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

[TwoSix]

Wait . . . Dolmenwood? The setting with species options like mosslings, breggles, grimalkins, and woodgrues? Yeah, don't play anything weird in a Dolmenwood campaign!

Point taken. . But I meant more in a “don’t try to play a tortle in Dolmenwood.” For Dolmenwood, better to stick to the intended play space because the whole of the game is integrated with those concepts.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The art of compromise is to.get other people to agree with you and feel good about it.

I never got an actual answer to my question: if I DO give up my Tortle, what is in it for me? If you say "a seat at the table" that was part of the initial pitch, I have my seat thank you. So let's play a little game. If tortles (and apparently gunslingers) are out of the question, what about my dhampir mage? What about letting me playtest something from UA like the revised necromancer or the psion? Maybe I can play a 3pp class like Level Up's marshall or CRs blood hunter? Maybe I get a tangible benefit in game like a noble title or a legacy weapon that levels with me. I'm giving up on my primary character concept to satisfy you, what are you giving to satisfy me?

To make it clear up front, contrary to what it might have seemed from my posts, I'm probably closer to Belen in how I approach GMing than, say, TwoSix.

As such, I'd find rigidity about classes odder than about races. Barring Earthdawn, classes per se are not things that recognized as actual things in-setting in most cases (ask how often how many people in a given D&D world actually understand the difference between a wizard, a sorcerer and a warlock). As such there could be a lot of little low-incidence classes that don't have any setting impact that's at all visible.

Now, there might be classes that do have setting implications, either political or supernatural, or ones that have specific features you don't want (the gunslinger thing I can see someone not wanting to do with someone who was hardline about wanting to stay pre-gunpowder (though I kind of like the PF2e solution there) for example), but s lot of routine extra classes (and I'd assume 5e subclasses) hardly seem to land in that.

 

[TwoSix]

If a DM invited you to play a dhampir bloodmage in a campaign where all PCs are asked to play dhampirs of human origin, would you participate in that campaign designed for formerly-human dhampir PCs? Or would you turn down that invitation to play a dhampir bloodmage because the DM isn't offering more species options?

Sure, that sounds like a lot of fun. I’m a fan of tightly specified campaign frames like that.

What I’m against is DMs who think only have a setting with six races somehow turns their game into a tightly specified campaign frame instead of just being “normal D&D game, but more annoying”. Basically DMs who lack the self-awareness to realize players don’t care about their detailed setting lore.

 

[mamba]

The art of compromise is to.get other people to agree with you and feel good about it.

ha, you wish

I never got an actual answer to my question: if I DO give up my Tortle, what is in it for me? If you say "a seat at the table" that was part of the initial pitch, I have my seat thank you.

it was, but then you lost it with your insistence on a tortle... what you hopefully gained is something that is tortle-adjacent enough for you to be ok with it

So let's play a little game. If tortles (and apparently gunslingers) are out of the question, what about my dhampirmage? What about letting me playtest something from UA like the revised necromancer or the psion? Maybe I can play a 3pp class like Level Up's marshall or CRs blood hunter?

can't speak for anyone else but yeah, why not play a UA class or 3pp one. If something turns out to be broken, we address it then.

 

[Scott Christian]

Correct. Which is one of the many reasons I gave up homebrewing for a rotating series of settings depending on the game.

The Internet has made finding a game easier, buts it's not order a pizza easy. I live in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area and I don't see a large call for open tables. I guess there is AL at my local FLGS, but it's a very different style of play than home games.

It really depends on how comfortable you are with playing with complete strangers.


How much free time do you think I have with work and family? I'm lucky I fit one group in!

Yeah, when I was young, everyone tried their hands at DMing, but only two people were long term DMs, myself and one other guy who is the source of many of my Bad DM stories. So for years my options was DM or play something that catered to his whims. And his whims were unstated and mercurial. (He once decided druids were stupid. He didn't ban them outright, but he made it so hard to play one it was an exercise in frustration. He also has a weird hangup on characters being a different gender than the player and would actively discourage cross gender PCs). It wasn't until I moved away to college that I found a stable DM who was chill with everything and the game was glorious. So good that even when I moved back home after college, I could play in the old DMs group but our styles had changed so rapidly that we butted heads constantly. It would take him a decade to come around to a style I enjoyed again.

But even today, after playing with probably a dozen different DMs and half-dozen different systems, I've seen enough to know what I want from a game and what is a red flag for me. And that starts at chargen because I refuse to have my fun determined by the DM deciding cat people are stupid.

Congratulations. Then you have found your niche. Much like the people who want only Sword and Sorcery, or only low magic campaigns, or only campaigns where sexuality is encouraged or restricted, or only cogwheel and steampunk exist, or only a campaign where everyone is a little Godzilla or other creature from the Monster Verse. You have found what you like.

But because you found what you like, does not mean you can impose it on others - even if you had a neglected and difficult start to find what you enjoy. We are all sorry your starting play experience and DM didn't match. It's frustrating. We understand. But by no means does that give you the right to declare others are wrong for setting similar limits.

(Which by the way, they are not. Your DM sounds arbitrary. Almost everyone on this forum has stated explicit reasons, most of which is hard work and logical consistency in their DM (and players') world, as to why you can't play a tortle.)

So, we are sorry you had a hard time playing what you wanted when you were younger. We are happy that you found a DM in college that let you do whatever you want, and in turn, we are happy you found out what you like. But that, by no way means or form, make the DMs here declaring limits wrong. You are still wrong for insisting your discovered viewpoint must be used by the DMs.

 

[Dire Bare]

Point taken. . But I meant more in a “don’t try to play a tortle in Dolmenwood.” For Dolmenwood, better to stick to the intended play space because the whole of the game is integrated with those concepts.

I don't have the Dolmenwood book yet or any of the previous adventures in the setting, it's on my long "gotta check this out at some point" list . . .

But . . . why not?

Dolmenwood is squarely (to my view at least) in the "weird" OSR genre. Seems like a turtle-person would fit in just fine with the woodgrues and grimalkins. Dolmenwood is based on OSE, Old School Essentials (right?) and it wouldn't surprise me if somebody hasn't already written up a turtle-person species for OSE. And if not, it wouldn't be hard to do it myself.

You're not going to convince me that limiting options is a good thing, except for perhaps some very specific instances. IMO, it's usually a lack of imagination and an unwillingness to give up some DM control that leads to player option limits, rather than establishing some fidelity to a setting or theme.

Perhaps something very specific, like the "Charlemagne's Paladins" example I floated upthread. But even then . . . elves and fey come from European folklore . . . .

Not every character concept will work out for every campaign setting or theme, but being open to the discussion and seeing if perhaps it can actually work is a lot more fun than a quick, hard "no" without much effort put into it. IMO, of course.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure, that sounds like a lot of fun. I’m a fan of tightly specified campaign frames like that.

What I’m against is DMs who think only have a setting with six races somehow turns their game into a tightly specified campaign frame instead of just being “normal D&D game, but more annoying”. Basically DMs who lack the self-awareness to realize players don’t care about their detailed setting lore.

This is the most limited take I have ever seen. So you speak for all players? None of them care?

As a player, I care. I care a lot. Every group I have ever played with has had players care a lot about the setting. Just because you don't, doesn't mean that is true of others.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure, that sounds like a lot of fun. I’m a fan of tightly specified campaign frames like that.

What I’m against is DMs who think only have a setting with six races somehow turns their game into a tightly specified campaign frame instead of just being “normal D&D game, but more annoying”. Basically DMs who lack the self-awareness to realize players don’t care about their detailed setting lore.

Yeah, my love of strongly themed campaigns (I've done pirates, paranormal investigators, crime syndicate and will be starting a Western) can somewhat override limitations because the theme is fun. For example, the paranormal investigators had people play a dhampir, hexblood and reborn along with a few humans and a sentient cat*. We had a blood hunter, necromancer, twilight cleric, reanimator artificer, shadow sorcerer and a regular lore bard. Despite a very open option of classes and species, I got tightly themed ones regardless. And if I was a player in such a game, I'd want to play to theme regardless.

But bog standard D&D with the theme of "nothing that wasn't in the 3e PHB?" Blech.

* No, sentient cat wasn't on my original PC list. The player found it in a 5e book and convinced me he was going for a combination of Rocket Raccoon and Thackery Binx from Hocus Pocus, which I felt fit Ravenloft. That's a compromise where the original idea of sentient animals wasn't allowed, but a one off character was the exception to the rule. And it didn't open up sentient animals as an option unless someone wanted to play his four litter mates.

 

[TwoSix]

This is the most limited take I have ever seen. So you speak for all players? None of them care?

As a player, I care. I care a lot. Every group I have ever played with has had players care a lot about the setting. Just because you don't, doesn't mean that is true of others.

Yes, Scott. Obviously when I use a general term I mean absolutely everyone, with no exceptions.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't have the Dolmenwood book yet or any of the previous adventures in the setting, it's on my long "gotta check this out at some point" list . . .

But . . . why not?

Dolmenwood is squarely (to my view at least) in the "weird" OSR genre. Seems like a turtle-person would fit in just fine with the woodgrues and grimalkins. Dolmenwood is based on OSE, Old School Essentials (right?) and it wouldn't surprise me if somebody hasn't already written up a turtle-person species for OSE. And if not, it wouldn't be hard to do it myself.

You're not going to convince me that limiting options is a good thing, except for perhaps some very specific instances. IMO, it's usually a lack of imagination and an unwillingness to give up some DM control that leads to player option limits, rather than establishing some fidelity to a setting or theme.

Perhaps something very specific, like the "Charlemagne's Paladins" example I floated upthread. But even then . . . elves and fey come from European folklore . . . .

Not every character concept will work out for every campaign setting or theme, but being open to the discussion and seeing if perhaps it can actually work is a lot more fun than a quick, hard "no" without much effort put into it. IMO, of course.

You can do whatever you want, of course. But I view Dolmenwood as a setting you play exactly once, and a lot of the joy in it comes from using the detailed character creation rules embedded in the six races of the setting.

It’s the exact opposite of what D&D offers, which is centered around a diversity of options.