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

[Xenolith234]

See, I never had that experience. Players tended to be in shorter supply. So much so that a good player (one who knows the rules and makes it consistently) is worth compromising with. I'm sure that if you had a pool of only 10 people, you'd be more willing to entertain people tortle preferences. But I guess if there is a surplus, there is no incentive to care.

This just shows we really need to work harder to onboard more DMs.

I agree with the last part - by providing them with good tools to run the game.

 

[Remathilis]

For the analogy to work, this person isn't just bringing caviar. They are also insisting that the host incorporate the caviar into all their dishes, and everyone attending has to eat some.

No it doesn't. No more so than my wanting to play a tortle demands everyone else play tortles or the DM to fill his world with tortle villains and empires. A tortle village on the edge of the swamp is no different than a tin of caviar on the table next to the veggie tray.

 

[SableWyvern]

No it doesn't. No more so than my wanting to play a tortle demands everyone else play tortles or the DM to fill his world with tortle villains and empires. A tortle village on the edge of the swamp is no different than a tin of caviar on the table next to the veggie tray.

Sure. You can turn up to the session with your tortle, and everyone at the table can ignore your character and play on as if they're not there, only interacting with the non-tortle elements of the world.

 

[Minigiant]

NO
That is not one person working with another person because that is literally how AI gets trained
You are placing a human GM in the role of what CGPGrey calls a teacher bot and expecting both sides to function as an ai like described.
You are so caught up in shifting all responsibility for collaboration onto the gm and constantly reminding people that players can choose to not play or leave a game if they want that you've completely ignored all of the many many examples and descriptions of what the process of a player adapting their character to fit a campaign/setting looks like.


I present you too with "how to create characters with real depth (not just a statblock)". Maybe think about the difference between builder bot teacher bot student bot and humans like a gm or player while going through

Spoiler: How to create character a with real depth(not just a statblock)

Most players don’t set out to create shallow characters. But when you're sitting at the table with a fresh character sheet, it’s easy to focus on stats, spells, and optimisation while overlooking what makes a character truly memorable… depth!

Whether you're a new player or a seasoned veteran, this guide will walk you through how to breathe life into your character. Below you’ll discover tools, prompts, and ideas that go far beyond choosing a race and class.

Step 1: Define the Core Concept (But Don’t Get Stuck There)​

Start with a broad idea. This could be as simple as:

• "A dwarven monk who used to be a pit-fighter."
• "An elven bard who gave up immortality for love."

Let this be a launch pad, not a cage. Your concept should invite questions, not limit possibilities. Ask yourself: Why does this character live the way they do? What happened before page 1 of their story?

Step 2: Establish the Character’s Internal Conflict​

Great characters are torn between opposing forces. Use these prompts to build their contradictions:

• What do they want vs. what do they need?
• What is their greatest fear?
• What is something they believe that might not be true?
• Who do they pretend to be?

This is your character’s emotional engine. It’s what creates drama, fuels development, and makes their arc satisfying.

Step 3: Create a Living Backstory​

Too many players feel that their backstory has to be this massive document that chronicles what they like for breakfast and how they tie their shoes. Backstories are not novels. Instead, write key turning points in your character’s journey:

• A tragedy they never recovered from.
• A mentor or rival who shaped them.
• A vow they’ve made and might one day break.

A good backstory isn’t just history; it’s ammunition for the Dungeon Master and yourself to explore character-driven moments during play.

Step 4: Build Dynamic Goals​

Avoid static goals like "get rich" or "kill the villain." Instead, ask:

• What is their current goal?
• What will change that goal later?
• What will make them question everything?

Dynamic goals mean the character isn’t locked into a single path. They change, just like real people. Too often, players can lose interest in their characters as they enter double-digit levels. This is often because the DM has covered off the resolution to their backstory, and by doing so has concluded that player-character’s story arc. But unlike a movie, a D&D Campaign works more like a television series. Imagine each session falling into a season. Every season of your campaign, the plot should shift, and so should your character’s goals. Of course, these need to make sense, so be sure to pay attention to everything that happens within the story. That way, you can allow your character to grow truly… Here are some examples:

1. Walter White (Breaking Bad)​

Initial Goal: Provide for his family after a terminal cancer diagnosis.
Later Goal: Build a drug empire and feed his own ego.
Final Arc: Protect what remains of his family and legacy… on his terms.

2. Zuko (Avatar: The Last Airbender)​

Initial Goal: Capture the Avatar to restore his honour.
Mid-Series Shift: Question his father’s cruelty and his own identity.
Final Arc: Join the Avatar to fight for justice — and earn true honour.

3. Jamie Lannister (Game of Thrones)​

Initial Goal: Maintain his reputation and family’s power.
Mid-Series Shift: Survive captivity and reckon with his shame.
Later Arc: Seek redemption and purpose outside of his family — then tragically regress.

4. Buffy Summers (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)​

Initial Goal: Balance teen life with slaying monsters.
Seasonal Shifts: From accepting her calling, to losing loved ones, to confronting her own mortality and role as a leader.
Endgame: Redefine what it means to be a Slayer — for herself and others.

5. BoJack Horseman (BoJack Horseman)​

Initial Goal: Reclaim fame and feel good about himself.
Series Evolution: Confront deep-seated trauma, addiction, and selfishness.
Endgame: Try to become better — even when it’s too late to undo the damage.

Step 5: Add Specific, Memorable Flaws​

Your character’s flaw should be more than "I’m too loyal" or "I trust too easily."
Think personality defects, emotional scars, or compulsions:

• They always have to win.
• They lie when they're nervous.
• They can’t sleep alone.
• They’re terrified of losing control.

Flaws help you play a more human, relatable character—and give your party something real to interact with.

Step 6: Integrate Their Values & Beliefs​

This is where your character's moral compass lives. Even villains have values:

• What won’t they compromise on?
• What do they believe about the world?
• What would it take to make them betray that?

This creates a foundation for character-driven decisions in morally grey moments.

Step 7: Make Them React, Not Just Act​

During gameplay, let your character react to what happens emotionally:

• Are they furious about injustice?
• Do they freeze when things get personal?
• Do they crack jokes to hide fear?

Reacting in character creates depth on the fly

How to Create a D&D Character with Real Depth (Not Just a Stat Block) — Rolldark

Most players want their character to feel alive, but many fall into tropes or flat archetypes. This article would walk them through layered backstory creation, flaws and contradictions, and goals that evolve with the story.

rolldark.co.uk

I include that spoiler because it shows some examples of things two humans could discuss while working together without expectations to be functioning as an ai training system

I think you're missing the core element to my point..

In Dungeon and Dragons, the only thing that matters before you tie yourself to the campaign story is your class and your unique stat.

Because in D&D, your class makes up 75% to 95% of your characters' playstyle..

Because if you're a fighter, all you do is attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack attack. Attack attack attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack attack attack attack attack..

If you're a wizard, all you do is cast a spell, cast a spell, cast a spell, cast a spell. Cast a spell, cast a spell. Cast a spell, cast a spell. Cast a spell.

You raise or your species or a origin feet just nudges you a little bit in one direction or gives you an option here or there..

They really don't matter as long as you have enough options that you as a player want.

If you as a player want to be able to attack with your sword or sometimes do some aoe damage. Good dm should having option within their setting that lets you do it. A good DM who bands that option is now on the back foot and has to explain why they would still have fun not having that option or cell, the setting to the point that some one might still want to play with the options removed.

The DM doesn't have to. However, not doing so creates a situation where there's a high chance of the player leaving which is fine.

I mean, species in 2020 D&D is so insignificant. They really are just role play elements. And at that point the amount of touch a dm has on a pure non setting role play element should be low. Every species is really just an origin feat. An origin feats are really minor so just let them play a human with the origin feat.. as if the looks matter to the character, but don't matter to the world, it's not a problem. And if the point is their relationship to the world, then it's not a species issue, it's purely roleplay.

Again, if somebody picks drow for magic, they can just pick a human and take a fe
At to get magic. Fudge the feat a little or work with them. If they wanna play drought to be a persecuted or suspicious character. Tell them who in your world is a suspicious cultural group. It is your world, not theirs. You gotta tell them who's suspicious in your world.

And that's the crux of my argument. It's your world, you have to tell them what's in your world for them to latch onto something in your world.

You do not want a player to be asking about every single cultural group in your setting during session 0

 

[AlViking]

No, but I wouldn't tell someone to leave if they brought it to the party...

It's more like you bringing gangster rap to my party and insisting on playing it loudly so everyone can hear.

 

[SableWyvern]

Because if you're a fighter, all you do is attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack attack. Attack attack attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack attack attack attack attack..

If you're a wizard, all you do is cast a spell, cast a spell, cast a spell, cast a spell. Cast a spell, cast a spell. Cast a spell, cast a spell. Cast a spell.

That is not how my games work at all so, from where I'm sitting, you're starting from invalid axioms. This may explain why I reach different conclusions.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I've played Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halfings, Kobolds, and I've played pretty much every class in some form or another over the years. They don't really inspire me anymore, at least not reliably for every campaign (the ones I haven't played are the ones that didn't even inspire me for the first try). If a GM removes certain options from the menu, and maybe the party already has several classes or species I'd still be interested in covered, I might find myself with too much I already played before.

Something like a Tortle, Dragonborn, Orc, Golaith, maybe that could be interesting - turtle people for example, a creature with a shell, maybe a bit slower than the typical humanoid? Sounds unsual. Maybe that would be fun for once.

So I can definitely understand why for example Remalitihis says: If you remove options, add new ones to compensate. Just having less is simply having less. I have fewer options, and typically people don't remove the standard stuff that everyone has played countless of times before (but if they did, that might be also problematic, because some like the standard stuff and might be the basis on how they can engage with a new setting!).

 

[GobHag]

Good or bad, a significant portion of the populace is going to be suspicious of someone significantly different from them or at least different from the norm. In a world where there really are things that go bump in the night I think it would be doubly so.

This kind of consideration is the fundamental reason why I've become apathetic to antipathic towards verisimilitude.

So if it's not lore and the personality being portrayed is not limited to a specific species (I don't see how it could be) then that leaves me with the mechanical benefit. Which I'm willing to discuss. I limit species because I want the feel of a persistent world that I've used for a long, long time. I have no issue with kitchen sink campaigns, I just don't want to change my world into one.

Aesthetical reason; I want to be a Tortle because turtles are cool. It's why I look at Goliaths and Elves first when I'm looking tp minmax, I find them aesthetically appealing

 

[GobHag]

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.

And I say that the Overton window is good! And that's really the thing here for me, I want to keep this overton window more than I really care about policing other tables.

 

[Marc17]

DM Always Wins.

Depends on who wants to play more, although players are sort of a single unit. If the DM wants to play, but his selected players only want to play tortle monks and not willing to play otherwise, the DM has decisions to make.*

* I haven't ever stonewalled on a character before, however I did in and OOC on the payment for some mission offered to us in Shadowrun and refused to take the mission unless paid what I thought was a suitable amount for hiring three professionals with expensive equipment plus our lifestyles and other bills for a week. I did check with the other players to make sure I wasn't just being obnoxious but they were up for holding out also. We got our money. But really, the economics of Shadowrun missions are a pet peeve of mine, and I even suggested we just go rob a Stuffer Shack for groceries instead of taking the mission as we'd make more money.