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

[mamba]

If you don't want to play a kitchen sink then maybe playing Dungeons and Dragons, the kitchen sink fantasy setting, isn't for you

The kitchen sink setting (e.g. FR) isn't, that is why they have their own, the game mechanics might suit that custom setting well enough however

I mean, yes, the players do decide what options are allowed through what they chose.

No, the players choose among the available options of the setting, or there will be some kind of discussion about how their idea fits in. Just because something exists in some obscure supplement (let alone 3pp product) does not mean it automatically is available everywhere.

You'd have missed Mystara and X9, the stuff when they appeared

Entirely possible, esp. since it was a few Mystara supplements that sold next to nothing rather than the whole line

 

[AlViking]

I mean. You're playing Dungeons and Dragons. People are going to assume some things exist in the setting simply because that's D&D stock knowledge and is such D&D stock knowledge it even transfers to D&D adjacent properties like Pathfinder or Warcraft. "There is an elemental plane where elementals that you can summon come from" and "There's multiple heavens and hells where various things can be summoned/come from who try to help or cause problems in the world". This has been kicking since Advance Player's Handbook in 1978, I think its a fair assessment anyone who joins a Dungeons and Dragons game is going to assume 'there are planes'

People can assume whatever they want. If I have an opening at my table or I'm starting up a new group I'll have them read over the page or so of restrictions and house rules before we have a session 0. I don't use planes of existence in the same way the default D&D does. It's one of the things I explain. Gods are also assumed in most D&D games yet Eberron doesn't have them and it's one of the more popular purchased settings. Are they doing it wrong?

You don't seem to be using a lot of what the game has to offer so, genuinely, yeah, I reckon why you use D&D and not just some OSR system that'll only have your specifics

I offer quite a bit more than most games I play in in terms of freedom to do whatever the players decide because I'm not using published campaigns.

The physical form is the important part. You could remove all the stats and benefits and folks would still play a tortle just to be a turtle guy on pure aesthetics. Humans have only been anthropomorphising animals for, oh, 40,000 years at a minimum. Wanting to play a turtle guy, or going full khajiit as a tabaxi, or playing as a dragon guy, is but a continuation of that

Why? What does it matter? If someone was really truly determined their character their character wants to look like an anthropomorphic tortoise can save their GP and buy a hat of disguise. But if they have to be a tortle and nothing else will do then we will never come to an agreement. Since neither one of us can be forced to change their minds they'll have to find a different DM.

 

[AlViking]

You're adding unnecessary details to make the excuse for a full rejection to be the only solution. There was nothing presented within the hypothetical that "makes no sense" nor has any impact on non-Tortle additions. These are details you add to the hypothetical in order for there to be no room for compromise.

I don't want to add additional species to my world. I don't need any more justification, especially when it boils down to people want to play a tortle because they want to .

Based on this hypothetical presented, the mechanical aspect compromise is the tiniest step. It's a compromise, it's just the smallest one. Figuring out the culture and worldview of the character based around being a Tortle is a much bigger space for compromise. It's important to note that this is a space only, it doesn't say anything about whether or not there would be any.

Hardlining no on something as important as the Tortle appearance is a pretty big statement that a DM's control over PCs is prioritized above the Player's. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, table depending, that's just what it is.

I added in ideas for culture and identity. My suggestion was someone from a culture that believed in animism and their spirit animal is a tortoise. In addition they can wear holy tortoise armor to get the mechanical benefit. It wasn't good enough because even though the character would think like a tortle, view the world like a tortle, have the mechanical rules for a tortle. They would be tortles in all but name. It wasn't good enough because I was unwilling to add a new species.

I truly don't think you're a bad, evil power hungry DM. I honestly don't know how you actually DM, but I'm fairly confident in saying that you're probably not that. You consider yourself a flexible and fair DM, and in practice, I can believe it.

Within the scope of this conversation, surrounding a simple hypothetical, what you've shown is a lot of inflexibility and a need for the player to concede without compromise. That's all. I don't think this makes you a bad DM at all.

This isn't the first time you've switched things around to make things more of an affront to you personally, so I do honestly wonder if that is a cause for the inflexibility presented.

It's not compromise when the players will accept nothing but accepting whatever species the player wants to play.

 

[Moving Pictures]

D&D does not come from Tolkein.

Elves, dwarves, hobbits halflings, humans. Those were the original PC races. Because Tolkien.
There was even a kerfuffle with Tolkien because of hobbits halflings, which caused D&D to name their hobbits, halflings. The other concepts were allowed to fly because of Nordic myth having dwarves and elves long before Tolkien came along.

It grabs the races but it is far more inspired by Swords and Sorcery stuff, where mysterious snake cults ala the Yuan-ti come from as well

I can accept that. There was also a lot of Conan-ish influence at the time, too.

 

[AlViking]

Uh... that's not what a compromise is.

If by that you mean "It's not compromise if the player chooses a species the DM said was not allowed and the DM has no say in it" I agree.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's a whole lot of words to say "The player decides what options are allowed." I see no room for player compromise.

If you're that adamant that only you can make the final decision then you are free to find another game because I sincerely tried to come up with a compromise that would work and you aren't interested.

This is because you think that compromise "would work" and they don't. You feel its a functional compromise where they don't; they have ideas they think are a functional compromise you don't.

If only one side gets to decide what "would work" that's not a compromise even if that side thinks so; someone could just as easily say they had a functional compromise and you "aren't interested".

 

[Thomas Shey]

I
I would say everyone loses personally.

I somewhat agree, but I'll note one side is much more likely to get criticized for the failure than the other.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

This is because you think that compromise "would work" and they don't. You feel its a functional compromise where they don't; they have ideas they think are a functional compromise you don't.

If only one side gets to decide what "would work" that's not a compromise even if that side thinks so; someone could just as easily say they had a functional compromise and you "aren't interested".

But isnt this whole thread people saying "compromise" while restating their hard line? Be that a "worldbuilding project," or the "no restrictions" mantra?

It seems to me that only a few people like @EzekielRaiden have expressed a desire to actually compromise. Most just say, "My way must win."

 

[Scribe]

The most famous D&D things at the moment, absolute pathways to it, are Baldurs Gate 3 and Critical Role

Holy Christ, now the whole playerbase is getting its expectations from BG3?

Who set the expectations before it? CR?

Or preexisting DMs?

 

[AlViking]

This is because you think that compromise "would work" and they don't. You feel its a functional compromise where they don't; they have ideas they think are a functional compromise you don't.

If only one side gets to decide what "would work" that's not a compromise even if that side thinks so; someone could just as easily say they had a functional compromise and you "aren't interested".

Then it's not compromise if the DM has a curated list of species and the player insists on playing something not on the list either. At that point if no compromise is possible then it's not a good fit, the DM did not gain a player and the player did not join a game.

But people have been framing DM capitulation as compromise. It's not.