. From my perspective, that attraction to strict curation is a GMing weakness, not merely one playstyle choice among many.

Its usually if you've bought a setting that you really like. Might be Eberron, might be Darksun or Wildemont or whatever. Maybe it cost you $300.

It's more fun imho if players engage in what that setting offers.

Races, new classes or subclasses, feats etc.

IRL its not a problem. Most players are enthusiastic just to play. If theyre new I prefer they PHB only. I usually run a starter set for new players set on Darksun. They hear about Midgard, Darksun etc generally from other players. Eberron and Greyhawk mainly Internet and WotC product.

Usually I run very wide options. Right now its mostly 5.5 only. Ive seen 5.0 for 10 years I dont need to see more of it (curated 5.0 stuff is allowed).

Pathfinder stuff is on the shelf. They know it exists. Sone know a little about Golarion.

BG3 and Egyptian themed games were easiest pitches ive made recently. Letting players pick Norse was a screw up, I messed ip the Greek one and the Drow game was finished off by Covid.

The Greek and Drow games were most restrictive. Greek one had the AD&D races only as thats all the rules system had.

 

[Umbran]

Most have no interest in world building.

They have interest in character building, or narrative building, which is why they push back when their tools are restricted.

 

[Bae'zel]

They have interest in character building, or narrative building, which is why they push back when their tools are restricted.

And every individual has different breaking points or lines where they feel restricted.

It all comes down to setting expectations, consensus, fairness and communicating all of that.

No rules or gaming philosophy can fix jerk players on either side of the DM screen. But there are ways to learn how to better negotiate, communicate and read the room.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think tightly curated settings are great fun.

But if the players aren't interested, then it's the concept that goes away, not the players.

Maybe another group at another time may want to try that idea; if not, it doesn't make it to the table just like thousands of other campaign ideas I've had.

I've had a stone age game on the back burner for years circa 1997.

I'll probably never run it and it was using 2E races. Basically you hunt Mammoth or something and collect resources to level up.

Dragons exist and kind of want people to stay in the stone age.

It would very likely have 4-6 races.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can understand the desire to have everything in the world follow the same rules, but as you say, it doesn’t work. And doesn’t work in fantasy/adventure fiction either. James Bond and SPECTRE goon 2 do not run according to the same rules.

If you're going for a gritty quasi-simulationist sort of setting it can work adequately (RuneQuest and most other BRP system games have done it for years) but as you say, anything leaning into the cinematic generally fails out pretty much with that model.

 

[tetrasodium]

They have interest in character building, or narrative building, which is why they push back when their tools are restricted.

I mostly agree with @AlViking 's quoted comment & your own, but that's part of why it's so important for players to willingly & proactively work with the gm to (re)shape a character's narrative so that it fits the setting being used region where the game is set or whatever.

Using the halfling prince☆ example from earlier. It's really easy to fit the pertinent bits of that character's narrative into most settings (even ones without halfling nobility). but the player needs to work with the GM to find where they can hang the pertinent bits they are interested in if it hits a wall/void at step zero with "halfling nobility". The GM can make suggestions for other stuff they think will help like various important community roles or whatever In the end though, only the player knows why they thought halfling prince was a cool idea

☆chosen because it's a simple example & had a lot of discussion about working with the player on top of (iirc) ultimately finding some solution the player was happy with

 

[Thomas Shey]

Repeating an invalid definition of compromise to mean that the player gets whatever they want doesn't change anything. Sometimes compromise isn't possible.

I did look at the core details, the answer was that no matter what I did the only acceptable answer was to allow a tortle.

If the core of what they want is something you don't want, then indeed, compromise isn't possible. But that still doesn't make a suggestion that ignores that core a compromise; its telling them to play something else in a passive-aggressive fashion.

Just stop acting like you offered a compromise in that situation. You didn't. Neither of you did because there was no functional one possible.