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

[Remathilis]

And if the vision is not limited, but is instead focused, fully considered, and intentional?

Poe-Tay-toe, Poe-Tah-toe. You can have a focused, fully considered and intentional rational for why every PC must be a Lawful Good Human Male Fighter with Blown Eyes, I still won't enjoy playing in it.

 

[Scribe]

Poe-Tay-toe, Poe-Tah-toe. You can have a focused, fully considered and intentional rational for why every PC must be a Lawful Good Human Male Fighter with Blown Eyes, I still won't enjoy playing in it.

Sure, but you painted one view, simply for dropping down 1 species option, as limited and without vision.

Its not though, and you still have not answered how 1 less species option, times X class options, with Y subclass options, is still somehow limiting?

It isn't you still have however many options that would come out to, it just appears you are taking a limited view that having restrictions at all, infringes upon you at some kind of spiritual level.

 

[Dire Bare]

And, again, this is why I cannot believe people in the past were somehow incapable of seeing past a few paragraphs by Gygax and working out for themselves what works for them and what doesn't. If my friends and I could manage this as 15 or 16 year olds, it really can't have been that hard.

You didn't see past Gygax's style right away, it took time, you learned. Others did too, some didn't, some did but chose to stick with the old-school style.

 

[Dire Bare]

These days, it's principle. In my experience, it's never just one option cut, and it starts the spiral of ever increasing limits. So my take is that if your vision is so limited that you can't find a replacement in your setting for an option that doesn't work in you setting, chances are you are too limited for me to have fun in your game.

If I'm considering joining a table of folks I don't know very well, or at all, and the DM has a list of seemingly arbitrary restrictions . . . I'm with you, I won't even bother. Experience has taught me that DM's who love to "ban" player options are not a fun time.

However, at my table . . . my players and I rotate the DM's chair, and we talk about upcoming campaigns and any possible restrictions. And I trust my fellow players that if they are the DM, and want to restrict dragonborn in the next campaign, they have a good story reason. I trust, because we discuss it! We've really bought into the "new-school" idea of "session zero", and it's made a huge impact on our games.

Context is important. It's not all one way or the other.

 

[Xenolith234]

If I'm considering joining a table of folks I don't know very well, or at all, and the DM has a list of seemingly arbitrary restrictions . . . I'm with you, I won't even bother. Experience has taught me that DM's who love to "ban" player options are not a fun time.

However, at my table . . . my players and I rotate the DM's chair, and we talk about upcoming campaigns and any possible restrictions. And I trust my fellow players that if they are the DM, and want to restrict dragonborn in the next campaign, they have a good story reason. I trust, because we discuss it! We've really bought into the "new-school" idea of "session zero", and it's made a huge impact on our games.

Context is important. It's not all one way or the other.

I mean…not allowing the Strixhaven book outside of a Strixhaven campaign would be seen as banning, but…if I’m not running a Strixhaven campaign, players should be under no illusion that those options are available (and even if I were, there’s no way in the nine hells I’d allow Silvery Barbs).

 

[Remathilis]

Sure, but you painted one view, simply for dropping down 1 species option, as limited and without vision.

No. I cited one example. Did you really need me to list every species?

My point was 1.) it's never just one species (or class or subclass or whatever); typical it's rather large list of bans and 2.) there are hundreds of optional species in 5e alone. If you cannot find 10 options out of the 40+ first party and countless 3pp species, you are telling me you are too is limited in your vision to probably be the kind of game I want.

And I find it irritating that I have a standard for the games I play in and that somehow you don't meet so you need to prove my standard is bad because of it.

 

[Remathilis]

I mean…not allowing the Strixhaven book outside of a Strixhaven campaign would be seen as banning, but…if I’m not running a Strixhaven campaign, players should be under no illusion that those options are available (and even if I were, there’s no way in the nine hells I’d allow Silvery Barbs).

I consider setting expansions books fair game for banning. I don't use Dark Gifts outside of Ravenloft, Dragonmarks outside of Eberron, and kender outside of Dragonlance. My walk proviso is for banning stuff in the PHB without a replacement for it.

 

[Scribe]

No. I cited one example. Did you really need me to list every species?

No, I was going off your example of 1 for 1. For any removal, you personally require an addition.

If you cannot find 10 options out of the 40+ first party and countless 3pp species, you are telling me you are too is limited in your vision to probably be the kind of game I want.

Again, why is 10 somehow the requirement? If you lose 1 option, as the example I started from, like Dragonborn, and you still have 9 species, you have 12 classes, you have 4 subclasses, you have however many backgrounds...

And I find it irritating that I have a standard for the games I play in and that somehow you don't meet so you need to prove my standard is bad because of it.

I'm not saying your personal standard is bad, you are the one calling restrictions 'limited vision'.

 

[Remathilis]

No, I was going off your example of 1 for 1. For any removal, you personally require an addition.

Yes. That is my standard.

Again, why is 10 somehow the requirement? If you lose 1 option, as the example I started from, like Dragonborn, and you still have 9 species, you have 12 classes, you have 4 subclasses, you have however many backgrounds...

Ten is what is in the current PHB, but that number would really be whatever is in the PHB you are using. But I'll be frank; it's NEVER just one. It's (warning: hypothetical example) "no Dragonborn, Goliaths, Orcs or Planetouched, no world tree barbarians, warlocks or moon druids. Also, everything from Tashas is banned." Now how many choices do I have?

I'm not saying your personal standard is bad, you are the one calling restrictions 'limited vision'.

Let me ask you: how many species are playable in your current game? 10? 7? 4? 1? If the number is less than what is currently in the PHB of your choice, why can't you find even one new option out of the hundreds available to replace it with? I could create a world with 10 species and never touch the PHB. If you can't find 10 possible species that fit your world that are PC friendly, I do think your vision for your game is too narrow for me to have fun with. Because that narrow a world doesn't allow for discovery and is hemmed in on all sides by the DMs personal preferences and my character is an afterthought.

 

[Parmandur]

If you are the next Tolkien, you can restrict races to humans only for all I care...

So, here is the thing about this discourse that I find weird: in big literary Fantasy hits of recent years, they tend to be more restrictive than Tolkien was (the Stormlight Archives has RPG has two playable Species, the Mistborn RPG will have three, and Sanderson is hardly unusual in this). Outside of D&D stuff in particular, Fantasy tends to be just as Humanocentric as ever, with Tolkien being above par in terms multiple Species on hand.