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

[Dire Bare]

If you can't accept the restrictions for my game then it's not for you.

See, we are in agreement!

 

[Dire Bare]

I think that is a valid reason. However, it also seems one where there is no room for compromise if the DM's reason is this world doesn't have them (aka the muses inspired them and they don't want them), which would be equally as valid. I don't know how to square that hole (and thankfully never an issue I've had to deal with). So I will turn the question back to you:

Is there anything that can be done to accommodate both wishes?

I can't see one, but I hope I'm wrong!

There's nothing in between those two extreme positions?

 

[Dire Bare]

The HR books and the 2E settings come from an older model of D&D, where the game was considered in part a toolkit for running various types of fantasy games. At least one prolific poster on this thread has criticized this as a bad model for D&D, but I think it can be safely said at least that the current dominant model from WotC is that D&D is its own thing, and that settings should be tweaked to reflect D&D, rather than vice versa. Hence the disconnect between "using D&D to play in a DM's world" and "playing D&D because we want to play D&D specifically, with all that that entails."

D&D has been used as a toolkit to "stretch" the game beyond the core experience in almost every edition . . . maybe starting with those green HR books, maybe even before. And that's awesome! D&D doesn't make a perfect toolkit, unlike systems designed for it from the start, but clever designers/DMs can do a lot with D&D.

I agree that the overall culture has shifted, but all of the types of play being discussed (argued) in this thread have existed since the 70s and continue to do so.

If a DM suggested running a "Charlemagne's Paladins" campaign (based on HR2) that heavily modified the game and restricted player options . . . I'd be open for that! But if a DM was running a game with a fairly standard D&D setting but "no turtle-people" because reasons . . . nah, I'll pass. Even if I wasn't even thinking about playing a turtle-person.

 

[Dire Bare]

If I allow a tortle then I need to allow any other species someone wants to play. I don't want to do that but I am willing to give the person 99% of what they want.

Ah, the old "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

If our tastes aligned (which of course, they don't), you would certainly not have to allow everything and anything once you said "yes" to the tortle PC. That's a ridiculous argument. However, an open and collaborative DM would listen to his players character ideas and give them honest consideration each time, and look for ways to expand their world to accommodate a player's desired concept.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

That sounds like a pretty cool idea actually! If a player asked me if they could play an Aspect of Tiamat in my game, I would (in all honesty) reply, "Let's see how we can make that work!"

How about this . . . the player plays a dragonborn PC cleric of Tiamat. After every long rest, they randomly shift between different chromatic aspects, essentially changing their draconic ancestry feature once per day. They believe they are a literal incarnation of Tiamat on the mortal plane . . . and who knows, maybe they are!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

When I'm a D&D player, I listen to the DM's pitch and, perhaps after asking some clarifying questions, decide if I want to participate in the campaign or not. If interested, I'll attend session 0 and create a character following the rules laid out for that campaign in collaboration with the other players.

I certainly have several ideas for characters I'd like to play at some point but I can't imagine coming into session 0 with a very specific concept that I must be allowed to play. It just seems self-evident that, at the outset of a campaign, I'd work with the DM and the other players to create a character that fits with the campaign theme and adds positively to the party dynamic. There are so many permutations between stats, species, background, class, subclass, equipment, personality traits, etc. that I can't fathom not being able to come up with some interesting PC idea even with any setting restrictions imposed by the DM. They're doing the heavy lifting for the group so I'm going to defer to them: if they allow something as an exception, great; if they don't, it's easy enough for me to shift to a slightly different idea.

Importantly, I approach the game with the mindset that everyone at the table has the shared goal of having fun and collaborating to create a memorable story. I trust that the DM is on board to have fun and will present us with interesting challenges in a fun setting. I trust that the other players will likewise do their best to ensure we're all having a good time. Once in a blue moon, we discover someone isn't in it for the fun of the group - and then its time for an adult conversation.

 

[AlViking]

Ah, the old "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

If our tastes aligned (which of course, they don't), you would certainly not have to allow everything and anything once you said "yes" to the tortle PC. That's a ridiculous argument. However, an open and collaborative DM would listen to his players character ideas and give them honest consideration each time, and look for ways to expand their world to accommodate a player's desired concept.

If I allow a turtle I have no reason to deny any other species. But this is just more of the same. Compromise means giving players what theywant and to hell with the DM's preferences, opinions, thematic tone or world building.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Ah, the old "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

If our tastes aligned (which of course, they don't), you would certainly not have to allow everything and anything once you said "yes" to the tortle PC. That's a ridiculous argument. However, an open and collaborative DM would listen to his players character ideas and give them honest consideration each time, and look for ways to expand their world to accommodate a player's desired concept.

But what if they say yes to a different race and no to only specifically Tortles? What if they say yes to Tortles by no to another race?

Is this debate about Tortles or about race restrictions in general?

And if an open and collaborative DM would listen to their players. Would an open and collaborative player listen to the DM? Or is the open and collaborative part one-sided?

Why do I feel this framing treats the sides differently? Like DMs must collaborate and players need not. Or the reverse, in some instances.

I must be missing some nuance. I feel like the answers to these questions will bridge the divide in part. The answer to me is, obviously, if you don't wish to discuss and collaborate, you are the problem, regardless of role. A player or DM just shutting the door on a binary are the same in my book.

You being a general you, not you as in Dire Bear.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is any restriction by the DM allowable in your opinion?

You did not ask me, but yes, plenty are.

But it's not a simple "oh yes that's always 100% safe" kind of thing. It's messy. Intent matters, for instance, and can go back a ways. Friendliness matters. If someone goes the extra mile and genuinely tries to make me happy, but despite that effort it just doesn't make sense and we have a long and positive conversation about why it doesn't, then I might be inclined to accept even many restrictions I would find irksome in other contexts.

"No, you can't have dragonborn, I don't like them" or "It's world consistency, if you don't like that, I can replace you" are the exact antithesis of that. That's throwing your GM weight around, pulling rank, emphasizing just how far apart the GM thinks we are, looking down from their lofty perch.

Someone who earnestly works with me even if it doesn't end up working? They've done the work to earn my respect. I'm willing to work with that. Hussar did some of that when he offered me a place at his table.

Or must the DM always allow any and every idea a player has that is within the collective of a system's rules?

Well, just as a preliminary, I prefer a game designed sufficiently well such that splat options aren't any more nor less powerful than so-called "core" ones. So for a game I would consider well-designed, the "within the collective" part would be irrelevant. So, if it's a first party option, then I hold that if it's first-party, it's reasonable for the player to presume it's available unless, as noted above, the GM has done the work to get the player on board with less.

The human in the DM chair, do they have any power to cultivate a game without committing a red flag?

Curious little me wants to know

I don't know what specific things count as "cultivate a game" to you, so I am hesitant to agree without knowing. However, I can guess. As part of that, I again want to point out the extremization going on here. Notice how your argument (in Socratic question form) is built on the presupposition that the GM must be so horrifically constrained that you don't see how it could still be possible to "cultivate a campaign", and thus invite us to defeat ourselves by revealing just how horribly limiting we (surely!) must be.

I think I can safely assume that "cultivating" includes:
Drawing maps, local, regional, continental, perhaps global/planar
Preparing cultural, political, religious, and economic info about various places
Having a timeline, specific or loose, for recent and long-term historical events
Naming tons of things (nations, languages, rivers, cities, etc.)
Populating the world with NPCs of various sorts (antagonist, ally, competitor, bystander, shopkeep, etc.)

You may have further ideas along this same line, but I think I can stop there. None of the things I listed are prevented or even meaningfully impeded by the presence or absence of any specific D&D species. Nor would they be if we were considering class. Backgrounds could perhaps be a problem if they are tied to something particularly specific and difficult to reflavor. Something like the Ravnica guilds or Strixhaven student ones, since those have some pretty specific flavor. But most backgrounds, especially if you use 5.5e only, would likewise have no impediment whatsoever on doing the above things.

So, now, if I may ask some Socratic questions of my own...

Is any player freedom allowable in your opinion? Or must the player always submit to whatever the GM says, no matter what? Why is an adjustment to help make your players more enthusiastic to play in your game antithetical to "curation"? How much control do you actually need to "curate" the campaign for the group? The human in the chair, do they have any ability to play what makes them genuinely enthusiastic without committing a red flag?

I have endeavored to match the congenial but clearly negative tone of the original questions, albeit including an extra question or two.

 

[mamba]

How about this . . . the player plays a dragonborn PC cleric of Tiamat. After every long rest, they randomly shift between different chromatic aspects, essentially changing their draconic ancestry feature once per day. They believe they are a literal incarnation of Tiamat on the mortal plane . . . and who knows, maybe they are!

but I want to be a tortle