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

[Scribe]

Player wants to play a tortle? Swap out those swamp goblins in the SE corner of the map for tortles and maybe some other reptilians.

Why? If I prefer Lizardmen, and I do, why would I drop them for or add Tortles?

Not that I'm even against Tortles, but why? Just to accommodate a player who doesnt want to engage with the world as is, but wants to force their own desires into it?

 

[AlViking]

Obviously I can't act as some universal arbiter of correctness.

But if we define wrong using the criteria "A table that is right is one I would want to play in", yes, I think you're doing it wrong.

You didn't say wrong for you. You said wrong period.

 

[TwoSix]

Why? If I prefer Lizardmen, and I do, why would I drop them for or add Tortles?

Not that I'm even against Tortles, but why? Just to accommodate a player who doesnt want to engage with the world as is, but wants to force their own desires into it?

Yes. You should be accomodating the player. Your world-building interests are of lesser priority. I've said that like three times already.

 

[Scribe]

Your world-building interests are of lesser priority.

But thats a false statement.

 

[TwoSix]

You didn't say wrong for you. You said wrong period.

If you want more clarity, it isn't so much "wrong" as much as "worse".

But yea, I'm making a normative judgment call here; caveating it with "well, for me... just weakens the declaration.

 

[TwoSix]

But thats a false statement.

I don't believe it be so.

If you don't like posts with uncaveated opinions that make specific judgments about playstyles, then TwoSix in '26 may not be the right poster for you. Let me know if you need assistance finding the block or ignore functionalities available to you.

 

[AlViking]

If you want more clarity, it isn't so much "wrong" as much as "worse".

Why on earth would you think that's any better?

But yea, I'm making a normative judgment call here; caveating it with "well, for me... just weakens the declaration.

Which sounds quite arrogant and presumptuous that you know what I and my players want more than we do.

 

[Moving Pictures]

Hooboy. I think I'm about done for this thread.

If the PCs murder an entire village rather than just fleeing, then I am probably done with that group. I will just end the game.

I do not find evil fun. I would do the same if they slaughtered monster kids too.

Bingo. Which is why I am a big-bad grognard meanie and don't allow evil PCs in my world.

I'm going to make those decisions based on the world and lore I've built. If you want a playground where you can do whatever you want and always get away with it I don't want you in my game either.

Bingo. And if you have mature, capable, intelligent players (and by gum, reading this thread, I realize I'm privileged to have fourof them), they will recognize that.

The more I read from this thread, the more it becomes apparent why Keith Ammann is discouraged. Yes, the game has changed and it’s moving farther away from a place in his mind where he has chosen to anchor himself. If he keeps writing for what he thinks the game should be, rather than what the game actually is (or what the audience wants), I can’t see that working well for him.

Personally, I think he should write for the OSR space where his game philosophy still applies.

This entire flustercluck of a thread has demonstrated to me that yes, today's players want videogamey "I wanna be a dragonborn princess and start at level 1 with a +5 vorpal sword" stuff that frankly, doesn't work for me. Maybe it works for someone else. Whatever brings you the endorphins and dopamine.

Most importantly to me, nobody is asking the important question, which is "WHY did the PCs burn down a village?" There seems to be an assumption that the players are just being chaos agent chuckleheads.

It was 1_ "if you play a tabaxi in a world where sentient felines are feared, loathed and treated as evil beings, your tabaxi is likely to end up being lynched," and instead of accepting the argument,
2) We had the "B...bit then the PCs will burn the village down" which tells me that I'm kinda not going to get much further with that poster. In fact, that kind of attitude is exactly why session zero became a thing.

 

[TwoSix]

Which sounds quite arrogant and presumptuous that you know what I and my players want more than we do.

I have no particular idea what you and your players want outside of your posts here.

I'll totally cop to "arrogant and presumptuous" though.

 

[tetrasodium]

Eh. The trust argument cuts both ways, so doesn't usually support one side of this kind of argument over the other.

I think that's an oversimplification. The players don't need to extend as much trust because the rules are designed to pressure the gm to be trustworthy while the reverse has been going far in the other direction. Earlier I linked to/embedded a recent video from Daddy rolled a 1 covering gameplay throughout the editions and the shift to video game mentality. At one point in the nearly 2 hr video he mentions how most of the rules related to a few areas of gameplay in one of the older editions are intended to restrict the gm and make sure that the resulting gameplay is fair to the players rather than the gm just doing whatever they want in combat.

Some of those rules like the 2e declaration (?§) phase of combat may have faded away but the endless accumulation of UM AXTCHUALLULY" reaction based retcon interruptions and "tell your story" have dramatically granted players the impression that they can do what the gm is still largely expected to avoid doing by social contract fairness and rules. themselves

§its been many years since I ran 2e.

Edit: up until 5e that kind of player side reactive retcon pretty much required a freaking WISH unless 4e had something.