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

[AlViking]

Dibs on playing a Solar.

Can I play an aspect of Tiamat? That sounds fun, think of all the arguments I could get in with myself!

 

[AlViking]

I'm perfectly fine being a singular existence that has an inexplicable and unknowable origin. It is your desire for worldbuilding that makes this hard.

I'm perfectly find with the roles of the different people at the table that have been there for half a century.

 

[Maxperson]

Or there's such a great split and neither of us(general us) have to meet in a game. Or maybe this destroys D&D(this is good because I can still play other systems)

Nobody is stopping you from playing those others systems while D&D remains undestroyed. Perhaps let D&D be for those great many players who don't agree with your preferences and you can play systems that do meet your preferences. Why would you want to destroy the enjoyment of so many others for no good reason?

 

[GobHag]

I'm perfectly find with the roles of the different people at the table that have been there for half a century.

And I'm perfectly fine with the degradation of those roles! Whooo! Storygames Seeping Into D&D naughty word Yeah!

 

[AlViking]

And I'm perfectly fine with the degradation of those roles! Whooo! Storygames Seeping Into D&D naughty word Yeah!

Sounds like D&D isn't for you.

 

[GobHag]

Sounds like D&D isn't for you.

Your D&D isn't mine yes. This whole thing is about how we'd hate if our D&D meets-up.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

'There are no turtlemen in my setting whatsoever, and that's that' is quite a strong position to take IMO.

Is it as strong of a position as saying "The DM's worldbuilding is meaningless?" No turtlemen seems like a narrow creative choice, while DM worldbuilding being maligned to insignificance is the demonization of an entire creative endeavor.

I'd argue that the position that DM's cannot set boundaries for narrative, tone, or world coherence, is a much "stronger" position, than the opposite. The former simply relegates homebrew worlds to Forgotten realms clones, and leaves the hobby in a state of creative blandness.

I don't know that turtlemen being allowed carte blanche is worth that trade off.

 

[Maxperson]

Creating what? Adding a brand new species to the world? Anything else like classes from some source I don't allow, guns, magic spells from a book I don't use?

Right. Adding a new race to the world is not character creation. It's setting creation which the player has no ability to do. The player has total control over character creation WITHIN the confines of the rules and setting. If the player wants to step outside of that, he needs the okay of the DM.

 

[soviet]

I'm perfectly find with the roles of the different people at the table that have been there for half a century.

Clerics exist because someone in Dave Arneson's game wanted to play one (as inspired by Hammer Horror films). Dave Arneson didn't say 'No, only my ideas are valid'.

 

[soviet]

Is it as strong of a position as saying "The DM's worldbuilding is meaningless?" No turtlemen seems like a narrow creative choice, while DM worldbuilding being maligned to insignificance is the demonization of an entire creative endeavor.

I'd argue that the position that DM's cannot set boundaries for narrative, tone, or world coherence, is a much "stronger" position, than the opposite. The former simply relegates homebrew worlds to Forgotten realms clones, and leaves the hobby in a state of creative blandness.

I don't know that turtlemen being allowed carte blanche is worth that trade off.

"Either the GM's authority is unassailable or the players have carte blanche to wreck everything'