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

[Clint_L]

I think what I'm wondering is, how strong do we understand a guard captain to be in the story? What kind of villain is he? How hard is he to deal woth, and for who?

As you're presenting it, I'm wondering how the emphasis on story is involved-- how strong a character is, that is who they win and lose to, are themselves diegetic elements of the narrative.

I suppose what I'm pointing out is the original here is also emphasizing narrative, they're really questioning what genre conceits a DND story uses in the context if the new statblocks .

I think we’re talking past each other. In this instance, the knight is not even a guard captain, he’s a guard. A flunky. The stat block is only numbers; I pick the one that suits the challenge the story needs and I give them meaning. The context comes from me; the stat blocks don’t impose anything.

I create the story and plug in whatever numbers it requires, ignoring any text in the MM that doesn’t suit me and not worrying about why a longsword does X damage or whatever.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah I know, but you keep trying to convince me that your carefully created vision is Good Actually even though I've said its too limited for me to have fun in. I keep saying no thanks and you keep telling me I'm wrong for saying it!

No, you've said the removal of one option, is too limiting.

Which is...something.

 

[Bae'zel]

I find it hilarious that that's all I've ever argued and people keep insisting I'm forcing DMs to bend to my whims. Are DMs such snowflakes that they cannot stand the idea a player can have standards the DM cannot meet? I'm actually convinced DMs are so used to kicking players out of their games they cannot comprehend a player saying "no, I don't think your carefully crafted vision is a match for me, or even all that carefully crafted."

We have no problem criticizing the latest WotC book as being "lazy" or "creatively lackluster" or "not worth my time" but if a player says the same about a DM's creative endeavour? Scandal! How dare you criticize that poor DM! You're just an entitled player! You should just shut up and enjoy whatever the DM puts in front of you!

No gaming is better than bad gaming, for sure. If your group wants to do a campaign that excluded (or includes) stuff that would be un fun to you, then walk away, for sure, if you can't negotiate.

But all this "are DMs such snowflakes" stuff is reading as very personal and specific to you. I'm guessing you had some real bad experiences with naughty word DMs who were too restrictive?

 

[Mort]

I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that these sorts of things should be established clearly up front. In the case you mention, it's not the statement that's sneaky, it's the failure to make that statement. I have no idea why any GM would think it's a good idea to invite someone to their game without explaining what that game is about and I'm happy to state again that I think its a very poor way to go about things that is going to result in problems.

As I've also mentioned, this is not limited to race and class options and curation. Every effort should be made to ensure a prospective participant has the best possible understanding of what the planned game will be like in themes, style, rules, setting, etc before they are asked to commit to it. I maintain this expectation in my own, long established group, I would certainly expect the same courtesies and common sense to be extended to an entirely new player.

Bit late to the thread, but just wanted to state, this weird bait and switch, nondisclosure, absolutely happens.

A long time ago, I was invited into a campaign - wasn't D&D it was Deadlands.

Emailed the GM and asked what kind of character is appropriate etc.

He emails back that it's a "grounded" campaign with little reliance on magic etc.

Ok, I make a tracker. A guy competent with a gun (Deadlands) but really good at tracking people down, high in all the necessary skills. Send Character to DM who responds it will work great.

First session. I realize EVERY other player has a magic knack, some have 2. there are even 2 harrowed in the party (basically magic possessed undead). I start to suspect the GM may have been a bit off in his description.

First session (that I'm in) we wander into a murder mystery, ends with we need to find the perpetrator.

OK great. I'll use my tracking skills to track the perp down. Except come to find out, the perp used magic to COMPLETELY cover his trail, no one remembers him and tracking is "impossible" because the perp used some kind of magic dust to cover his tracks (The GM reluctantly revealed this after I rolled ungodly high, several exploding dice, on a tracking roll) - so my characters signature skill set has been completely shut down by magic. Other characters use their magic knacks to better effect.

I exited the campaign shortly thereafter.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I find it hilarious that that's all I've ever argued and people keep insisting I'm forcing DMs to bend to my whims. Are DMs such snowflakes that they cannot stand the idea a player can have standards the DM cannot meet? I'm actually convinced DMs are so used to kicking players out of their games they cannot comprehend a player saying "no, I don't think your carefully crafted vision is a match for me, or even all that carefully crafted."

We have no problem criticizing the latest WotC book as being "lazy" or "creatively lackluster" or "not worth my time" but if a player says the same about a DM's creative endeavour? Scandal! How dare you criticize that poor DM! You're just an entitled player! You should just shut up and enjoy whatever the DM puts in front of you!

So how about this: if your campaign has less options than I want to play with, I'll just compare your campaign akin to "Spelljammer: Adventure's in Space", there might be some interesting ideas in there, but its too thin and lackluster to be worth my time. Some people will enjoy it, but its not for me. I don't have to praise your vision anymore than I have to buy every WotC book that comes down the pipe.

A radical idea, I know.

You are right. Players are allowed to opt out and have standards. That is not controversial. Your issue is your framing and the sneering.

I bolded some clearly mocking phrases. Why are you mocking DMs? Once we start mocking the DMs, we stop having a neutral opt out, and instead we have an opt out while sneering. There is a real possibility, that DMs aren't snowflakes, but simply don't care for the opinions of players who opt out of their game. Why would they care, they are there for their own fun. I know for my private games, I could care less what you or anyone not at the table thinks.

The WotC comparison is incorrect. WotC products are commercial goods sold to a mass audience. A DM’s campaign is a private, unpaid creative offer to a small group. It is very different to criticize a commercial product, than to criticize someone's private fun you are not a part of. You are doing the latter, and doing it on a broad scale.

You can believe what you believe, but when you use the tone you are using about a community, expect social friction. I can say “System X isn’t for me,” and the reaction is very different from me saying, “System X is lazy garbage and anyone who likes it has low standards.” One is a difference of opinion, the other is elitism in it's purest form.

So I think we should not broadly insult wide swaths of the community, because we disagree with their fun. But who knows, maybe that is a lazy opinion to have.

 

[Scribe]

So I think we should not broadly insult wide swaths of the community, because we disagree with their fun. But who knows, maybe that is a lazy opinion to have.

Lazy? No. Limited and narrow? Probably, but I dont want to be making uncharitable assumptions.

 

[dave2008]

Player: Cool. No beasts, no undead, no demons, no aberrations.

DM: "Ok, if that is what you want we can do that. However, I think that is leaving a lot out. Remember this setting was described as being Conan adjacent. Conan was mostly humans but also had beasts and, though rare: giants, monstrosities, demons, etc. However, if you prefer to have it just be humans - I can work with that! What does everyone else think?"

Players: "No, all humans is not what we consider sword and sorcery. Let's stick with the original plan."

Something like the above I find more likely than your take.

 

[Thomas Shey]

D&D does not outsell everyone else by a wide margin because most people prefer that genre over any other and yet WotC are the only ones offering a TTRPG within that D&D genre somehow. They outsell everyone else because of brand recognition, marketing and distribution channels.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I think I could name a number of other games that are selling within the genre D&D is; its usually pretty obvious.

 

[Belen]

lol no. You should just walk if you don't like the options. It's not complicated.

This.

I have seen people argue that a player should not have to walk and that there are so few DMs that the DM is obligated to accommodate them.

My main argument for those players if they cannot find a group that suits their desires, then they should run the game.

I agree that it is best to find a DM and group that suit you.

 

[Belen]

Bit late to the thread, but just wanted to state, this weird bait and switch, nondisclosure, absolutely happens.

A long time ago, I was invited into a campaign - wasn't D&D it was Deadlands.

Emailed the GM and asked what kind of character is appropriate etc.

He emails back that it's a "grounded" campaign with little reliance on magic etc.

Ok, I make a tracker. A guy competent with a gun (Deadlands) but really good at tracking people down, high in all the necessary skills. Send Character to DM who responds it will work great.

First session. I realize EVERY other player has a magic knack, some have 2. there are even 2 harrowed in the party (basically magic possessed undead). I start to suspect the GM may have been a bit off in his description.

First session (that I'm in) we wander into a murder mystery, ends with we need to find the perpetrator.

OK great. I'll use my tracking skills to track the perp down. Except come to find out, the perp used magic to COMPLETELY cover his trail, no one remembers him and tracking is "impossible" because the perp used some kind of magic dust to cover his tracks (The GM reluctantly revealed this after I rolled ungodly high, several exploding dice, on a tracking roll) - so my characters signature skill set has been completely shut down by magic. Other characters use their magic knacks to better effect.

I exited the campaign shortly thereafter.

That bites. I always spell everything out in a written char gen sheet so that there are no misconceptions.