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

[Remathilis]

Maybe you should take a look at how that reads. You could say "that sounds unfun" or you could say "that doesn't sound like it would work for me". One is yucking someone else's yum, the other says that wouldn't be yum for me.
There's a difference. And it's the difference between being a dick and not being a dick.

And if was responding to a specific person's campaign, I'd probably phrase it differently. But I'm not, I'm referring to a particular style of game I find unfun. Why do I have to sugar-coat it when discussing the abstract? Are skins so thin that if I say "I don't find that type of game fun" you take that personally?

 

[billd91]

And if was responding to a specific person's campaign, I'd probably phrase it differently. But I'm not, I'm referring to a particular style of game I find unfun. Why do I have to sugar-coat it when discussing the abstract? Are skins so thin that if I say "I don't find that type of game fun" you take that personally?

Do you think you really need to ask that? But then, what's the point of using the more jerkish language in this thread when you'd phrase it differently to a person's face? Why wouldn't you use the more polite phrasing here too?

 

[el-remmen]

There are other reasons a DM might ban a class, rule, or spell, beside their whim or "setting integrity", or game balance."

For example, when I started running 5E, I outright banned warlocks. I had never played in or run a 5E game, but had read the PHB and had plenty of general D&D experience. Everyone else I was running the game for had even less experience with 5E or any edition of D&D. I bounced off the warlock and I didn't want to deal with learning a new class mechanic while a newb might also be trying to figure it out, while I also trying to satisfyingly integrate the idea of an otherworldly patron into the campaign narrative for the first time. So I told everyone to avoid it. (Though, I think if I had had a more experienced player (both with the game and with my DMing style) wanting to try it out for the first time, I would have likely taken that trip with them). Having had time to integrate them with the setting, and spend more time playing in game with them, my Vanity Frankenstein 5E, will include a modified version of the warlock tied more specifically into the setting..

Then again, the current homebrew setting I use bans* one of the game's core species (elves) as PCs, but they still exist in the game world! So my whim still rules supreme!

* though there is a potential elf-related replacement for elves and half-elves (the latter of which simply don't exist).

 

[Remathilis]

Do you think you really need to ask that? But then, what's the point of using the more jerkish language in this thread when you'd phrase it differently to a person's face? Why wouldn't you use the more polite phrasing here too?

I guess we need to walk on eggshells so no one's feelings get hurt, heh?

I'll remember that the next time a "circus troop" thread gets posted.

 

[billd91]

I guess we need to walk on eggshells so no one's feelings get hurt, heh?

Kinda hard to complain about people getting their back up when you're bringing the tone that gets their back up.

 

[SkidAce]

Player: Cool. No beasts, no undead, no demons, no aberrations.
DM: Whoa whoa whoa: you can't expect me to not have cultists summoning monsters or having attacks from dinosaurs!
Players: Consider it "flexing your creative muscles you wouldn't otherwise consider"

DM: "Cool, cultists summoning elementals, or giants and monstrosities it is! Sweet, lets roll those characters up"

 

[Mecheon]

My point is that if I drop Goblin (from Shadowdark) or Dragonborn (from D&D) and add nothing, that is not some catastrophic removal of player options, that is not the DM 'forcing players to play a specific PC'. There are still hundreds if not thousands of possible combinations.

How many of these 'thousand of player options' are different enough to be actually different experiences, though? Especially in 5.24, races don't really contribute much so if you pick a race, you're probably picking it for the flavour.

I don't have much experience with Shadowdark (Sorry but your 'ideal' is another person's 'this is wasting too much time on pointless guff that I literately cannot be bothered about') but from what I'm seeing it tends to be low on such as well. So I wouldn't say there's thousands of possible combinations. I'd say there's (Class Number) of possible combinations that actively play different

You can't say your store serves thousands of different pasta combinations and it turns out its all just spaghetti with a different little garnish on top. People aren't going to care how much you insist the parsley v broccoli are totally two different choices

 

[tetrasodium]

Isn’t Artificer an Eberron class? I have never had a player even ask to play one.

Depends on the scope of that question.
The original artificer was a terrible gnomish force of chaos in frcs that nobody really liked, it should be forgotten and is probably the reason why there were so many god awful artificer UAs trying to channel it to varying degrees.

The first popular artificer was in 3.5 eberron campaign setting and it was pretty important to the setting for various reasons including its ability to act as a healer for living construct war forge who needed repair x damage spells along with wands of cure lx wounds... 5e broke a lot of the cool living construct interactions with spell & creature type simplifications.

The first printing a 5e artificer was in rising from the last war... But it was not the last time it was published... More on that below

Artificer isn't well known or free enough to get that treatment.

That's the thing. The artificers cost money. So many people who would not willing to pay for a book to get access to mostly just the artificer won't be asking for the artificer outside of the setting book that it comes in: Eberron

Spoiler: ahem

Your kinda demonstrating my point⚝ by stretching so hard to justify banning !FR stuff no big deal. I've never once heard such claims about tashas content to the point where it's practically considered default must accept core rules. Not only that... Instead of giving us new artificer subclasses in TCOE wotc took people at their word when they said artificers were banned because they aren't in FR, wotc republished the original artificer subclasses alongside a blurb talking about artificers in FR Greyhawk & Mystara. At the time the eberron community's frustration over a mere reprint rather than new stuff was parried away with a comment about how it was done to make it more setting neutral & accessible.

Edit: I don't really care that it's regularly banned. The hollow excuse trying to justify it being repeated so often that wotc reprints content to feed it rather than printing new content does though.

⚝ That point being that banning "a class" is no big deal. Banning stuff considered core to FR is a big deal,

 

[Scribe]

How many of these 'thousand of player options' are different enough to be actually different experiences, though? Especially in 5.24, races don't really contribute much so if you pick a race, you're probably picking it for the flavour.

I don't have much experience with Shadowdark (Sorry but your 'ideal' is another person's 'this is wasting too much time on pointless guff that I literately cannot be bothered about') but from what I'm seeing it tends to be low on such as well. So I wouldn't say there's thousands of possible combinations. I'd say there's (Class Number) of possible combinations that actively play different

You can't say your store serves thousands of different pasta combinations and it turns out its all just spaghetti with a different little garnish on top. People aren't going to care how much you insist the parsley v broccoli are totally two different choices

So if I drop a specific species, it's worth even less of a fuss since Wizards has devalued the choice since Tashas anyway???

Agreed!

 

[SkidAce]

I'll be blunt: I have stated repeatedly that I have a standard I hold for new games I'm joining: no options less than what the core rulebook gives. If I don't see that, I will walk. I've been told I am entitled and wrong for having that standard. I can only imagine this is because people have a problem with me, as a player, having said standard because they feel if I'm going to walk because of it, that I must be calling them a bad DM rather than a DM who I feel I won't have fun playing with.

I've given up trying to explain that. So now I am calling them a bad DM.

Because it all comes back to the DM is Always Right and the Player is Always Wrong mentality that this board in particular exposes at every opportunity. Every DM is above reproach, every DM immune to criticism. I'm sick of it. So if you want to make players the bad guys, I'll play that role. To be fair, I think a lot of DMs are high on their own farts and could stand the reminder they aren't Tolkien or Martin and that those carefully considered visions aren't any better or worse than a kitchen sink gonzo game.

So yeah, your game (editorial, not personal) sounds terrible and I don't think I'll have fun playing it. Thanks for the invite, but no thanks. Either accept the criticism that your pitch doesn't interest me or don't. I don't care. But you (editorial) can quit trying to defend that since I didn't like it, I'm the one that's wrong.

Just to remind you, there are folks (like me) who respect your opinion and are not calling you wrong.

I asked a question about a human centric campaign and you answered. Respect.

At the very ultimate worst my opinion is "What a shame, I bet we would have had fun in a game together otherwise".

More likely, I would say "One less option and you walk...hmmm, what can I add in for yah?"

Gaming is for friends, and acquaintances that will hopefully become friends, all the philosophical debate on forums is taken way to seriously for me.