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

[TwoSix]

Well, I wasn't thinking of D&D5e because I know next to nothing about it, and most of the games I do GM do not have that sort of quasi-lockstep (and may have non-combat relevant other numbers that have a relationship to each other).

I mean, I don't know what games you're speaking about specifically, of course. But I'm generally able to make up NPC stats quickly once I'm familiar with the system in question.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

You've said that multiple times through the discussion to wall off any justification for the to even be capable of curating the game/campaign setting when a player wants to add something in conflict with it. If that shade throwing you keep tossing out applied to any relevant degree it cuts both ways. Because of the d&d community's history it might even cut deeper when applied to the player side of the GM screen.



Take this for example What a lot of people don't get is that a lot of lame or poorly thought out characters are less about "deep roleplaying" than they are simply drawing upon the shield of roleplay vrs rollplay established decades ago under the Hickman revolution to bludgeon any criticism into silent acceptance of totally unrelated elements that become unquestionable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

It’s not murder to kill a lynch mob in self defence.

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.

In my experience it’s quite common for PCs to be fugitives from the authorities. And wearing a hood isn’t particularly painful.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, I don't know what games you're speaking about specifically, of course. But I'm generally able to make up NPC stats quickly once I'm familiar with the system in question.

I can do that with one or two numbers, but with others the combination of making them up and keeping them consistent from one session to another is not something I'd be wanting to do on-the-fly/by-memory.

 

[TwoSix]

I can do that with one or two numbers, but with others the combination of making them up and keeping them consistent from one session to another is not something I'd be wanting to do on-the-fly/by-memory.

Oh yea. For recording characteristics of something already introduced into the game, then I would definitely want to record it for consistency.

My original statement way back before was purely in the context of "not stopping the session because I don't have a NPC statted up".

 

[Maxperson]

Honestly, a player who doesn't give any pushback at all about weird restrictions is a player I don't want. I want players who take an active interest in shaping the shared narrative (and by extension, the setting that is the frame of the narrative.)

I want drivers, not passengers.

I missed this the first time around and I THINK I agree with you, but I think restrictions is the wrong word. I don't want pushback on restrictions, but rather I want the players to push on the boundaries. Sort of a version of "Yes, and..."

I want players who are proactive and when I tell them about the Ice Barbarians in the north warring amongst themselves, I want the party barbarian to be like, "Yes, and I'm going to head north with my friends to unite them under my leadership." I don't want someone people who are going to try and negate established things outside of acting within the fiction to enact change.

 

[Maxperson]

And they say compromise is dead!

 

[Maxperson]

My great-uncle was a tortle who died in WWII, and I wish to honor his memory.

You already had someone offer to let you be a human with a turtle hat.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I want to be a tortle rogue so I can spy on people and be called a tortle tale.

 

[Minigiant]

You've said that multiple times through the discussion to wall off any justification for the to even be capable of curating the game/campaign setting when a player wants to add something in conflict with it. If that shade throwing you keep tossing out applied to any relevant degree it cuts both ways. Because of the d&d community's history it might even cut deeper when applied to the player side of the GM screen

No. I've said there are valid justification for a DM to curate their setting or campaign.

My point is that their campaign or setting might be lame.

They have a right to a lame setting though.

Take this for example What a lot of people don't get is that a lot of lame or poorly thought out characters are less about "deep roleplaying" than they are simply drawing upon the shield of roleplay vrs rollplay established decades ago under the Hickman revolution to bludgeon any criticism into silent acceptance of totally unrelated elements that become unquestionable

Many characters are lame.
Most are.

Point is they often aren't restricting or killing the fun of others nor rewiting the core base assumptions of the game.