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

[SableWyvern]

The group has to agree.
You can be interested or like whatever you want. But if the group doesn't agree to it, you can't do it with that group.

An issue is many people don't make these formal agreements openly in their groups. Sometimes they agree to sit down, default to defaults, then arguments and hurt feelings occur because someone does not follow a default assumption.

The player should make a PC that fits the setting. Most settings aren't that narrow that a player can't make an appropriate PC they'd enjoy playing.

But some settings are narrow enough that a player can't make a PC they'd want to play.
And they can walk.
And you as the DM can't be mad about it.

And a DM is not forced to make an exception for a player's specific PC. The DM can ban a class or race or feat. Play your 2nd or 3rd choice.

So, this is all pretty much just what I've been saying. However, unless there is an established group, I don't believe there is any such thing as "defaulting to defaults". As I've mentioned, even with my established group, I go out of my way to ensure we establish clear, shared expectations prior to a new game. This is even more important in a new group who haven't played together before and it is, in my opinion, foolish to assume that "default D&D" means the same thing to any two different people, let alone everyone in a group or four five.

The issue is DMs who narrow their setting down to a few choices or Players demanding a single PC concept and getting mad because the other side walks.

Stand on your preferences proudly or Come with options.
But coming with narrow mentality and being offended when people dip out is some junk.

Aint no lost city.

Bob is asking for too much.

The DM can't force a PC on a player nor a Player force a setting on the DM.

Who are these GMs who are angry and offended at players for not being interested in the game they want to run? This is the first mention I can recall in this thread of this particular behaviour. If not a straw man, this certainly feels like moving the goal posts.

But yes, I agree absolutely that no GM is entitled to have players ready and willing to play their game and it would be very silly position to take to claim that players are obligated to participate in their game, no matter what that game is.

 

[SableWyvern]

The social contract is that you can't force work on someone that they don't want to do.

That's not the position you've been arguing.

 

[Minigiant]

Who are these GMs who are angry and offended at players for not being interested in the game they want to run? This is the first mention I can recall in this thread of this particular behaviour. If not a straw man, this certainly feels like moving the goal posts.

This wouldn't be a discussion if they didn't exist. IF you narrow the game well down from the base options AND don't sell it, you are going to run into people who don't wanna play in it. And many people can't take rejection.
I've ran into a couple like that.

On the flipside, there are players who come with a similarly small list of PCs they are willing to run. Again rejection.

That's not the position you've been arguing.

That's exactly what I'm arguing. That some state their preferences are more important and should be allowed regardless of the other side's wishes. Because the other side is being unreasonable. Then feeling hurt or offense when rejected.

Hence why I encourage broadening your lists. Because many can't take "I don't like your X." or "Your Y doesn't interest me."

 

[SableWyvern]

This wouldn't be a discussion if they didn't exist. IF you narrow the game well down from the base options AND don't sell it, you are going to run into people who don't wanna play in it. And many people can't take rejection.
I've ran into a couple like that.

On the flipside, there are players who come with a similarly small list of PCs they are willing to run. Again rejection.

If someone can't take rejection, I would encourage them to continue to develop games that match their inspiration and vision, rather than compromising on that, and work on improving their ability to handle criticism and differing viewpoints.

That said, part of being able to see differing views is learning when it is OK, and potentially even beneficial, to make compromises.

But really, at this point, we've reached a point where a single rule to be applied universally ("allow more options" or whatever) is going to be less useful than looking at specific examples and providing tailored advice.

That's exactly what I'm arguing. That some state their preferences are more important and should be allowed regardless of the other side's wishes. Because the other side is being unreasonable. Then feeling hurt or offense when rejected.

Well, no, that's not what you started off arguing. Here's where you initially indicated that a GM curating available races or classes is in breach of (or close to breaching) the social contract:

If in the DMs excitement they only allow for Human fighters, thieves, and a nerfed wizard... that is choose to breaking the D&D social contract.

If anything, you were arguing that the social contract requires the GM to do the work of justifying the inclusion of additional races and classes -- the opposite of what you're now claiming.

Hence why I encourage broadening your lists. Because many can't take "I don't like your X." or "Your Y doesn't interest me."

I'm not going to change the way I prepare my games on the basis that some people might not like them. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the human race has no interest in gaming at my table, and I'm perfectly OK with that.

If other people want to ensure they always add more options, and thus choose to completely shelve the cool idea they had for a game where everyone starts as identical clones, that's certainly their prerogative, but I disagree with any general advice that they should do so out of a fear of rejection or hurt feelings.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, no, that's not what you started off arguing. Here's where you initially indicated that a GM curating available races or classes is in breach of (or close to breaching) the social contract:


If anything, you were arguing that the social contract requires the GM to do the work of justifying the inclusion of additional races and classes -- the opposite of what you're now claiming.

No.

What I am saying is a DM can't sneak write info on my character sheet without my permission via bans THEN be upset that I leave because don't want to play one of their limited character concepts.

The discussion only exists because people get upset that others don't want to allow or run their precious setting or PC.

 

[SableWyvern]

No.

What I am saying is a DM can't sneak write info on my character sheet without my permission via bans THEN be upset that I leave because don't want to play one of their limited character concepts.

The discussion only exists because people get upset that others don't want to allow or run their precious setting or PC.

GMs sneak-writing on your character sheet is shifting the goal posts to another galaxy.

No one in this thread is suggesting that a GM has the right to force to you play their game or the right to arbitrarily change your character and expect you to like it or feel they have been hard done by if a player chooses not to play their game.

If you genuinely feel there are such people, you're welcome to continue the discussion with them, but I can't see that these things are in dispute and will leave you to it.

 

[Minigiant]

GMs sneak-writing on your character sheet is shifting the goal posts to another galaxy.

Limiting the PC options to an extremely low amount of options without gauging the interests of playing is close to sneak writing on a character sheet.

If you are only allowing humans, you are writing human on the sheet of anyone who sits down. They agree to sit down that's on them.
But you can't be upset if they don't,

Again, the discussion wouldn't come up a bunch if there weren't vocal DMs displaying their hurt feelings because others stated they aren't interested in their human only game or no caster game or dark ages low fantasy game, etc etc.

 

[Xenolith234]

Limiting the PC options to an extremely low amount of options without gauging the interests of playing is close to sneak writing on a character sheet.

If you are only allowing humans, you are writing human on the sheet of anyone who sits down. They agree to sit down that's on them.
But you can't be upset if they don't,

Again, the discussion wouldn't come up a bunch if there weren't vocal DMs displaying their hurt feelings because others stated they aren't interested in their human only game or no caster game or dark ages low fantasy game, etc etc.

This is a very weird, niche situation you’re proposing. Pretty sure this is all discussed at session zero/campaign setup and proposal. No one is somehow surprised all of a sudden at Dragonborn being erased off their character sheet. No DM is sneaking things in in regards to racial choices available. Now, if you’re making your dream character before you even discuss availability with the DM, that’s on you.

 

[SableWyvern]

This is a very weird, niche situation you’re proposing. Pretty sure this is all discussed at session zero/campaign setup and proposal. No one is somehow surprised all of a sudden at Dragonborn being erased off their character sheet. No DM is sneaking things in in regards to racial choices available. Now, if you’re making your dream character before you even discuss availability with the DM, that’s on you.

Yes, claiming a clear, upfront statement such as, "I want to run a human-only campaign" is a form of sneakiness suggests a definition of sneak I'm not familiar with.

 

[Remathilis]

Behold, the platonic ideal.

6 Ancestry options, 4 Classes.

Clever bait and switch. So first off, if you invited me to play D&D 5e and then pulled out the Shadowdark book, I'd probably leave for no other reason than that you lied to me, didn't feel I would play if you told me that was what we were actually playing and I couldn't trust what other ruses you would try to pull.

BUT...

Assuming I did know you were playing Shadowdark (and I was up for a little OS play) you have so far met my criteria: no ancestry or class in the Shadowdark book is banned. If you did ban one, then I would ask what you replaced it with (gnomes? Orcs? Etc).

See, it's not a numbers game. It's an expectations one. My standard for playing is "as many options as the core rulebook allows." No less. If that's Shadowdark, that's 6 ancestries and four classes minimum. If it's D&D 2024, 10 species and 12 classes with four subclasses each.

I could (and have) found or created other options, but thats not the point. The point is that a few restrictions are not a 'narrow' 'limited' vision. It may be a singular vision. A focused vision. A carefully considered vision,

You're carefully considered vision is "what existed in 1984. Don't give me a song and dance. A carefully considered vision would be a mixture of sources, new and old, that fit a particular narrative. T

and maybe you do not want to play within that vision, and thats absolutely fine, but it certainly seems that you put yourself above the game, above the vision for that game, and that without the DM bending the knee to your particularly 'narrow' vision of having the many or exact options you have arbitrarily decided that you require, then you cannot have fun.

Yes. I don't waste my time with DMs who I won't have fun with. If you come out gate with a ban list and nothing to replace them with (a task as easy as opening Monsters of the Multiverse and picking a handful of options) I assume some rather uncharitable things: you're probably not going to be interested in me researching new spells or magic items. You're not going to be willing to let me try a new idea that came from a recent book or 3pp. You probably won't be keen to let me use skills or abilities not in the book, or allow wild ideas to fly. I might be wrong on all of that, but at this point why should I sit around to find out? You've already created a carefully considered vision of your game that didn't need my input, so I don't see why that would change when I start playing.

Which is totally fine of course.

Glad we agree.