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

[Scribe]

I mean, species in 2020 D&D is so insignificant. They really are just role play elements.

From the player side, yes. From the DM side, who is responsible for the actual world?

No.

 

[SableWyvern]

I was typing another reply, but realised I'm just retreading old ground. Below is a summary of my position. I'm happy to address any direct, good faith questions or requests for clarification, but hope to avoid ongoing argument. I'm clearly not going to convince anyone of anything, who hasn't already been convinced.

• When I have an idea for a game I'm excited about, it goes into my list of games I want to run and, eventually, as I work through the list, I hope to get this one to the table.
• Some games I'm excited about are wide in scope while others are narrower.
• When it is approaching the time when I actually run the game, I present options to my players based on what suits the concept that I'm excited about.
• I engage in extensive discussions with my players prior to play, about what the game is going to be about.
• Sometimes, these discussions will result in the introduction of new concepts I hadn't previously intended to include.
• Sometimes, players will propose options that I don't want to include, even after careful consideration. In such cases, those options won't be included.
• I and my players are extremely happy with this process.
• Anyone who doesn't like the fact that I have final say over what concepts and characters are allowed in the games I run is welcome to not play at my table. In complete seriousness, I wish such people the best of luck in finding a table where they are happy.

 

[GobHag]

So if you were playing BitD would you insist on playing a turtle guy? What if I really want to play a anthropomorphic piece of toast? My reason? Because it's toast man!

As a DM? Sure, I'll have to ask if they're The turtle guy or a turtle guy. but that's no more of a problem then someone asking they have robo arms. For toasts they have to have 2arms and 2 legs but same deal.

As a player? The reason I chose to be a tortle is because it's presented to me in the 1st place by the books, maybe if D&D never released them in I wouldn't have thought to become a turtle person and it's better for you to have chosen a game where turtle people don't exist.

 

[tetrasodium]

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

Im literally in the process of having cocktails with a friend who has been a friend/player I've made cocktails for before and took that picture of my home bar thinking about bringing it up with the caviar talk earlier. Some of y'all act like you would expect a similarly stocked bar from any gm.

My initial impulse to reading the opening of your post was to respond "fifty bucks a session" but thought about it and decided I probably wouldn't want to allow someone who looked at the game that way at my table because MY players expect to do quite a bit more and are expected to do more. That higher bar means that they actually need to consider at least as much as a 3.x munchkin trying to justify the crazy prereq bingo hoops on their sheet without naming the goals and usually do so a bit more than that.

Beyond that you've proven the point @Moving Pictures has been trying to make about 5e catering to a video game mentality by showing that you can't even consider anything outside that scope as d&d..

 

[Minigiant]

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.

And that's why I say that dm's typically need clout or experience what the players to run. Heavily restrictive settings..

 

[Minigiant]

Beyond that you've proven the point @Moving Pictures has been trying to make about 5e catering to a video game mentality by showing that you can't even consider anything outside that scope as d&d.

Old school fighter only has class features that help it hit things or survive hitting things..

Everything else is roleplay. That is DM dependent, and thus the DM has to display how they would run it. They have the setting creation power unless negotiation for it happens.

With Great Power...

 

[tetrasodium]

Old fighter only has class features that help it hit things or survive hitting things..

Everything else is roleplay. That is DM dependent, and thus the DM has to display how they would run it. They have the setting creation power unless negotiation for it happens.

With Great Power...

I skipped 4e but ran and played all the way back to ad&d2e. I don't know what you are talking about because classes didn't work that way back in the old days

 

[gban007]

DM Always Wins.

I dont understand this response. Im sure you've posted elsewhere that GM and Players have as much right to find the game they want to play as each other, and sometimes they wont align, so DM will need to find other players, player will need to find other DM, and each has as much right to that.
If neither side is happy to give up on a particular item, I don't see any other way out, and I dont see it as DM always wins, it is that player and DM shouldn't play together.
I agree with an earlier point of yours that DMs shouldn't complain if can't get players, or cast aspersions like some are in this thread on players wanting to play something DM wont support.
But ultimately I can't see any other way than the player has to choose to play the game on offer, or look elsewhere.
Like if a DM is saying I am looking to run DnD or Warhammer, and player says I want to play Call of Cthulhu - if DM doesn't want to run Call of Cthulhu, they can't be forced to do so.
Preaenting that as DM always wins seems unnecessarily attacking, and missing the point, like if said I went to movie theater, they had stopped playing Wicked and wouldn't put it on when I wanted them too, just shows that Movie Theatre Always Wins

 

[GobHag]

OK. So, I'll take the burden of proof that 5e caters to videogamey overpowered munchkin builds.

Dungeons & Dragons: 12 Broken Character Builds

Build a character that'll stand against any battle and drive your DM up the wall with its action abilities and resilience.

www.thegamer.com

Broken 5E Builds | Some of the Most Overpowered Builds in D&D

Feeling like you need some real firepower for your next campaign? We can help! Check out our Broken 5E Builds Guide for ideas.

www.nerdsandscoundrels.com

Then there's this dude:




And this dude.

It caters to it less than you think--3e was the real op muchkin build heaven, but that culture continued to survive to this day.

but also.... so what? What's the issue here?

 

[billd91]

I mean, I have a theory as to why.

Scarcity.

I bet the behavior is different if DMs are a dime a dozen, and players are hard to find. But, as a DM who runs games online, for random people, I have no incentive to compromise for a player unless I have a history with that player. In fact, I've never been asked to compromise at all, dozens and dozens of players just accept what I post. Each eager to play.

This leads me into situations where I do restrict character creation choices for flavor reasons. Allowing only a small number of races plus reskins of other races. And I just state up front the restrictions. And I fill the game easily.

For example, my last game I posted on r/LFG last spring, restricted races to one of 9. In 24 hours, I had 81 replies in my google form. I had fourteen willing players in under 60 minutes.

Do I have any incentive to loosen my restrictions when the game fills in minutes?

Right or wrong. I think this is why, in practice, DMs always win. And likely always will. They simply have no reason to compromise, when players are so readily available. And players who wish to play, have every reason to compromise.

Is this fair? Nah. But what is the DM's incentive here? There is none.

I think that's a reasonable description of a situation in which a DM brings a game idea and then recruits players from some, sufficiently big pool - such as online players looking for a game or players at a convention/game store. There, the potential players really do outnumber the DMs and so it's DM's choice.
In a home game with a stable group, that's not as likely to be the case because while one of the players may be the "Forever DM" or maybe a limited pool of 2-3 people in the group willing to run a game, the player pool is also very limited to 4-6 other people. In a setting like that, the DM can't just pitch their pet project and have the pick of the respondents - they have a much better chance of failing to convince enough of the group to agree to play their pitched game. And the players will have more negotiating power to get a game they want as well.
That doesn't mean that Cannibal Kobold Bob over there will get his way and be able to play that cannibal kobold concept he keeps asking if he can play - because NOBODY likes that concept but Bob. But it might mean that the DM who keeps suggesting the group play Call of Cthulhu will have his pitch rejected because a couple of the players don't like that game and he can't afford to lose that many players from the group for an extended period... so he has to pitch an alternative... again.