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

[Dire Bare]

Well, actually nothing. I'm still putting a hard stop on that one.

I'll have to decline playing in your game then. I'm one of those entitled players who gets annoyed at, IMO, arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions on player options.

 

[Dire Bare]

This phrase got me thinking. When I'm planning a game, I usually start with a concept, settle on a system, then do the work to mesh the two.

If I was to end up with "these six core options, but not these two", it would not be because I started with eight and removed two, but because six were what matched the concept.

Realistically, it would probably be more like, "these core two, these two variants and these two new completely new options" but the main point is that I generally don't care about the system default and won't typically be interested in developing something that's defines itself by comparison to the default - - whether that means addition or subtraction.

My experience is that someone genuinely interested in the concept isn't going to complain about a missing class that isn't part of the concept.

On a related note, in my previous Rolemaster game, my starting premise was that I wanted a world where every single profession had a reason for existing and was incorporated into society in an internally consistent way.

If you can find players to explore YOUR world (and I'm sure you already do), then have fun. It's certainly traditional for DMs to approach the game this way.

But I'll probably pass (on the imaginary invite). Over the years, I've come to appreciate and prefer a more collaborative approach. Less restrictions and more "let's see how that can fit into the campaign."

I can't judge your world building, as I haven't experienced it, but from what you are sharing, it does sound like world building by subtraction, which doesn't seem fun to me.

It reminds me of an old school game, Talislanta. How is it different from D&D? According to the ads ran in Dragon magazine back in the day, "No elves!" Ah, no thanks.

 

[TwoSix]

You are very consistently anti-DM across many threads. It is one reason that I perceive ENWorld has become DM-unfriendly.

That may not be the case but it sure feels that way.

It’s not so much anti-DM, it’s being against the large contingent of experienced players that believe DM authority over setting conceits should have special privilege because DMs do more work.

 

[Mort]

I'll have to decline playing in your game then. I'm one of those entitled players who gets annoyed at, IMO, arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions on player options.

I'm not sure banning draconian or even draconian adjacent PCs is arbitrary in a Dragonlance game.

I'm EXTREMELY permissive, but I would definitely have a conversation with a player that wanted to do that.

And I would explain how it would certainly have an effect on the group's interactions with the setting. Which means the other players would have to be ok with it too.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure banning draconian or even draconian adjacent PCs is arbitrary in a Dragonlance game.

I'm EXTREMELY permissive, but I would definitely have a conversation with a player that wanted to do that.

And I would explain how it would certainly have an effect on the group's interactions with the setting. Which means the other players would have to be ok with it too.

Agreed.

I’m also extremely permissive as a GM, but it’s important to remember that GM permissiveness goes hand-in-hand with player responsibility.

A player who wants to play a version of Dragonlance where draconians aren’t just one of the primary antagonists, but rather a possible PC, is also responsible for figuring out an alternate campaign framing wherein that addition won’t damage setting cohesion.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the idea was that it would be OP for such a specialized campaign, but I seem to remember someone in another thread saying that the Arctic Ranger does a lot of cold damage stuff that would likely be useless against arctic monsters adapted for the environment.

I was talking about the common complaint how a 2014 ranger negates too many challenges in a single terrain themed game.

Natural Explorer: Arctic would be

• Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel ever.
• Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
• Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger. AKA 24/7 full speed scouting.
• If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace. AKA 24/7 full speed scouting.
• When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would. lol food
• While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area. 0e ranger rolling for ambush

That's with their spell list tailored to one environment.

 

[Remathilis]

Are the folks complaining about "player entitlement" really in the majority on these boards? They are loud and they are persistent, but that isn't the same thing.

While I'm in general agreement with you that DMs who are very precious about their settings and are into world-building by subtraction are not my cup of tea, and in their extreme form can be toxic DMs . . . I don't think they are any sort of majority here or elsewhere.

And even if they are . . . so? How important is it to "win" in these types of never-ending debates?

I think its because the board skews to older, experienced longtime players who are mostly or totally DMs, there is a strong strand of posted based on the notion of the DM as Auteur. Which would be fine, but often I feel a lot of differing opinions get shouted down in the process. To the point that I sometimes feel "play the game the way you want" feels less the inclusive statement and more of a dismissive one (its okay to play wrong!).

It gets really difficult to compromise when so much of this board feels like a constant string of complaints against modern D&D (5.24 especially), WotC, any and all changes to the game, player empowerment, kitchen sinks, and the very notion D&D is a complete game unto itself. Its hard to not go full defensive when it feels like every aspect of the game you find enjoyable is always being attacked.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure banning draconian or even draconian adjacent PCs is arbitrary in a Dragonlance game.

Yeah, the draconians are tied up into such a shocking genocidal betrayal that I really don't want a player's PC to be in that position. I don't even want them to be draconian-adjacent to it.

 

[GobHag]

I think its because the board skews to older, experienced longtime players who are mostly or totally DMs, there is a strong strand of posted based on the notion of the DM as Auteur. Which would be fine, but often I feel a lot of differing opinions get shouted down in the process. To the point that I sometimes feel "play the game the way you want" feels less the inclusive statement and more of a dismissive one (its okay to play wrong!).

It gets really difficult to compromise when so much of this board feels like a constant string of complaints against modern D&D (5.24 especially), WotC, any and all changes to the game, player empowerment, kitchen sinks, and the very notion D&D is a complete game unto itself. Its hard to not go full defensive when it feels like every aspect of the game you find enjoyable is always being attacked.

And my complaints about D&D 5.24 are that it doesn't go far enough for Modern D&D, so there's not much compromise there too.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think its because the board skews to older, experienced longtime players who are mostly or totally DMs, there is a strong strand of posted based on the notion of the DM as Auteur. Which would be fine, but often I feel a lot of differing opinions get shouted down in the process. To the point that I sometimes feel "play the game the way you want" feels less the inclusive statement and more of a dismissive one (its okay to play wrong!).

It gets really difficult to compromise when so much of this board feels like a constant string of complaints against modern D&D (5.24 especially), WotC, any and all changes to the game, player empowerment, kitchen sinks, and the very notion D&D is a complete game unto itself. Its hard to not go full defensive when it feels like every aspect of the game you find enjoyable is always being attacked.

I agree with the sentiment here, and its why I try to remember not just to end with, "Your way is also OK" but to start with, "My way is just my personal preference." If I fail to do so, I'm always happy to do what I can to restate my position more inclusively.

However, I have hard time reconciling what you're saying now, with your earlier comments about how it's perfectly OK for you to speak about other styles and preferences dismissively, and if anyone's offended by such things, that's their problem, not yours. If you want more respectful conversation, perhaps couch your own opinions in more respectful language.