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

[Mecheon]

So if you were playing BitD would you insist on playing a turtle guy?

We're talking a legacy Dungeons and Dragons race that's been around since before I was born, we're not talking Blades in the Dark. If I knew obscure Blades in the Dark sources of playable races since before I was born, sure, whatever

What if I really want to play a anthropomorphic piece of toast? My reason? Because it's toast man! At a certain point we're simply at an impasse. The DM doesn't allow tortles and a player will not consider any other option. As far as I can tell there's no real compromise here - neither side is willing to budge.

Don't you reductio ad absurdum me on this one. We're talking Tortles, a legacy D&D race from the Creature Catalog published 1986. You know what else is in the Creature Catalog? Krakens. They too good to appear as monsters in your campaign? Allosaurus too exotic and rare? Dogs, eagles, hawks, deer, all more creatures from that book, along with those climbing lizards that ended up with the drow down the line. Rock golems are in this book (also silver golems and uh. iron gargoyles, but iron gargoyles are nasty), living statues, magen, nightmares, lupin, rakasta, plenty of classic D&D critters

All these classic D&D monsters too exotic for your setting?

Heck, we're not even getting into the wilder stuff. Want the Tran from the Icerigger setting? They're there. They're called Cryion. Want chicken people for some reason? They're there. Want giant fire worms who are apparently relatives of purple worms? Fuzzy ice snakes who live in the arctic? Actual Sandworms from Dune called Thunderhearders? All in there.

So if you really want caviar does the host have to provide it? Because that's what you're saying when you say the DM has to allow any species request.

No, we're asking you look at the menu of the store for once so we don't just have the same food every week. You might be okay with fried rice every week, but some of us would like to try that sichuan chicken, or maybe even just the honey chicken. Throw in some of the Mongolian beef while you're at it.

You're the one ignoring the menu's had those options for decades and haven't ordered them once

 

[AlViking]

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.

One thing that may be a factor is that I don't think playing any specific species makes all that much difference. The special abilities or features are quickly overshadowed by the class from the mechanics side. The personality of and background for the character matters more and is how I give my characters a sense of uniqueness. The campaign itself and the other players at the table are the most important things.

If the only way for a player to feel novelty or find a game engaging is to play some species they've never played before, if the interactions with the world and the other players isn't enough of a motivation in and of itself then they're likely not a good fit in the first place.

We all play for different reasons and there is no way every option can be provided at every table.

 

[mamba]

DM Always Wins.

only if you consider any compromise a win for the DM and only the player getting exactly what they want a win for the player. I do not

 

[AlViking]

We're talking a legacy Dungeons and Dragons race that's been around since before I was born, we're not talking Blades in the Dark. If I knew obscure Blades in the Dark sources of playable races since before I was born, sure, whatever

Don't you reductio ad absurdum me on this one. We're talking Tortles, a legacy D&D race from the Creature Catalog published 1986. You know what else is in the Creature Catalog? Krakens. They too good to appear as monsters in your campaign? Allosaurus too exotic and rare? Dogs, eagles, hawks, deer, all more creatures from that book, along with those climbing lizards that ended up with the drow down the line. Rock golems are in this book (also silver golems and uh. iron gargoyles, but iron gargoyles are nasty), living statues, magen, nightmares, lupin, rakasta, plenty of classic D&D critters

All these classic D&D monsters too exotic for your setting?

Heck, we're not even getting into the wilder stuff. Want the Tran from the Icerigger setting? They're there. They're called Cryion. Want chicken people for some reason? They're there. Want giant fire worms who are apparently relatives of purple worms? Fuzzy ice snakes who live in the arctic? Actual Sandworms from Dune called Thunderhearders? All in there.


No, we're asking you look at the menu of the store for once so we don't just have the same food every week. You might be okay with fried rice every week, but some of us would like to try that sichuan chicken, or maybe even just the honey chicken. Throw in some of the Mongolian beef while you're at it.

You're the one ignoring the menu's had those options for decades and haven't ordered them once

I fail to see your point. I can't begin to count the number of species my game would have to support if I had allowed every species ever added to the game. People have also been playing evil characters since the games inception and I don't allow those either.

I'm running the best game I know how and that includes having a limited set of species that I can actually wrap my head around and give some depth to their culture and history. If that means that I'm not the DM for you I wish you luck finding a different DM.

 

[mamba]

I have been at a table where the DM band an elf fighter, an dwarf paladin or druid, and a halfling cleric because they don't fit in his campaign world.

Allowing elves, but banning an elf fighter should have been a red flag to me and that was my sign to drop

yeah, that does sound unreasonably restrictive to me

 

[Moving Pictures]

If the only way for a player to feel novelty or find a game engaging is to play some species they've never played before, if the interactions with the world and the other players isn't enough of a motivation in and of itself then they're likely not a good fit in the first place.

Or, alternately, if they can't generate a character whose backstory and complexity yearn for play to begin to tell a story....

I say that because I recently built a 5e character for an online Roll20/Discord game. Everything was generated from a character concept that was developed first (an orphan/slave who escaped slavery as a child, lived on the streets and did what had to be done until pulled from a bad path by an intervening priest - generating a sense of duty to "pay back" for that intervention.). We were given five levels to start, and I ended up crafting a half-elf fourth-level Arcane Trickster Rogue, with a brand-new, fresh-outta-the-priesthood single level of cleric.

It's not the most potent build I could have made. In fact, I wanted to create a complex character who apart from some rogue-ish sneaky-sneaky, would be a second-line everything. Backup healer; can be the "face" if the bard is in trouble again, emergency stopgap fighter, bit of missile attack. A "glue" character mechanically. As an experienced DM/player, I like the single level of cleric, because it gives me a chance to roleplay the nervous, "still has that new cleric smell" element.

But now I eagerly want to see what her story will be....

 

[mamba]

No, we're asking you look at the menu of the store for once so we don't just have the same food every week. You might be okay with fried rice every week, but some of us would like to try that sichuan chicken, or maybe even just the honey chicken. Throw in some of the Mongolian beef while you're at it.

that analogy is flawed, it would be more accurate if you said you are demanding the DM to prepare that meal and also eat it rather than claiming you just want to eat it at the same table they are sitting at

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.*

That's the problem though. The players aren't a single unit most of the time. Maybe on of them wants to play a tortle. Maybe one wants to play a dragonborn. Maybe two want to play other things a GM might not want, but aren't going to push on the issue because they're used to being shut down and either are prone to not being confrontational or are afraid they won't get to play at all if they're persistent. Maybe two others don't care.

The net effect is while under some circumstances the players may create a united front, that's not going to be the common case, and without that a player can easily end up all on his own when trying to push his case.

 

[Mecheon]

that analogy is flawed, it would be more accurate if you said you are demanding the DM to prepare that meal and also eat it rather than claiming you just want to eat it at the same table they are sitting at

Hardly. I'm using the barely expanded rules of the game. At worst I'm adding a bit of garnish to the meal. I'm adding some sauce to the sausages. I like barbeque sauce, but other people can grab mustard, tomato, whatever, whereas the original idea is banning all sauces eternally.

Tortles were considered completely fine for most tables, this thread is basically the biggest opposition against them in the entirity of the internet. You look anywhere on the internet outside of this thread on tortles and the resounding opinion on them is "Yeah I don't know anyone who bans them, they're pretty ordinary, prepare for ninja turtle/master oggway puns"

I fail to see your point. I can't begin to count the number of species my game would have to support if I had allowed every species ever added to the game. People have also been playing evil characters since the games inception and I don't allow those either.

I'm running the best game I know how and that includes having a limited set of species that I can actually wrap my head around and give some depth to their culture and history. If that means that I'm not the DM for you I wish you luck finding a different DM.

Why is your world so absurdly detailed yet shallow, then? Heck, why are you even using D&D for this world if you're not including half of what it offers. You don't even need to support them! Just, pick some far off corner folks rarely travel to. "Yeah, tortles? They're from out east generally, sometimes travel this way as merchants, tend to be nice go-betweens between ocean races and land ones". Wham, blam, that's all you need for them

How much info do you need on this limited set of species so that adding anything further breaks things?

I'm fine having them over my side because my world doesn't break from introducing new stuff. If I like something and there's room for it? I'll be able to slot it in somewhere.

 

[Dire Bare]

Tortles don't exist in my world. ay a tortle?

Okay. And you can't work them in? Why not? @Remathilis gave multiple ideas of working in a turtle-race or a unique individual turtle person.

Sure, there are campaign themes where none of that would work . . . but very narrow campaign themes. But if you can find the players for your very specific and narrow campaign setting, that's great and everybody will likely have fun. But @Remathilis will probably not be interested in your game. Neither would I. Are you okay with that?

It's not so much, "Gosh darn, I was dead-set on playing a turtle-person!" but rather, "Wow, this DM is really restrictive and prioritizes his worldbuilding over collaboration with players, and that's not a game I think I would be interested in." It's a red flag . . . not that you are a bad DM, but that your DMing style doesn't match what I'm looking for in a game.