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

[Mecheon]

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

Greyhawk is far more kitchen sink than FR and official rules for it included Barsoom encounter tables and everyone's favourite crashed spaceship up in the Barrier Mountains. The kitchen sink is in this game's blood. Even Ravenloft is just a kitchen sink of horror pastiches and references to 70s horror movies

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.

Well we're not talking 'obscure supplement' here, we're talking 'Widely publicised charity product that was widely adopted in the D&D community' with tortles.

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.

You don't even have orcs as a playable race. Colour me incredibly suspicious that your game has any freedom at all

Could I play Grasok Wolfbrother, rather nice orc ranger who likes, or are orcs 'always evil' in your campaign world despite that never having been a thing in D&D rules and screw you for wanting to play as what's been a stock race in "Has annihilated every single D&D game in sales and its expansion releases can be tracked by downturns in FRGS product sales" World of Warcraft or "A single game in this franchise has outsold every D&D game combined" Skyrim, both for over 20 years?

Heck. Could I play an expy of Skyrim's most famous orc, Urag? Just go full grumpy orc wizard who wants to collect and preserve books because everyone around him is an idiot who will get them damaged? If half orcs are playable, full orcs should be playable just the same.

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.

Humans have anthropomorphised animals for most of their history. This is just, what we do. The stereotypes and ideas of the creature in human form. This is part of human nature

That is the worst idea of it. "Want to play as this option? naughty word you, here's a GP cost so you can only get half way there" rather than allow any expansion on your setting beyond its absolute milquetoast options offered.

90% of DMs will allow tortles in 5E so, yeah, they will find another DM. Easily.

 

[AlViking]

Greyhawk is far more kitchen sink than FR and official rules for it included Barsoom encounter tables and everyone's favourite crashed spaceship up in the Barrier Mountains. The kitchen sink is in this game's blood. Even Ravenloft is just a kitchen sink of horror pastiches and references to 70s horror movies


Well we're not talking 'obscure supplement' here, we're talking 'Widely publicised charity product that was widely adopted in the D&D community' with tortles.


You don't even have orcs as a playable race. Colour me incredibly suspicious that your game has any freedom at all

You don't know anything about my game. I have a curated list of species for thematic reasons but the players tell me what campaign themes are and what direction they want to go in and I will do my best to make it happen.

Could I play Grasok Wolfbrother, rather nice orc ranger who likes, or are orcs 'always evil' in your campaign world despite that never having been a thing in D&D rules and screw you for wanting to play as what's been a stock race in "Has annihilated every single D&D game in sales and its expansion releases can be tracked by downturns in FRGS product sales" World of Warcraft "A single game in this franchise has outsold every D&D game combined" Skyrim, both for over 20 years?

I'm not doing the orcs are always evil or not conversation.

Heck. Could I play an expy of Skyrim's most famous orc, Urag? Just go full grumpy orc wizard who wants to collect and preserve books because everyone around him is an idiot who will get them damaged? If half orcs are playable, full orcs should be playable just the same.


Humans have anthropomorphised animals for most of their history. This is just, what we do. The stereotypes and ideas of the creature in human form. This is part of human nature

That is the worst idea of it. "Want to play as this option? naughty word you, here's a GP cost so you can only get half way there" rather than allow any expansion on your setting beyond its absolute milquetoast options offered.

90% of DMs will allow tortles in 5E so, yeah, they will find another DM. Easily.

If you want to play a specific species that is not on my curated list and you are not willing to compromise by playing something that matches your requested species in all but name only it's not my problem. It's not exactly a threat to state that someone who demands their way and is so set in a specific character that they are unwilling to play anything else won't play at my table.

 

[mamba]

Greyhawk is far more kitchen sink than FR and official rules for it included Barsoom encounter tables and everyone's favourite crashed spaceship up in the Barrier Mountains. The kitchen sink is in this game's blood. Even Ravenloft is just a kitchen sink of horror pastiches and references to 70s horror movies

These are all just FR by another name, none of these are bespoke settings a DM is running.

Well we're not talking 'obscure supplement' here, we're talking 'Widely publicised charity product that was widely adopted in the D&D community' with tortles.

I was referring to the Mystara products with tortles, and yes, even the 5e charity product is pretty obscure in reality. Monsters of the Multiverse is probably the first appearance for 90% of players.

90% of DMs will allow tortles in 5E so, yeah, they will find another DM. Easily.

then by all means do that

 

[Scribe]

"The age of elves and humans is over."

 

[Mecheon]

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

Who set the expectations before it? CR?

Or preexisting DMs?

Of course they're going to get expectations from BG3, why wouldn't they? This is the biggest entry point they've had since the original Baldurs Gate. "Hey here's Dungeons and Dragons on your computer, featuring all of the famous Dungeons and Dragons things around. Look, squid people and flying cats". This is what the movies were supposed to be, and the latest movie actually succeeds at doing, unlike the originals

What do you think they'd get their expectations from instead? Fantasy doorstoppers are out and romantasy is in, and lemme tell you, I do not trust most DMs to try and use romantasy as a setting theme.

The other place they're going to get it from is Skyrim, and by the sound of it, the idea of tabaxi and lizardmen replacing dwarves and halflings as stock races is going to blow people's heads wide open

You don't know anything about my game. I have a curated list of species for thematic reasons but the players tell me what campaign themes are and what direction they want to go in and I will do my best to make it happen.

You provide the 'curated' list earlier which was the dull, boring, stock standard 2e base game option list. Not even any slightly exotic stuff like aquatic elves

I'm not doing the orcs are always evil or not conversation.

Could I play an expy of Urag from Skyrim? He's a pretty simple thing

1: A non-evil orc
2: An orc wizard. Pretty smart.
3: Collects books

That's all you need to play as Urag. D&D supports all of this completely stock right now. Could I play that in your campaign? This stock, easy, Dungeons and Dragons supported character?

If you want to play a specific species that is not on my curated list and you are not willing to compromise by playing something that matches your requested species in all but name only it's not my problem.

Sounds like a problem with your campaign if it can't handle such stock, simple Dungeons and Dragons ideas. People will come at your game with stuff like Skyrim being touch points so of course they'll want ideas inspired from there

"The age of elves and humans is over."

I love you've just ignored how completely and utterly halflings are demolished in that chart. Look at that, they're not even a fraction of Dragonborn's majesty

 

[Scribe]

I love you've just ignored how completely and utterly halflings are demolished in that chart. Look at that, they're not even a fraction of Dragonborn's majesty

Dragonborn, the fraction of the pretty races? That majesty?

You think those results are surprising?

On one end, you have the pretty options, on the other end, the mega short ones.

"Hmm, I wonder whats happening here..."

If players are getting their expectations from BG3, its "I want to be the hot character."

 

[mamba]

I love you've just ignored how completely and utterly halflings are demolished in that chart. Look at that, they're not even a fraction of Dragonborn's majesty

show me your tortle here..., also, about 25% is very much an easy fraction

 

[Thomas Shey]

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."

No, I think there are people on both sides who think they've suggested are compromises. Its just that the exemplars on the other side find those compromises beyond their red lines. That can happen; where the acceptable limits of compromise do not in fact have any overlap, and as such, are not practically possible.

To my view that's not what this thread has been about for a while.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

And again, you've suggested player capitulation is a compromise when its not.

You really don't get to have it both ways. Either people are allowed to have red lines in their acceptable compromises or they aren't.

 

[TwoSix]

Why is it a red flag that I set limits as a DM? I'm making decisions constantly about what exists or does not exist in the campaign world.

If that means I'm not the DM for you, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with red flags.

I think it’s perfectly OK to phrase “this behavior indicates this GM and I will clash” as a “red flag”.

After all, a red flag isn’t a global indicator. Your red flags may be my green flags, and vice versa.