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

[Remathilis]

E.g. if someone had built a ranger with life long hatred of Tortles, favored enemy Tortle, who had spent some levels trying to attack every Tortle he sees, would you consider it griefing to then join the party as a Tortle character?

Yes.

That said, I'm glad that rangers have moved from the wilder-nazi style of favored enemy that encouraged that kind of design. I don't like PvP, so anything that encourages interparty conflict is ok to go the way of the dodo.

 

[Dire Bare]

E.g. if someone had built a ranger with life long hatred of Tortles, favored enemy Tortle, who had spent some levels trying to attack every Tortle he sees, would you consider it griefing to then join the party as a Tortle character?

Really? This is a serious concern?

If this is something you are honestly concerned about happening in your games, you've got bigger problems than allowing or not allowing turtle-PCs.

When you have to start inventing problems in your arguments, perhaps you've lost the argument?

 

[gban007]

Really? This is a serious concern?

If this is something you are honestly concerned about happening in your games, you've got bigger problems than allowing or not allowing turtle-PCs.

When you have to start inventing problems in your arguments, perhaps you've lost the argument?

Im not trying to invent problems, I included some real examples earlier of things like this, I was just trying to make point that a player coming in with a given idea can impact on other players as well.

We dont have these issues anymore in our group, but it did take time and conversations to get there, as was a player problem rather than character concept problem as such.

 

[gban007]

Yes.

That said, I'm glad that rangers have moved from the wilder-nazi style of favored enemy that encouraged that kind of design. I don't like PvP, so anything that encourages interparty conflict is ok to go the way of the dodo.

Is why I also liked that the Kender in latest supplement were more described as insatiably curious and chatterboxes , rather than kleptomaniacs.

 

[gban007]

Really? This is a serious concern?

If this is something you are honestly concerned about happening in your games, you've got bigger problems than allowing or not allowing turtle-PCs.

When you have to start inventing problems in your arguments, perhaps you've lost the argument?

And further for the record, I dont think I've ever expressed that I think DMs should block player options if they exist, only that if a DM is blocking it i don't see a way out.
After prior experiences as player and DM, my only concerns that may impact on character choices is that it doesn't lead to party conflict, unless the players are wanting that to occur- i.e. make sure all players have a glld voice on what they are wanting to play, and being able to say if they feel another players concept may negatively impact on their experience, so everyone can have a conversation and come to a landing.

 

[saviirkad]

If I allow a tortle then I need to allow any other species someone wants to play.

The latter does not follow from the former, which makes it sound more like an excuse than an argument.

I don't want to do that but I am willing to give the person 99% of what they want.

99% of what they want would be a huge change to what you've been arguing. That's fully conceding to the player. That's telling a player who wants to be a tortle from a northern prehistoric swampland, hey, can it be a mangrove swamp too?

Previously you were offering entirely different characters as alternatives, which is offering no compromise and asking the player to fully concede.

This is about the roles the different people have in the game. As DM I make the final decisions about the world, the players control their characters. It's as simple as that.

I can agree with this to an extent. If we're talking pick up and play games at a store or event, or an online game where everyone is new to each other, some lines being drawn can be good. I do think that any lasting group worth its salt will have blurred those lines considerably.

That said, this is an opposing stance to what you've been arguing. This is the argument that favors the player having the only say in being the Tortle.

 

[Dire Bare]

Im not trying to invent problems,

And yet you are doing just that.

Player 1: I would like to play a tortle druid, a turtle-person species.

Player 2: Hmmm, I would like to play a human ranger WHO HATES TURTLES and has chosen them as their favored enemy,

Yeah, these two player concepts, totally on the same level. And totally something to worry about happening in your games.

 

[Remathilis]

And yet you are doing just that.

Player 1: I would like to play a tortle druid, a turtle-person species.

Player 2: Hmmm, I would like to play a human ranger WHO HATES TURTLES and has chosen them as their favored enemy,

Yeah, these two player concepts, totally on the same level. And totally something to worry about happening in your games.

I kinda want to know how, if tortles are supposedly as rare and unknown as the DM says, the ranger specializing in Tortle hunting came from...

 

[Dire Bare]

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

Have you been reading the thread?

Some of the folks worried about "entitled players" are making this out as an irrational drive to play a turtle, all or nothing.

But folks arguing for a more collaborative approach have been very clear that playing a tortle, or dragonborn, or tiefling, are just examples. It's really about several things.

• Player agency and choice.
• A collaborative approach to DMing rather than a controlling approach.
• Prioritizing player fun over restrictive world building.

If you are a restrictive world building DM who expects your players to cater to the setting you crafted, and you and your players are all on board and having a great time . . . keep on keeping on! But this is a DMing style that more and more of us are ready to leave in the past. I don't run my games that way, and I won't spend my time as a player in those types of games. Well, unless the DM is a good friend that I trust, then I'll just roll my eyes and play a human fighter . . . and continue to develop a more collaborative approach in my own games.

 

[saviirkad]

And yet you are doing just that.

Player 1: I would like to play a tortle druid, a turtle-person species.

Player 2: Hmmm, I would like to play a human ranger WHO HATES TURTLES and has chosen them as their favored enemy,

Yeah, these two player concepts, totally on the same level. And totally something to worry about happening in your games.

I think this is a fair topic, to illustrate that a mentioned concern is, frankly, an entirely different issue that requires an entirely different response.

If Player 1 chose their character and then Player 2 picked theirs specifically to mess with Player 1, then you've got a new issue. You've got combative players, with at least one who has the goal of impeding the fun and enjoyment of others.

If you reverse the order, and have Player 2 chose their character and then Player 1 picked theirs specifically to mess with Player 2, then you've got a repeat of the above issue.

The problem wasn't the Tortle. The problem was Player 1 or 2's motivations to ruin the fun. Conflating the two problems as related resolves nothing.

Of course, the secret 3rd thing is that Player 1 and Player 2 together create these characters because what they both want to explore is that tension and potential for growth and healing. This sidesteps that issue entirely, assuming that it's not picked up again by how Player 3 and Player 4 feel about it.