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

[TwoSix]

Yeah, again, I'm just pointing out where I'm coming from, not trying to argue about whose process is the correct one or talk you out of doing things your way.

Same here. I have zero issues with your posts, even if I don’t always agree.

 

[Maxperson]

*Major example, religion. Eberron religion is FAR more realistic than nearly every other official setting.

Well, no it's not. Realism =/= real world. Fantasy Realism is a thing, and it establishes fantasy elements as real for the setting via lore. As a major example magic is set up via both setting lore and supporting mechanics, so magic is not unrealistic in D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

The second one is confirming it. It all has a place in Eberron. There's entire sections of the later Monster Manuals detailing how to put things in there

Also like. The idea of excluding goblins or hobgoblins from an Eberron game because their stats were in another book, given the importance of them to the setting? Y'know, Dhakaani empire and all?

Nobody is saying that you couldn't put something in Eberron. The Keith Baker quote, though, means that something isn't automatically in Eberron just because it's in D&D. The DM has to add it in BEFORE it becomes a player option.

 

[Maxperson]

Then ENWorld, GitP, Myth-Weavers, Reddit, Discord, Roll20, and at least two versions of the official WotC forums are unsafe.

Because I have seen this exact thing happen in every single one of those spaces. Yes, even here.

How have you been punished by people here?

 

[Maxperson]

...

Socially punished.

And if you think ENWorld as a community doesn't use social pressure to control or manipulate the behavior of others, then I'm not sure what to tell you, because it happens all the time. And I'm not talking about the moderators enforcing the rules. That's completely unrelated. I'm talking about cliques and social groups and exclusion and labelling. It happens all the time.

Words only have the social pressure that you personally allow them to. Nobody here can pressure me into anything with a post.

 

[Zardnaar]

Is it even a problem if something is excluded because as a DM I simply don’t like it? Not that it couldn’t be worked in, but because I don’t want to have to? If there is enough overlap in the Venn diagram why pick stuff that’s not in the overlap.

I’m not a fan of anthropomorphic races. I just find them quite annoying. Tabaxi arent too bad, but I wouldn’t be very happy if a player brought one of the others to the group. It would make me less enthusiastic about the game. It all comes back to the circus party discussion. As a DM I certainly wouldn’t add a monster, NPC or situation that I knew a player didn’t like.

In the same way I wouldn’t cook a meal with prawns if one the guests didn’t like prawns. They wouldn’t need to be allergic to them. It would be enough for me that they don’t like them.

Apologies if this has been discussed already. Don’t feel the need to respond if it has.

Anthromorphic races are love or hate generally. I encouraged them not Egypt, normal D&D ask first.

If theyre in an existing setting theyre in.

 

[Maxperson]

much of this debate I've noticed is not framed as a social activity between equals, but on the context of a manager hiring players. A lot of the language used is that akin to hiring an employee rather than people deciding what to do on a Saturday night. There is no "what do you want to do?" "I dunno what are you up for?" Style of back and forth. There is pitch, offer, negotiate terms, and either accept the terms or move on to the next candidate.

The language is that way because the "problems" being offered up will very rarely come from friends. They come from new players. My friends aren't going to come to a game with a character that is outside of any curation the setting might have. They wouldn't act in that fashion towards someone they consider to be a friend, and are decent enough folks that they wouldn't do that to a stranger, either.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Unfortunately, Eberron won the content in large part because it was meant as a kitchen sink setting. It has it own twists but it was heavily marketed to allow for anything D&D.

It's a lot older now so maybe it has developed more of its own culture, but we had huge fights about the kitchen sink mentality with Eberron here on ENWorld.

PS: I am not a fan of Eberron.

I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall one of the rules of the contest Eberron won was that any proposed setting had to include everything from the D&D core rulebooks.

 

[Dire Bare]

It specifically said its DMs options what to add. It does t say add everything.

I prefer adding 1-3 races to a game vs 50 and making them spotlight. That means they get free advantage/inspiration occasionally, automatic success sometimes and if any race based magic items turn up its probably for them.
Eh BG3 themed i added Gith.

Very small hard ban list mostly mechanical reasons.

Who said add everything? But everything works in Eberron. And, yes, it's always the DM's option on what to allow and what not to.

If you are running an Eberron game, and shoot down my tortle PC . . . as the DM, that's your call. But IMO, you are an overly restrictive DM who doesn't quite get Eberron, and I'm not interested.

 

[Dire Bare]

So far we basically got ‘because I like playing a tortle / TMNT / Master Oogway’ and ‘because I don’t like tortles’ (let’s face it, if you did, they would not be on the banned list) as the main reasons.

Unless one side has a more convincing reason (not sure it exists, but I am open to the possibility) I don’t see either side as having a compelling argument why they should win. Instead it is more about what compromise works so both likes/dislikes are met

A player wants to play a tortle . . . simply because they like the idea of playing a turtle-person, is a very reasonable reason. IMO. It doesn't need to be any more involved that, "That sounds fun!" Good enough!

A DM who doesn't want tortles in their game . . . maybe they do have a good reason! That's what Session Zero is for, to hash out that kind of stuff. But IME, a lot of DMs ban things like tortles arbitrarily and without good reason. IMO, of course.

Now, is that the DM's call? Yes. Is it my call to roll my eyes and walk away? Yes.

Are the two preferences equal? Player wants to play a tortle, DM doesn't like tortles? IMO, no. DMs set the stage for the game . . . but the players should have primary agency over their characters.

If you shoot down my PC concept and your reasoning (IMO) sucks . . . you are putting your "setting consistency" over my player agency to create and control my own character. If you have a good reason and clearly communicate it to me . . . I'll roll with it.

Of course, we also have to consider the other players at the table. If you are the one player who is all about turtle people, and the other players would rather play a grim-and-gritty urban thieves guild adventure . . . but again, that's what Session Zero is for. If there is a disconnect, someone has to compromise or decide to walk away. Either choice is fine.