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

[Thomas Shey]

It was nearly the same argument as this thread: DMs should not restrict players and their setting should accommodate kitchen-sink D&D.

And there were plenty of GMs who seemed offeneded that players would look at a narrow setting and say "Pass".

You don't get to have it both ways; if its okay for GMs to say they're only interested in running the campaign they wanted, then its okay for players to say they're only interested in running the kind of characters they're interested in. Sometimes that's going to mean both of them end up not getting that, the first because they have a limited number of players available, the latter because they have a limited amount of GMs.

I can get why GMs sometimes wish they could get their players on board what they're trying to do, because often there's a strong urge to keep an extent gaming group intact, but people only wanting what they want is a two-edged sword, and I think there's people at both ends of the table who have issues with that, sometimes overtly, sometimes by implication in other things they say. And they need to get over it.

In any event, I get why some folks do not like the "circus party" concept and why some may not want to incorporate certain species. I have been burned by players who took got a bit too off the rails in the past.

And I can get why there are players would tell you "Then go find someone else to play."

 

[Thomas Shey]

players being allowed to opt out is not controversial, the DM might have preferred them not to, but I doubt the same DM would say they had no right to

Maybe not that they have no right, but are kind of annoyed they did. Like I said, that's clearly be the case of the tone in some cases that they shouldn't be like that, with a pretty good dose of judgment that they do.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is what I wrote, they are not outselling anyone else because they are the only ones creating a game in this genre, they do it through name recognition, marketing, and their distribution channel.

I think at least to me, "yet WotC are the only ones offering a TTRPG within that D&D genre somehow" reads differently than you thought it did; that's why I asked if it was intended as sarcasm.

 

[Minigiant]

But why? That was my whole point. Why bother to yuck their yum? Why is it worth your time? Is this actually about the argument or is it just about catharsis? Like you seemed to completely abandon the entire "can opt out" line of thinking. So are we just in pure hostility mode? Because that's how it reads to me.

The concept that is he is suggesting is that some people don't like the idea that somebody would opt out.

That their setting is good enough that a player should be able to find a character that day would like playing in it or the inspiration for the setting is so good that a player one find a character within that inspiration that they be willing to create a character based off of. Especially if the potential player is a friend, or moderately respected acquaintance.

Like for example for the most part Martial characters in the D&D in most additions are kind of stale or limited in versatility. So if you create a setting that is heavily based off of weapons combat and nudges away much of the magical options in the game then you would have to either allow some third-party option for a martial character or rules variant or I would just say that I don't want to play. And there are many people like that.

Then the DM typically will ask "why" and that's where all the problems start.

Because like I said over and over most people come to d d with multiple ideas of characters in the heads order up for a lot of different kind of characters.

So if they opt to not play because if your character options, they have a criticism of your setting.

And many people can't take criticism of their work in general.

On the flip side with players players typically don't come with a full story character when they come to a table so a rejection hurts less because it's not as deep. I mean we tell players don't come with a full backstory or completed concept for a character before session 0 as is.

However when someone does come with a full backstory and all of these elements towards their character that they can't change and part of it is banned or rejected... Yucking their yum...

 

[Belen]

And I can get why there are players would tell you "Then go find someone else to play."

Which, I believe, I stated was perfectly fine. Life is too short to be unhappy due to a game.

Then again, I have never had a player say no except for the guy who moved across the country...

 

[Belen]

The concept that is he is suggesting is that some people don't like the idea that somebody would opt out.

That their setting is good enough that a player should be able to find a character that day would like playing in it or the inspiration for the setting is so good that a player one find a character within that inspiration that they be willing to create a character based off of. Especially if the potential player is a friend, or moderately respected acquaintance.

I have to wonder if it is more that people talk about restrictions here and immediately get called a bad DM and that gets them on the defensive...here.

I am sure it has happened in real life. I tend not to go down the rabbit hole of creating all new mechanics. I have created species and prestige/subclasses for my settings and items, classes, subclasses, prestige classes for players but never wholesale game altering mechanics.

My next campaign will center around undead. The majority of the lands will be ruled by the noble dead with only enclaves of free beings remaining, protected by divine beacons that prevent low level from entering and severely weaken upper level undead in their sphere of effect. Outside the spheres, undead gain strength and HD. Living beings still live and work in the dead zones but are a constant source of prey for the undead. The Gods barely retain enough strength to maintain the beacons. It is loosely based on the old Vampire Earth novels. I am still writing the overall concepts but I am intrigued on how it will play out and my group want to try it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which, I believe, I stated was perfectly fine. Life is too short to be unhappy due to a game.

Like it or not, when you get into one of these discussions, you end up being a proxy for everyone perceived as being on the same side as you are; I see it all the time. So whether you feel that way or not, the fact some GMs seem put out about it is something you're going to end up having to deal with.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have to wonder if it is more that people talk about restrictions here and immediately get called a bad DM and that gets them on the defensive...here.

Again, look at the tone of people who post to do things like complain about "circus parties", and then come back and tell me its only in response to criticism.

This is not a one-way problem.

 

[Minigiant]

I have to wonder if it is more that people talk about restrictions here and immediately get called a bad DM and that gets them on the defensive...here

I think it's less people being called a bad DM and more as I said before

The imbalance and lack of parity within D&D classes which are the most important part of player play.

I really don't think racist and species is the big issue.

It's the classes.

Not everybody likes playing every class and some people are bored with the class because they might have played already or they're looking for something new.

But if you cut down their options for the classes that they're willing to play out their interests of your setting is zero zilch nada nothing.

 

[mamba]

Maybe not that they have no right, but are kind of annoyed they did. Like I said, that's clearly be the case of the tone in some cases that they shouldn't be like that, with a pretty good dose of judgment that they do.

I can see disappointed, but you should not be annoyed over it. That goes both ways, a player can reject the setting or plot idea, the DM can reject a character idea, and if the two cannot agree then they just should find others to play with. No harm, no foul, but it can be disappointing all the same