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

[Mort]

Would you like to know my deep secret?

I don't actually like dragonborn. I have never had a dragonborn PC, and I virtually never use them when I'm GMing.

Do you know impact that dislike has on my games when I GM, and a player wants to play a dragonborn? 0.0%.

If your game has enough room to allow for some customization, than it has enough room to allow for a customization that matters to a particular PC.

When 5e came out, I had had no experience at all with Dragonborn, and honestly, after looking them over, I found them as a PC race pretty strange and kind of unpalatable.

But when one of my players asked to play a Dragonborn for the then new campaign, I said ok. His character went on to have one of the coolest/most memorable arcs of that 4 year campaign.

That said, I really do sympathize with the crowd that wants to exclude. People have fun in different ways. If a DM has a concept for his world that doesn't include Dragonborn, Tortles, whatever - players should take that into account. There are SO MANY things available, there's got to be a concept where everyone is happy! And if not, not every group/DM is a fit for every player.

 

[Minigiant]

There are SO MANY things available, there's got to be a concept where everyone is happy! And if not, not every group/DM is a fit for every player.

Nah.

The part many people don't get is, there's a lot of lame or poorly made homegrown settings out there that run on friendship or the desire to play with the particular DM.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I love how it's always a lack of imagination on the part of the DM. Nobody is ever like, "I need to play a Tortle because I lack the imagination to make a fun and enjoyable character that is within the constraints of the setting/game."

 

[AlViking]

When 5e came out, I had had no experience at all with Dragonborn, and honestly, after looking them over, I found them as a PC race pretty strange and kind of unpalatable.

But when one of my players asked to play a Dragonborn for the then new campaign, I said ok. His character went on to have one of the coolest/most memorable arcs of that 4 year campaign.

Curious - can you give a short version of the arc and how or if being a dragonborn played into it?

 

[TwoSix]

Nah.

The part many people don't get is, there's a lot of lame or poorly made homegrown settings out there that run on friendship or the desire to play with the particular DM.

Yes. Feel free to homebrew. Just don't make lame homebrew. "You can't be tabaxi because everyone in the setting thinks cats are tools of evil gods" is lame.

 

[AlViking]

Then the player is lying or hiding their reason and doesn't get to be a tortle.

I'm just repeating the answer given on this forum by more than one person. To be honest it's how I pick my species most of the time if I play an FR game. Why did I play a tabaxi? Because I wanted to play Puss in Boots. If it hadn't been a kitchen sink campaign I could have easily just played a human or some other species since Puss in Boots is just a cat version of Zorro. Same logic could be applied to any character I've ever played. Either I chose a species because of mechanical benefit or I thought it would be cool or funny.

But in no case have I ever been so set on a specific character concept that I would insist on that exact concept and that exact concept only. It's just weird to me that having a curated list of species or any other restriction causes people to make the leap from "the DM has a curated list" to "the DM is a railroading control freak".

 

[Umbran]

Apparently the answer is "Because I want to be a tortle" since I've been told it's not about the mechanical benefits, worldview or cultural influences.

Then the player is lying or hiding their reason and doesn't get to be a tortle.

So, this reads as, "I, the GM, get to discard your reasons (mechanical, worldview, or cultural influences) as invalid, so you cannot have it."

That is a bogus way to collaborate.

Proper negotiation would acknowledge the player reasons as valid, rather than discard them. And we'd also note the specific problems the GM has with tortles, and the ways they violate the game premises.

We then see if a way that allows a maximum of what the player wants, while engaging the fewest things the GM doesn't want, ends up palatable to both.

 

[TwoSix]

I love how it's always a lack of imagination on the part of the DM. Nobody is ever like, "I need to play a Tortle because I lack the imagination to make a fun and enjoyable character that is within the constraints of the setting/game."

Well, it would be kinda weird to be that self-denigrating, right? That's way past humility and right into self-abuse.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Not in my experience. In my experience the PCs run, because the know that the massacre of a village is going to be noticed and magic brought to bear to figure out who did it. They don't want to have the death penalty in 5 systems with bounty hunters dogging their steps. It's a real pain to have to hide who you are every time you want to enter a town or city.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Not all necromancers are evil.