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

[Moving Pictures]

But a feline PC (who might be an outcast rhakshasha stripped of their powers) is going to take steps to disguise themselves, magically or otherwise (also, there is a Dark Gift in VGR that would do the job). It's not like there isn't a goblin who disguises themselves as a human child in a popular D&D based animated series!

There are limits to disguises, and if discovery is highly likely to lead to "your character is lynched by a mob," its going to create challenges.

Which then goes back to player/DM having a chinwag and maybe coming to a compromise.

 

[Scott Christian]

My 'introduction to D&D' path starts in Warcraft 3. So you can imagine the shock when I come over the D&D side and people say "Orcs aren't playable. They're always evil" as a setting feature when I've come from basically the trend setter for 'yeah orcs can be good, its the individual people who are good or evil'. Anything that tries to make orcs always evil is going to sit poor with me and, well, you know my views on alignment to begin with

So you can't understand a different setting? Or are you just saying you prefer a setting that you are used to, i.e.. Warcraft?

I get the alignment thing, and I don't want to go down that hole. But to be taken aback by a setting not matching the one you grew up with. That seems acceptable. To keep your initial setting as a preference. That seems logical and acceptable. To not understand a setting that contrasts the one you like. That doesn't seem as acceptable.

Note: I am not saying you need to play in that setting. But, it seems to me, at the very least, it should just be a shoulder shrug. Like, "Oh those orcs are evil like in the Lord of the Rings movies. Cool, but not for me."

 

[mamba]

If you aren't willing to allow for a diversity of player interests, why should we allow for a diversity of GM interests?

you don’t have to allow for anything, you just have to live with the consequences of not being in the game if you do not compromise

 

[TwoSix]

Let's say someone decides they want to run a game specifically about a group of halfings who have to leave their idyllic home and go on one or more adventures.

Is this an unreasonable idea for a game? Does it indicate the GM lacks vision or can only run railroads?

Is it reasonable for players to advise the GM they're on board with the game, but want to play a gnomish illusionist or dwarven fighter instead of a halfling?

If players do suggest such characters, is it reasonable for the GM to indicate that they'd really prefer their halfing game have halfling characters?

For myself:

If I pitched a "halflings go on an adventure" game to my players, and they started coming back to me with non-halfing character concepts, I wouldn't fight with them about it. I would start by asking, "Are you actually interested in a game about halfings who have to leave their idyllic home and go on adventures?" If the answer is yes, then I'd suggest that halfling characters are far, far more suitable for the concept. If a single player wanted something different, I'd probably be good with it, but more than that and I'd feel the original concept was being undermined and most likely I'd be a little confused about why they're saying they want a halfling game but don't want to play halflings.

If multiple players simply didn't want to play halflings, then I would not adapt the game to become a non-halfing one -- I'd scrap the whole plan (or save it for another day when I have players interested in engaging with the idea) and come up with an entirely new concept, looking for something everyone is interested in.

Importantly, none of this process involves players vs GMs or one side trying to win while other side loses, it's just a group of people looking for consensus and, if the final consensus is, "this particular game idea isn't going to go ahead at this point," that's perfectly OK. There is absolutely no need for any hurt feelings or demands for capitulation.

That said, if the entire group has agreed to a halfling game, and one player suddenly decides they don't want to play along at all, they may end up having to sit out until the next campaign. Most likely, they won't do this in a petulant way, they'll just say, "You know, this game isn't actually for me, I'm going to bow out for now."

And that’s totally fine. If a player agrees to a game with a tight premise, and later on decides they don’t want to do that anymore, the onus is on them to step aside gracefully.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There are limits to disguises, and if discovery is highly likely to lead to "your character is lynched by a mob," its going to create challenges.

Which then goes back to player/DM having a chinwag and maybe coming to a compromise.

Any attempt at lynching a PC is likely to result in a massacre of the village, so it's not like it poses any real threat.

Bottom line, if the DM is willing, it is not only possible, it makes for an interesting story. If the DM isn't willing, it supports the "DMs are Evil" argument.

 

[TwoSix]

But there's a difference between "you can't play a tabaxi because I think they are stupid," and

1) "I don't have those in this setting. The game is going to be heavy on ocean travel, islands, pirates and other elements.... but I have an island full of Rastafarian Tortles, and the neighbouring island is full of dragonborn, and then there's a race of bipedal lizards. Could you play one of those?"

or

2) "well, here's the thing ... we're playing a Middle Eastern theme and Rhakshasha are a thing, and the populace will brand any sentient cat as evil to be killed outright," with the underlying thought that the DM already has ideas of having Rhakshasha as a BBEG at some point.

Much like Pam in the Office, I can’t find the difference between these pictures. All 3 of those rationales are terrible.

 

[TwoSix]

I realize you are speaking in general terms, which is why I can sarcastically reply back in the same general terminology. Your quote:

You can see the argument you're making here, right? That players don't care about the DMs hard work regarding lore. That a DM who limits things based on their lore work is wrong because - players don't care.

So, it seems to me I have every right to turn around and say all players care about lore, including you. And that is the reason DMs should be allowed to set limits.

All I did was state the same thing you did, but in reverse. Sarcastically replying back to me of how you didn't mean "absolutely everyone," yet at the same time used it to imply that DMs who set limits due to lore are ridiculous because "players don't care," is just clever wordsmithing for a false argument.

Players still don’t care about lore.

They might care about lore if the game is a licensed property they’re familiar with. Or if you present some lore that gives them a clear and demonstrable character-impacting choice within the game.

But no one wants to read your game notes to figure out why it’s super important there are no Dragonborn or Tabaxi or Tortles in this game.

 

[Moving Pictures]

Bottom line, if the DM is willing, it is not only possible, it makes for an interesting story. If the DM isn't willing, it supports the "DMs are Evil" argument.

That's so inflexibly wrong, I don't know how to begin to respond.

I don't allow evil characters. Period. So no, you ain't playing a necromancer in my game.

If that makes me a mean old blighter, well so be it.

I think what a whole lot of people here are forgetting is that being a DM, especially when one is worldbuilding, is a damn lot of work. It's fun, but it requires energy. My enjoyment matters too. So if you wanna play a necromancer, go nuts .... somewhere else.

Players still don’t care about lore.

They might care about lore if the game is a licensed property they’re familiar with. Or if you present some lore that gives them a clear and demonstrable character-impacting choice within the game.

But no one wants to read your game notes to figure out why it’s super important there are no Dragonborn or Tabaxi or Tortles in this game.

If you're not interested in the game world I'm building, find another game. I'm not about to throw away months of work to "adapt" to an inflexible player who isn't willing to create something that DOES work in the game. And likewise I don't want to cramp your desire to play a Rastafarian Tortle .... go play one .... in some other setting.

It's just that simple. I'm not forcing you to not play a tortle. I'm just not having a tortle in my game.

Freedom of choice. I can choose not to have tortles in my world, and you're free to go play in another game that has tortles.

Much like Pam in the Office, I can’t find the difference between these pictures. All 3 of those rationales are terrible.

But that's not what you're writing. You're saying I have to have tortles because that's what the player wants?

What happened to my agency?

 

[AlViking]

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.

I don't care one way or another if people know much about my world's lore. There's a lot of it out there in electronic format now, maybe someday I'll load it all up into an LLM to make a more digestible format. But if you join my campaign? I have a page of house rules and another few paragraphs on what the player needs to know about my world. All that documentation is for me so when they find themselves in that swampland and they find evidence of a dwarven encampment I have history behind why it's there and, if it matters or they care, how those events still affect the world now.

You may not care about that kind of depth and as a player you don't need to. But for the DM? It matters a lot.

 

[AlViking]

Let's say someone decides they want to run a game specifically about a group of halfings who have to leave their idyllic home and go on one or more adventures.

Is this an unreasonable idea for a game? Does it indicate the GM lacks vision or can only run railroads?

Is it reasonable for players to advise the GM they're on board with the game, but want to play a gnomish illusionist or dwarven fighter instead of a halfling?

If players do suggest such characters, is it reasonable for the GM to indicate that they'd really prefer their halfing game have halfling characters?

For myself:

If I pitched a "halflings go on an adventure" game to my players, and they started coming back to me with non-halfing character concepts, I wouldn't fight with them about it. I would start by asking, "Are you actually interested in a game about halfings who have to leave their idyllic home and go on adventures?" If the answer is yes, then I'd suggest that halfling characters are far, far more suitable for the concept. If a single player wanted something different, I'd probably be good with it, but more than that and I'd feel the original concept was being undermined and most likely I'd be a little confused about why they're saying they want a halfling game but don't want to play halflings.

If multiple players simply didn't want to play halflings, then I would not adapt the game to become a non-halfing one -- I'd scrap the whole plan (or save it for another day when I have players interested in engaging with the idea) and come up with an entirely new concept, looking for something everyone is interested in.

Importantly, none of this process involves players vs GMs or one side trying to win while other side loses, it's just a group of people looking for consensus and, if the final consensus is, "this particular game idea isn't going to go ahead at this point," that's perfectly OK. There is absolutely no need for any hurt feelings or demands for capitulation.

That said, if the entire group has agreed to a halfling game, and one player suddenly decides they don't want to play along at all, they may end up having to sit out until the next campaign. Most likely, they won't do this in a petulant way, they'll just say, "You know, this game isn't actually for me, I'm going to bow out for now."

Your mistake was making it halflings. In my experience if you make it elves everyone would be handing you character sheets before you finished the sentence.