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

[Remathilis]

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

What compromise have I been offered? I've been offered "play what I (them DM) allow" or the door, because there are dozens of other players waiting for my spot at the table. That's not a compromise, that's an ultimatum.

 

[Remathilis]

No, I was suggesting that, for the purposes of the analogy I was responding to, ignoring the caviar is the same as ignoring the player.

As you've noticed, that isn't actually a productive or mature behaviour to display in real life. Hence my underlying point that the analogy, as presented, didn't work.

In case there is any doubt, I do not actually endorse inviting a player to a game and then having everyone ignore them.

But that's not what was happening. You aren't obligated to eat any of the caviar, just like you aren't obligated to play or tortle or make them a major part of game. Just like the guy who brought caviar and enjoys it himself, the tortle player could be just content being his turtle dude and playing the game. But you suggested everyone shun and ostracize the caviar person because his tastes don't align with yours.

 

[SableWyvern]

But that's not what was happening. You aren't obligated to eat any of the caviar, just like you aren't obligated to play or tortle or make them a major part of game. Just like the guy who brought caviar and enjoys it himself, the tortle player could be just content being his turtle dude and playing the game. But you suggested everyone shun and ostracize the caviar person because his tastes don't align with yours.

It is the character being shunned, just like the caviar is shunned. The thing is, you can shun a bowl of caviar without shunning the person that brought it; unfortunately, if you shun a PC in the same way then you are effectively shunning the player as well. This is why I don't think the analogy works. But, as I mentioned in another post, I'm past the point of arguing and I have no expectation I'm going to change your mind. If you feel the analogy works for you, more power to you -- but you should probably also accept it's not going to win you any points with anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

I hope you regularly find tables where you can play the characters you want with a group of like-minded people. For myself, I'll keep doing what I do in a way that works for me and my group.

 

[Mecheon]

I do not now, nor have I ever had a shortage of players nor have I ever had issues retaining players for years on end. If I'm not the DM for you so be it. Good luck and I wish you well on your gaming journey.

I mean, good luck to you. I'll be off in a world that actually uses the lot of what D&D has

Like. I made a grippili model for Neverwinter Nights and it was so well liked that a completely different set of people adjusted it so it could wear armor they were so taken with it. That's the sort of 'hey look at this thing' mucking around I like to see. Me just making a frog dude has expanded other games that I'll never see or play.

"Let me do what I want, or I sabotage the whole group."

Oh please, this is hardly sabotage.

Better to leave and find a game to enjoy elsewhere than be in one you don't enjoy, and if I'm not going to enjoy the game, why would I stick around? And if other people happen to leave with me, well, sounds like its the DM's fault at the heart of it.

and one of those players is the DM, they do not just exist as a servant to the ones having characters in the campaign.

If adding something to the world negatively affects / ruins the enjoyment for the DM, then adding that thing would be detrimental to the game overall.

If I do not enjoy running a game, then chances are no one will enjoy it all that much, not because I try to sabotage it but simply because I do not put as much effort in as I otherwise would (if I were to actually run it at all at that point). That is no different from you potentially not enjoying the game because you cannot be a turtle person or might not join it at all as a consequence.

So yeah, either you find a compromise with the DM, or there is no game you are in. It’s not like you can force the DM to cater to your wishes while ignoring their own just to accommodate you

We are once again talking about Tortles, some of the first NPCs you run into in the classic module X9. A module that exists for the express purpose of 'just stick this in your world somewhere'. Legacy creatures in this game. I'd be raising eyebrows at a setting so hard packed that it can't fit them in

A DM's world exists to be ran through by players and have people interacting with it. If people aren't doing that? Then what even is the point of the world? It needs to be tempting to players to come and run around it. And let's be brutally honest here, arbitary restrictions on things that most other tables allow are not enticing.

 

[Minigiant]

HNY

If somebody wants to be a turtle because they want the high base AC and a bad natural attack. The DM can choose to let them be human and give them a modified version of tavern brawler.

If somebody wants to DA turtle, because they like the base culture of turtles in the game, the DM can suggest a group of people who existed this setting, who have a similar culture..


Unfortunately, the onus is on the DM because only the DM can create new feats or introduce groups of people into setting. I'm

 

[Dire Bare]

Unfortunately, the onus is on the DM because only the DM can create new feats or introduce groups of people into setting. I'm

The onus is NOT only on the DM. I mean, if the DM is the controlling "this is my world" type, then yes, I guess it would be. But that isn't the only way to play the game. As several have stated, over and over again, in this thread and other similar threads.

A DM who collaboratively builds the campaign world with their players can most certainly lean on those players to help decide . . . where do turtle people come from in this world? What is their culture like? And for tortles at least, you don't need to design any player options, as it already exists.

Of course, if I wanted to play a lupin (dog-people from BECMI D&D), we'd have to cobble together something. Or modify the dragonborn to represent draconians in a Dragonlance campaign. But that is also something the DM can collaborate on with interested players. It's actually quite easy, less work, and a LOT more fun . . . well, for me at least.

It seems folks arguing against this playstyle have little trust in their players to collaborate responsibly and are loathe to give up control over THEIR world . . . and again, that's a traditional way to approach the game, works for a lot of folks, but for an increasing number of us . . . no longer is attractive.

 

[mamba]

What compromise have I been offered? I've been offered "play what I (them DM) allow" or the door, because there are dozens of other players waiting for my spot at the table. That's not a compromise, that's an ultimatum.

we never got much into the specifics of a compromise, in part because there never was an answer to what about the turtle was the part that made you want to play one, but they definitely were suggested.

If you consider ‘having to’ play something the DM is ok with an ultimatum, then that speaks more to your willingness to compromise than that of the DM

 

[Minigiant]

The onus is NOT only on the DM. I mean, if the DM is the controlling "this is my world" type, then yes, I guess it would be. But that isn't the only way to play the game. As several have stated, over and over again, in this thread and other similar threads.

A DM who collaboratively builds the campaign world with their players can most certainly lean on those players to help decide . . . where do turtle people come from in this world? What is their culture like? And for tortles at least, you don't need to design any player options, as it already exists.

Of course, if I wanted to play a lupin (dog-people from BECMI D&D), we'd have to cobble together something. Or modify the dragonborn to represent draconians in a Dragonlance campaign. But that is also something the DM can collaborate on with interested players. It's actually quite easy, less work, and a LOT more fun . . . well, for me at least.

It seems folks arguing against this playstyle have little trust in their players to collaborate responsibly and are loathe to give up control over THEIR world . . . and again, that's a traditional way to approach the game, works for a lot of folks, but for an increasing number of us . . . no longer is attractive.

The onus it's still on the DM because it requires the DM to give a part of their world building responsibility..

Again, a dm should not be forced to run something they don't want to run..

 

[Scribe]

Oh please, this is hardly sabotage.

The language and framing a number of you have been using, is far from some innocent statement of 'truth'.

You know this, I know this, everyone knows this.

Now a few of the seemingly perpetually aggrieved wont see this, but everyone knows whats going on so how about a nice 'Good Game' and cease pretending that this whole thread has not been driven by a bunch of trolling and loaded language?

 

[mamba]

We are once again talking about Tortles, some of the first NPCs you run into in the classic module X9

I really do not care how old a race is, as I mentioned before the tortle is just an example.

A DM's world exists to be ran through by players and have people interacting with it. If people aren't doing that? Then what even is the point of the world?

that is basically you repeating what I responded to, so you might as well revisit my initial response to this since you did not move the discussion forward