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

[SableWyvern]

As I just recently mentioned in the "why do you play games that aren't D&D" thread, I actually think D&D has always done a very poor job of emulating it's most interesting settings (eg, Dark Sun, Al Qadim, probably even Planescape). On the other hand, lots of actual D&D fans seem to disagree with me, and who am I to say they're wrong?

 

[GobHag]

yet WotC are the only ones offering a TTRPG within that D&D genre somehow.

They absolutely do not.

Aside from the recent heartbreakers you have: Tunnels & Trolls, DCC, Castles and Crusades, Pathfinder, Dungeon World, Sword World and plenty of others

 

[Minigiant]

No, the discussion was around a few, or even ANY kind of restriction that could somehow make it so players seemingly have no options, despite hundreds if not thousands of combinations still being available.

The goalpost shifting and strawmaning is out of control.

No the discussion was around how much the DMS or Players should be accommodating with their preferences fore they leave.

What should happen with a small restriction campaign like an Arctic campaign which still allows hundreds of options vs a high restriction setting like a low magic S&S Conanesque campaign which might only allow a couple.

The issue is we are discussing 4 different styles of setting situations without constantly saying which one in each comment.

 

[tetrasodium]

No the discussion was around how much the DMS or Players should be accommodating with their preferences fore they leave.

What should happen with a small restriction campaign like an Arctic campaign which still allows hundreds of options vs a high restriction setting like a low magic S&S Conanesque campaign which might only allow a couple.

The issue is we are discussing 4 different styles of setting situations without constantly saying which one in each comment.

SpaceX is going to start billing you for goalpost launches soon. It doesn't matter how many goalpost moving possible options that an arctic campaign would allow. The same poster who introduced it did so alongside the idea of playing a hypothetical character that they themselves put forward as being in conflict with the campaign idea then doubled down when it was suggested they tell that hypothetical gm that the campaign was not for them. You only need to accept that the poster was not trying to be deliberately misleading

 

[Belen]

No the discussion was around how much the DMS or Players should be accommodating with their preferences fore they leave.

What should happen with a small restriction campaign like an Arctic campaign which still allows hundreds of options vs a high restriction setting like a low magic S&S Conanesque campaign which might only allow a couple.

The issue is we are discussing 4 different styles of setting situations without constantly saying which one in each comment.

It doesn’t matter. I have been told consistently from the folks arguing in this thread that any restriction on the player is bad.

If I do not allow Goliaths and Orcs but I do allow Lizardmen, Minotaurs, Satyrs, and Faeries, then I am still wrong for restricting any options.

It’s exhausting.

I am not interested in being forced to run generic D&D kitchen sink BS.

 

[Minigiant]

SpaceX is going to start billing you for goalpost launches soon. It doesn't matter how many goalpost moving possible options that an arctic campaign would allow. The same poster who introduced it did so alongside the idea of playing a hypothetical character that they themselves put forward as being in conflict with the campaign idea then doubled down when it was suggested they tell that hypothetical gm that the campaign was not for them. You only need to accept that the poster was not trying to be deliberately misleading

And how many times I must say that is ridiculous and unreasonable to not accept any restrictions?

That's not an discussion. Because most reasonable people who played a game believe that the player should make a character that is appropriate for the setting.

This discussion should be on where the line is between the player and DM on where they're accommodation and adaptation lies.

But people keep wanting to drag the conversation to the extreme side and say nobody is disagreeing with the extremist. I'm telling you right now I disagree with the extreme.

 

[Minigiant]

It doesn’t matter. I have been told consistently from the folks arguing in this thread that any restriction on the player is bad.

And I disagree.

I am not interested in being forced to run generic D&D kitchen sink BS.

And you shouldn't.

But on the other side like I said a player should not be forced to play the character designed by the DM.

No one should be forced to do something they don't want to do and if there is no option for adoption on either side, the two sides should part ways.

 

[tetrasodium]

And how many times I must say that is ridiculous and unreasonable to not accept any restrictions?

That's not an discussion. Because most reasonable people who played a game believe that the player should make a character that is appropriate for the setting.

This discussion should be on where the line is between the player and DM on where they're accommodation and adaptation lies.

But people keep wanting to drag the conversation to the extreme side and say nobody is disagreeing with the extremist. I'm telling you right now I disagree with the extreme.

I don't know what you are trying to express and think it's because you quoted the wrong post.

 

[SableWyvern]

No the discussion was around how much the DMS or Players should be accommodating with their preferences fore they leave.

The answer to that is pretty simple: Each individual should be as accommodating as they're comfortable with being. Once they feel that further accommodation will be a net negative for them and there appears to be little or no compromise possible from the other side, they should probably be looking for a different group.

Anyone can set a limit for themselves (eg, as many options as the core book contains, at a minimum) but any attempt to define a universal limit is a fool's errand.

You keep claiming there is some line everyone should honour, and I disagree. I do assume the line you're advocating for is somewhere you're quite comfortable with it being, though.

 

[Minigiant]

And really let's be honest.

In 2024 race/species is a minor aspect of your characters. From the player side and the DM side race and species barely does anything. You don't even get ability to score increases anymore. Everybody gets a level 1 feet.

It's really all humans with rubber hats now.

Culture is not tied to races or species anymore.

So really species and race limitations is really minor and extreme disagreement over that in 2024 is borderline ridiculous outside of the few races and species who have truly unique traits.

It's class restriction.

Class and class features have an extreme impact when a players gameplay and the DMs gameplay.

Simple classes versus complex classes.
Easy classes versus hard classes.
Warrior classes versus skill classes versus spellcasting classes.
Arcane classes versus Divine classes versus Primal classes versus Psionic classes versus something else kind of magic classes.

Everybody's tiptoeing over what really matters.

Because for all of the saminess complaints people had about 4E 5e especially in 2024 has most of the classes that are in the same grouping contained many of the same abilities and features.

All the warriors use the same weapons.
All the spell classes use most of the same spells.
And what individual aspects any class really has compared to another class can be easily tweaked via a wording change or a magic item that you give somebody free.

So really all of this discussion is whether or not if somebody wants to play a specific spellcaster and it's banned, is there another spellcaster of that type available after the banning?

There's literally another thread comparing the wizard and sorcerer and showing that there's barely any difference.

So what it comes down to is if somebody bans the wizard....The question is:

"Should they offered a sorcerer?"