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

[Minigiant]

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

Ummm.. yes they did.


Eventually you'd interact with game mechanics. And even in the old days, class we're primarily what determined what values you had for those game mechanics or offered additional game mechanics.

 

[AlViking]

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.

In order for there to be a compromise there has to be a conversation. I tried to have a conversation to discuss alternatives and all I get is "I want to play a tortle, just say it's a one-off or they come from some hidden valley". I suggested one reason someone might want to play a tortle is because the natural AC and of course that's not why they want to play a tortle and only a tortle will do.

 

[Minigiant]

On my decades of being a dm for the most part, players don't make a hard line for anything but gameplay style..

Players typically give up on race restrictions.
Players typically fight on class restrictions.

A player who wants to play a Mage with a lot of spell will play a mege with a lot of spells. Being a gnome Mage or an elf Mage or turtle Mage is just a hook for their personality that they want. But often they are willing to change this.. and often they revert to themselves in personality.. So what they said before race go in the background..

Like 3e, a player might want a ranger because they wanna be a full BAB class that had a lot of class skills. What if the DM banned that ranger class and did not offer another class that was good at fighting and also had strong skill abilities: this is when the push back happens.

so if you ban ranger, because you don't like the fact that ranger has a spirit animal, instead of a real animal. (Despite a dog going in melee unarmored with a dragon is ridiculous in story and fluff with 25 year of proof), onus is on the DM more to compromise with them. Because the DM has more power.

1. Only the DM can add more classes.
2. Only the DM can add more feats.
3. Only the DM can add more races
4. Only the DM could create more cultures.
5. Only the DM could add magical items that replicate desired features.
6. Only the DM can relinquish some of the above to the players for them to create the above.

Therefore, the onus is more on the DM than the player.

DND is a class-based game.

 

[AlViking]

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.

So when someone else says they want to play a species that never existed in my world, what do I say? Do I need to include Harengons, plasmoids, firbolgs, loxodons and every other species that was ever introduced as a playable character? Do I have to include shardminds, yuan-ti? What about species from some old third party product?

I don't want to run a kitchen sink campaign. Even if the kitchen sink is the size of the adventuring group. If you want that, feel free to run your own game.

I mean, good luck to you.

I don't need luck. I have plenty of fun and plenty of players right now without your "advice".

 

[Minigiant]

In order for there to be a compromise there has to be a conversation. I tried to have a conversation to discuss alternatives and all I get is "I want to play a tortle, just say it's a one-off or they come from some hidden valley". I suggested one reason someone might want to play a tortle is because the natural AC and of course that's not why they want to play a tortle and only a tortle will do.

Really that is a conversation just a bad one..

Either the DM or the player is supposed to ask why the playo wants to be a tortle.

And onus typically is more on a DM because typically the DM has more a setting control then the player.

On the player side, the responsibility of the player is to be completely honest. On why they want this specific choice. So that the DM can find out what fits for their setting..

 

[AlViking]

Really that is a conversation just a bad one..

Either the DM or the player is supposed to ask why the playo wants to be a tortle.

And onus typically is more on a DM because typically the DM has more a setting control then the player.

On the player side, the responsibility of the player is to be completely honest. On why they want this specific choice. So that the DM can find out what fits for their setting..

If people want to actually discuss how I handle this it would start with "Why do you want to play a tortle" which has never gotten a response. Mechanical benefits? We can do talk about that. Cultural? What culture do you envision tortles having that appeals to you?

If the answer "I want to play a tortle and only a tortle will do" then the answer is going to be "no". Just like when I had one player who really wanted to play an evil character - sorry buddy but I and the rest of the group don't want an evil character in the party.

 

[Minigiant]

If people want to actually discuss how I handle this it would start with "Why do you want to play a tortle" which has never gotten a response. Mechanical benefits? We can do talk about that. Cultural? What culture do you envision tortles having that appeals to you?

If the answer "I want to play a tortle and only a tortle will do" then the answer is going to be "no". Just like when I had one player who really wanted to play an evil character - sorry buddy but I and the rest of the group don't want an evil character in the party.

In the issue here is that this is a conversation between people online who neither actually wants to be a tortle but arguing as if they did.

At the table, the majority of players would answer the question honestly.

 

[Scott Christian]

You have framed the issue where either the DM wins and the player loses or the DM loses and the player wins. That's not a compromise, that's capitulation. So let me answer your question with another: what are you willing to give ME in order to get your wish about me not playing a tortle?

I'm not part of this, but this can be answered easily. They give you the ability you are after. You are clearly after an ability because @AlViking clearly stated they would grant you the racial trait. It's right there in the DM's Guide (2014). It literally gives examples of how you can trade something to get something else. I think the example they give is a cleric giving up heavy armor proficiency to gain a monk's unarmored AC ability.
So that is your answer. The DM gives you the trait you want, and you don't walk around the game looking like a turtle.

What it is about a tortle that ruins your ability to have fun? I've been asked why my fun is ruined by not playing a tortle, why is your fun ruined by me playing one?

Another easy one. The DM has curated their world. If we are talking a notepad with five pages, I would be skeptical. In fact, I would push back on it. But if the world is curated, I would have a really hard time to have you walk around as a turtle - when turtle people don't exist. Every social encounter would have to be about you being a turtle, and not about moving the story forward for the group.
"Why does the DM have to do that?"
Because they want to play their curated world with fidelity.
"Can it be fun to have an outcast? A one of a kind? A Drizzt?"
It sure can. But that is something you need to discuss session zero, and the other players have to be ok with it too.

The simple fact you can't see how it might affect others in game is... interesting.

 

[AlViking]

In the issue here is that this is a conversation between people online who neither actually wants to be a tortle but arguing as if they did.

At the table, the majority of players would answer the question honestly.

True, but it doesn't have to be a tortle. I allow humans, high or wood elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, half-elves, half-orcs. The last two are a bit of a pain because they've been removed, for now we're using one parentage for stats in 2024 or we can discuss a blend.

So sure. Pick one of the species I don't allow and I can explain how I would handle it. In some cases we can work something out, in other cases we won't be able to.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So when someone else says they want to play a species that never existed in my world, what do I say? Do I need to include Harengons, plasmoids, firbolgs, loxodons and every other species that was ever introduced as a playable character? Do I have to include shardminds, yuan-ti? What about species from some old third party product?

Well, you work with the players. Presuamble, you have a finite amounts in your campaign, so you might even have to allow shardminds, just one, for the one player that likes the idea, and no yuan-ti at all, because no one asked for them.

Of course, maybe it doesn't actually have to be a shardmind, either. Maybe there is a game feature or a story feature or visual that they like about it and can be accomplished in a different way.

The beauty of D&Ds long history and many supplements is that you basically any character idea probably has had one class or race has precedent somewhere. I could easily see that in an AD&D campaign a player would like to play a Golem (either a free spirited one or even one build by the party's mage and serving them. I played a character's Butler once in a short-lived Space 1889 game, that was fun).
In 3E and later editions, the obvious choice would be Warforged. But with or without the Warforged as an easy-to-use race template for the idea of "i want to play a golem", you wouldn't need to write in an entire new species with an elaborate back-story. You don't even need Wizards creating Golems as a regular occurence. It could be just a one-time thing, one Wizard (or devil, or fey, or engineer, god or alien from outer space) making an experiment / dropping some gear.

---

Also remember, one of the original things that started this discussion wasn't even tortles. It was taking away stuff from the PHB of the edition for your campaign. So something like "no Orcs" or "no Rangers". Which is something that happened during the AD&D era settings, where simply options were removed and billed as a campaign feature.

I liked Remalithis stance of asking: Okay, you want to take something away - but what do you add as options? If your setting is so much more focused that it can't be distracted by Warforged or Tortles or Elves or Sorcerors, how does this narrow focus manifest on the player side?

If your Sword & Sorcery game must go without spellcasting classes, what do you add to appeal to players that still like some sort of magic, or maybe you convinced them that they can do without, but they feel like the variations between the classes and within the classes aren't sufficient to them, and the game lacks complexity?