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

[AlViking]

Let's make it simple.

I'll be the player.

My First Choice of character is a Half Elf Fey wanderer Ranger
Second is a Goliath Barbarian

Third is a Kobold Sorcerer

Then a Drow Arcane Trickster

Last is a Human Rogue

Am I entitled to think that I should believe that I should be able to play one of those, something like those*, or be convinced by the DM that although all of those are bad there is fun to be had?

*assuming I reveal my reason why I want to play it or the DM asks

If a DM told me that the only species available in campaign were goblins and orcs, I would have questions because I don't want to play an evil character or play in a group with evil characters. If I was assured that wasn't the case I'd figure out which one made the most sense for a character I would enjoy playing. The restrictions could lead to some interesting ideas.

 

[AlViking]

I presented a scenario, one where a single individual does not care about the interests or enjoyments of the others at their table.

I do not know you, I do not know how you run your games, how you interact with the others at your table, and nor will I know these things. So if your question is about whether or not that scenario presents you specifically as a red flag, that's up to you to determine. Do you prioritize your interests to the detriment of everyone else's?

If your answer is no, then this is a moot point, what I am talking about would seem to not apply to you.

If any individual at the table doesn't care about the interest or enjoyments of others it can be an issue. I think it will absolutely be an issue if that individual also happens to be a DM.

But caring about interests and enjoyments of the players is not the same as saying "yes" to every request.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I do not believe its a question of morality at all.

Am I the DM? I establish the setting, and that includes species options.
Am I the Player? I do not establish the setting, and that includes species options.

Its that simple. I've been in both chairs, and my morality is the same.

We can say that it's not morality. But we seem to be moralizing a lot. I could quote a dozen posts in this very thread that imply quality, personal traits, and many other things about people with restrictions.

That said, it's not about the restrictions. It's about a role's agency being valued higher. @AlViking had the same underlying argument as you do. But there are dozens of stand-ins here. It doesn't matter what your reasoning is, because you are picking a subservient role in a conflict of two functionally identical restrictions.

I do wonder, if given any one of dozens of other restrictions if the battle lines would be the same. Because in the past, they always are in debates about DM versus player power. Because that is actually the underlying debate here. Race restrictions are just a proxy.

Maybe I'm wrong

 

[Scribe]

We can say that it's not morality. But we seem to be moralizing a lot. I could quote a dozen posts in this very thread that imply quality, personal traits, and many other things about people with restrictions.

Sure, you could. I saw a number of them myself.

I do not believe however that it is the DM/Player divide here. Its just a small number of players on this forum.

 

[Scribe]

I do wonder, if given any one of dozens of other restrictions if the battle lines would be the same. Because in the past, they always are in debates about DM versus player power. Because that is actually the underlying debate here. Race restrictions are just a proxy.

Maybe I'm wrong

This part I think is correct however. Its just another battleground for a discussion that crops up in many ways.

I dont think its DM Power vs Player Power however, its acceptance of different roles, responsibility, and power dynamics.

I dont think its going to serve me however to go into detail.

 

[saviirkad]

I believe that I was the one who originally raised the issue @Belen mentions and, just to be clear, I don't see any reason to assume that a player who wants to play something strange is doing so because they want to hijack the campaign or steal the spotlight. This is simply something that can end up being an unintended consequence -- things out of the ordinary, just by the their nature, tend to stand out.

The other posts I was referencing were those focusing on the DM's own preferences for desirable character options, assumptions that the player could only be interested in the mechanics of their choice, or suggestions that the player would be provably in the wrong if they did not choose instead the very specific character story they're told to use instead of the one they had chosen themselves.

I take no issue whatsoever with the other points you raise here, assuming, of course, that this is a conversation with all involved about how this choice affects the play and fun of others and how to move forward. A reasonable conversation about unintended consequences seems easy to resolve if everyone involved is simply looking for mutual enjoyment.

 

[tetrasodium]

Let's make it simple.

I'll be the player.

My First Choice of character is a Half Elf Fey wanderer Ranger
Second is a Goliath Barbarian

Third is a Kobold Sorcerer

Then a Drow Arcane Trickster

Last is a Human Rogue

Am I entitled to think that I should believe that I should be able to play one of those, something like those*, or be convinced by the DM that although all of those are bad there is fun to be had?

*assuming I reveal my reason why I want to play it or the DM asks

That's not working with the gm though, it's hammering the gm with an uncompromising rapid fire shotgun blast of throw away take it or leave it characters described with so little care that it makes the catchy names used to describe common heavily optimized builds in their guides sound downright Shakespearian.

Edit:I'm offended that 5e has shifted the Overton window so far that any gm is expected to hear a player rattle off a list like that while the player believes it to be anything other than straight minimax character optimization spreadsheet level character design desires.

 

[AlViking]

We can say that it's not morality. But we seem to be moralizing a lot. I could quote a dozen posts in this very thread that imply quality, personal traits, and many other things about people with restrictions.

That said, it's not about the restrictions. It's about a role's agency being valued higher. @AlViking had the same underlying argument as you do. But there are dozens of stand-ins here. It doesn't matter what your reasoning is, because you are picking a subservient role in a conflict of two functionally identical restrictions.

I do wonder, if given any one of dozens of other restrictions if the battle lines would be the same. Because in the past, they always are in debates about DM versus player power. Because that is actually the underlying debate here. Race restrictions are just a proxy.

Maybe I'm wrong

DMs and players have different roles in the game. The DM establishes the setting and how the world reacts to the actions of the characters. The players control their characters and interact with the world. It's not the only way games work of course, but it is the default for D&D.

 

[Moving Pictures]

If we're going to use YouTubers as a bellwether to what 5e "caters to", do we just include the ones that confirm your narrative, or do we look at the fact that D&D YouTube is much more diverse in its base. Also, do we also ignore that most YouTubers use clickbait titles and hot takes to get views and are not representative of the actual player base? Do we also ignore that 5e is not actually overpowered?

Which is why, had you looked you would have seen various forum threads, dedicated websites, etc. If I had any inkling that you might actually be open to the view I entertain, I'd post more. Because the forums (forae?) - including this one - are rife with people looking to make overpowering videogamey I-can-beat-anything builds.

Hence my view.

And lest you think I'm a binary either-or dude, I'm sure there are diehard roleplayers out there using 5e in creative ways. Just as the kids in high school in the eighties used 1e with monty haul rules....

Anyhow, this horse is clearly in need of a cleric, and I'm out of slots.

 

[saviirkad]

Which is why, had you looked you would have seen various forum threads, dedicated websites, etc. If I had any inkling that you might actually be open to the view I entertain, I'd post more. Because the forums (forae?) - including this one - are rife with people looking to make overpowering videogamey I-can-beat-anything builds.

Hence my view.

And lest you think I'm a binary either-or dude, I'm sure there are diehard roleplayers out there using 5e in creative ways. Just as the kids in high school in the eighties used 1e with monty haul rules....

Anyhow, this horse is clearly in need of a cleric, and I'm out of slots.

FWIW, you might want to look at surveys and online character repositories to best present the argument.

These sources will closely mirror actual gameplay and playstyles. Forum threads, websites, video content, etc., not only represent just a small slice of the whole, but can also be at odds with the whole.