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

[AlViking]

Yes . . . so what?

Dragonlance is over 40 years old with hundreds of game books, novels, comics, and video games. There's been a lot of development on almost every aspect of the setting.

Yes, draconians were initially evil, evil, evil and filled a similar niche as orcs in other settings. Okay. But both in the story (novels) and the game (player options), that changed.

A DM who shoots down my draconian PC because it "doesn't fit the setting" is a DM I'm not going to enjoy my time with, one who prioritizes a narrower view of canon than the publisher does than collaborating on player choice.

That's perfectly fine, you have your preferences. But the DM preferences are just as important, correct? If they're not going to have fun running a Dragonlance campaign with a draconian are they the bad guy?

 

[AlViking]

Yes, it most certainly is reasonable.

If the DM actually has a good reason for not wanting draconian PCs, we'd hopefully discuss that during Session Zero. And I could decide to stick with or abandon the character concept, or even to stick with or abandon the DM (and group).

It's not about not being allowed to play my favorite dragon-people or not, it's about avoiding games with DMs that have traits/habits that don't jive with my own preferences. DM control vs player collaboration.

Tell me "NO!" and I'm walking away from your game. Tell me "I'm not comfortable with that concept and here's why . . ." might just be reasonable and I'll change up my character concept.

Honestly, I didn't even see a draconian PC as even remotely problematic until this very thread. Still don't, really. But I can respect that others might link the story of the draconians' origins to real-world genocide and be uncomfortable with that.

But . . . if that's the case . . . making them evil mooks the heroes can slay guilt-free is actually worse. IMO.

What justifies your "good reason" to play a draconian other than you want to? How could a DM justify not allowing draconians other than they don't want them as a playable race?

In my game you can't play a drow because they don't exist.

 

[AlViking]

And yet how many people on here will tell you point blank that you ABSOLUTELY MUST have a person who calls all the shots and whose word is unquestionable, that if you question it you are ALWAYS the problem and must leave?

I prefer someone make the final call. I think it makes for a better game rather than the loudest player at the table shouting until they get their way. That it is a far cry from a maniacal power hungry overlord GM.

 

[Moving Pictures]

Well, I had carefully curated some quotes to respond to, but they were lost in an ooopsie on my part and I am not going to wade through 107 pages of content to find them again. Let's see if I can bulletpoint some of the salient thoughts.

First off, I am a 1e/2e grognard that came back a year ago after a zillion years away. I've said this elsewhere, but it bears saying again, as it's relevant.

1) In my view, 5e catered to a whole videogamey generation that couldn't handle their characters being squished dead. It does cater to munchkins. Just look at all the "this build is overpowered, here's how you can do it too" Youtube videos. None of them are about creating characters, they're about being unbeatable. This isn't new .... the only difference between the stuff encoded in the game and when I was a kid in high school is that the kids in high school had third-level paladins with Holy Avengers and Girdles of Giant Strength while wearing +5 plate. You're never going to avoid that mentality .... it's kinda human. But encoding it into the rules encourages the problem.

2) looking through a lens of coming back to D&D after a gazillion years away, it's obvious that this has been the direction the game has taken. Every class has magic, humans are boring. There's eighty-seven playable races, sixty-zillion subclasses. It's gone too far.

3) I saw one post that said it should take two sessions to get to third level. WTF? I've had a game running for almost a year now, 35 sessions. 1e/2e homebrew. Levels are 4,4, 3/3 3/3 and an npc 4. We're getting to the good stuff.

4) The joy of the old school game is that your third-level rogue might very well die an hour into exploring wherever. Oh well. We always had backup characters, right? I remember introducing a dwarven fighter into a game ... I spent days curating the dude's background. Half an hour into the session, he was offed by a critical hit from a Piercer. Oh well. Next up. The current system makes it difficult to kill a PC.

5) The whole CR thing is bunkum. It's a kludge because the system is now so broken that it's difficult to figure out how to challenge a PC party, especially with the extra actions, reactions, bonus actions and other stuff that's been added to make action economy more valuable.

6) Not everything 5e did is trash. That's the thing about systems. I like how they have the skill system.

7) I am now a firm believer in point buy for stats. This seems to have been normalized. That's good.

The dude who wrote "the monsters know what they're doing" isn't wrong. There's a reason a whole bunch of us still tinker with homebrew alterations of the old systems. The old systems weren't perfect either, but they allow a grittier background.

 

[BenjaminPey]

We're getting to the good stuff.

Wow, hold on your horse! Getting to the good stuff after 35 sessions only?? You're supposed to suffer way longer than that!

 

[Moving Pictures]

Wow, hold on your horse! Getting to the good stuff after 35 sessions only?? You're supposed to suffer way longer than that!

Oh, there will be suffering. Levels of it, if I have my way.

 

[Mephista]

I'm not saying it's unclear to the player. That's the point we're not talking about a person who is confused about what kind of player they're allowed to be play. We're talking about ADM who did not clearly tell a player that the idea that they have in their head are not allowed at that game.

DM: I'm running an Arctic game would you like to play.
Player: Sure. That's sounds cool. Frozen tundras and stuff. I guess I can't play in 2014 Arctic Ranger because that would make it too easy, right?
DM: of course meet us back here at 1:00 p.m. Saturday.
Player: Cool. Cool.

Player: Got my Kobold Pyromancer wizard.
DM: Sorry. No reptilians and no pyromancers.
Player: You didn't say that before. Kurig had a vendetta against the God of Ice and came from the south to melt a glacier.

Kobolds aren't lizards, they're tiny dragon people. Warm blooded. White dragons have kobold underlings all the time.

Fire mages also sound like somthing local towns would love to have to help keep the place heated and not freezing. I can imagine that having some help heat bath houses would be commonplace. Hells, its not even a fire-dragon-sorcerer, which I could see as an issue given the favored lairs. You specified wizard.

Why is this a problem? It absolutely fits an artic campaign.

 

[Minigiant]

Kobolds aren't lizards, they're tiny dragon people. Warm blooded. White dragons have kobold underlings all the time.

Fire mages also sound like somthing local towns would love to have to help keep the place heated and not freezing. I can imagine that having some help heat bath houses would be commonplace. Hells, its not even a fire-dragon-sorcerer, which I could see as an issue given the favored lairs. You specified wizard.

Why is this a problem? It absolutely fits an artic campaign.

Again it's not me. It's the DM who wanst clear about his preferences

 

[Azzy]

1) In my view, 5e catered to a whole videogamey generation that couldn't handle their characters being squished dead.

That's where I stopped taking your post seriously.

 

[Moving Pictures]

That's where I stopped taking your post seriously.

Well, prove me wrong?