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

[Dire Bare]

I dont think it fully works, as depending on what is happening, the whole party could be impacted by the player playing that race, and other players may not be happy about it.

I ran a Dragonlance campaign recently, I said based on the world, there are the common races that are native to the world, but any race available in 5e is playable, they would just be outsiders visiting Krynn, and depending on the race may get quite a bit of attention, possibly unwanted, by npcs around them because of their unusual appearance.

I also said that Dragonborn are a step further, as due to the emergence of Draconians, many may be suspicious of another dragon looking creature, and so would make some interactions harder, and some potential routes / opportunities may get close off as a result , though campaign will still be doable.

If a player did choose to be a Dragonborn, then it would impact on the whole party for being associated with that character. In this instance, it may not have concerned the DM so much, but may have made other players unhappy, and in that instance, who takes precedence?

Good on you for trying to be open and collaborative. Even when you do everything "right", things don't always go well. We're all only human after all.

Suggestions for future games . . .

• The idea that "strange" looking characters will get frightened or hostile treatment from the locals . . . needs to die in a fire. It's not actually very realistic, and it doesn't promote good RPG storytelling. Well, maybe in a dark, Ravenloft game, it might, unless taken too far.
  • Your tortle walks up to the bar, and the bartender gives him the side-eye, "You're not from around these parts are you? Well . . . WELCOME to the Dancing Dragon Inn stranger! What will you have?"
• If a player wants to play a dragon-person in a Dragonlance campaign . . . they could play a dragonborn from another world, somehow transplanted to Krynn . . . or they could simply play a draconian using the PHB dragonborn to represent them. And again, even though most draconians are soldiers in the Dark Queen's armies (during the War of the Lance, at least), that doesn't mean every time the party walks into town, they have to get an overly suspicious or hostile reaction.
  • "Hey there, is that one of the Dark Queen's evil dragon-man soldiers with you there knight?
  • "Kravak has rebelled against the evil of Takhisis and now serves the light and fights against the dragonarmies with us."
  • "Well then, if you vouch for him, he's welcome in our town!"
• Session Zero isn't a cure-all, but it's amazing for working out potential upset before it happens. If the group isn't comfortable with a draconian or dragonborn PC, then the GROUP should say "No" rather than the DM. But don't assume they will, I think most groups would be just fine with a draconian PC in a Dragonlance game.

 

[Maxperson]

I see it the other way around, we already know the monsters will only last 2-3 rounds, so why bloat the stat block with skills they will / should never use during those few rounds

Because they aren't just for fighting.

 

[gban007]

Good on you for trying to be open and collaborative. Even when you do everything "right", things don't always go well. We're all only human after all.

Suggestions for future games . . .

• The idea that "strange" looking characters will get frightened or hostile treatment from the locals . . . needs to die in a fire. It's not actually very realistic, and it doesn't promote good RPG storytelling. Well, maybe in a dark, Ravenloft game, it might, unless taken too far.
  • Your tortle walks up to the bar, and the bartender gives him the side-eye, "You're not from around these parts are you? Well . . . WELCOME to the Dancing Dragon Inn stranger! What will you have?"
• If a player wants to play a dragon-person in a Dragonlance campaign . . . they could play a dragonborn from another world, somehow transplanted to Krynn . . . or they could simply play a draconian using the PHB dragonborn to represent them. And again, even though most draconians are soldiers in the Dark Queen's armies (during the War of the Lance, at least), that doesn't mean every time the party walks into town, they have to get an overly suspicious or hostile reaction.
  • "Hey there, is that one of the Dark Queen's evil dragon-man soldiers with you there knight?
  • "Kravak has rebelled against the evil of Takhisis and now serves the light and fights against the dragonarmies with us."
  • "Well then, if you vouch for him, he's welcome in our town!"
• Session Zero isn't a cure-all, but it's amazing for working out potential upset before it happens. If the group isn't comfortable with a draconian or dragonborn PC, then the GROUP should say "No" rather than the DM. But don't assume they will, I think most groups would be just fine with a draconian PC in a Dragonlance game.

I ran dragonlance,.as like the general lore of thr world around the War of the Lance up until Dragons of Summer Flame, and was running the 5e adventure. While I generally liked the adventure and updates to lore in there, I still tend to base it around the races being quite xenophobic until after the War and they finally came together, but means the humans, dwarves and elves all distrusted each other, the various Dwarven cultures hated each other, as did the Elven ones, the knights had a troubled reputation, wizards distrusted etc, and a feeling from the novels that strangers are generally distrusted especially if of a different race, with some exceptions (e.g. Gnomes, Minotaurs). So another race would run into similar, typically no worse, but some I think could incur even more. In this regard, I dont think Tabaxi,.Drow or Tortles would incur any greater reaction, Orcs may get more reaction for being similar to goblins / hobgoblins, though at same time Solace seemed to tolerate Fewmoaster Toade and his goblins (while distrusting Tanis etc despite them having lived there) , and so would have been case by case and in discussion with the players.

Re the dragonborn question, the characters were all strangers to each other, and the Towns / Cities they visited, so vouching wouldn't have worked. Their deeds / actions would get them there, just slower than otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

And if the DM intends the monster to persist beyond a combat, then the statblock should be reformatted for a unique individual, with a personal name, and a more extensive list of features.

It's not typically up to the DM. The players are the ones who find ways to converse with or ally with the creatures.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So yes. Fairness is kind of out the window here.

Fairness should never be "out the window". That's like saying honesty or justice is "out the window". We should always strive for the fairest possible situation--and I will always speak, passionately, for greater fairness, respect, and consensus-building. Anything less is dereliction of my duties, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I dont see it as the DM is always right, but if they aren't going to bend, what is the player going to do?

Call them out for being a richard, perhaps?

If they can get whole group to move, then maybe that would show the DM that they are doing something wrong, but if the DM still gets players willing to play, then for better or worse they don't see an issue with way they are running, regardless if there is or not.

Now I think hopefully this mainly comes into play with a new DM / player interaction, that get into this sort of irresolvable mess.

And I see that as at least one of those people (could be player, could be GM) almost surely engaging in bad faith. Building consensus is nearly always possible, unless one side or the other came to the table with the position "you will give me everything I ask for, and get nothing you ask for, and you'll like it", which is flatly unacceptable behavior. Doesn't matter if it's playing a D&D game or picking what movies to watch or which restaurant to eat at tonight. Anyone who comes to a discussion like that with the idea that they will get everything they want, definitely no matter what, and the other person will get nothing they want, is choosing to participate in bad faith.

I have given plenty of examples of ways to meet in the middle. Such things include:

• One-off experiment, trying to find a place in the world (e.g. Rocket Raccoon)
• Transported to this world from a different one (TONS of characters are like this in fiction)
• Originally human (or similar), but somehow magically transformed (myth, folklore, and fiction are FULL of this)
• Time-displaced from a distant past or future where this race does exist (ditto)
• Initially human, but revealing non-human traits over time, e.g. "developing" into it (I've asked for exactly this in Shadowrun, frex)
• Transformed as a result of a deal with a powerful being, or a monkey's paw situation, etc.

There are a zillion ways to permit something not originally planned for, which don't create an automatic expectation of a huge culture hidden somewhere or the like. To not even momentarily consider the possibilities, as @Remathilis and @Dire Bare have said, bespeaks of a GM who is unwilling to see others' perspectives or adjust to unexpected developments, which I consider major dealbreakers for any game I might join.

TLDR, I wouldn hope that in an established group there would be the mutual respect and understanding of each other to get to an outcome everyone agrees on, but with a new player or new DM without prior experience, there may be irreconcilable differences.

While there might be, it's not nearly as guaranteed as folks would like you to believe. I am quite confident when I say that you can almost surely work things out as long as all participants are engaging in good faith.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not typically up to the DM. The players are the ones who find ways to converse with or ally with the creatures.

While I certainly agree with you, I think the GM's role here is not nearly as passive as your phrasing implies. (I'm not sure if you meant it to be so passive.)

That is, I find there are a handful of fairly reliable routes to getting your players to like an NPC, such as:

• Make them friendly and supportive, especially if they actually do helpful things for the party
• Have them trust the PCs with their secrets, so the party feels like valued allies
• Show the NPC's respect for the party, e.g. unshakable confidence or speaking up for them in a social setting
• Make 'em funny, whether by being witty/sarcastic, or bumbling and silly, a good laugh never hurts
• Give them relatable goals that the party can support, e.g. a romance between two ally NPCs, or climbing the social ladder
• When the party is in need, have the NPC act without restraint to support them

There will always be X-factors like "omg this character is just so COOL" or "I just love the stupid voice you gave her" or "you named him JAFAR, of course we knew he was EVIL" (that last one literally happened...except that "Jafar" came from a name generator! He is a jerk though, don't get me wrong.) But if you do some subset of the list above? You're well on your way to establishing a party ally. Most groups respond positively to most of these things.

 

[Flying Toaster]

all that shows is that builds are now more complex, the 1e video of this would have been 5 seconds of someone saying ‘obviously play a mage’

The thirty second version would be "start as a fighter, then dual class into mage so that you can be a mage with lots of hp and use weapons and armor"

“Always choose long sword as your primary melee weapon if your character class allows it. If not, pick short sword or footman’s mace.”

 

[mamba]

Because they aren't just for fighting.

they mostly are, put the fluff outside the stat block

 

[mamba]

though at same time Solace seemed to tolerate Fewmoaster Toade and his goblins

not sure I would consider an armed occupation to be tolerated