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

[Thomas Shey]

To me it depends. Are they asking or demanding?

I think there's a place in between those. Its the difference between "expecting" and "insisting" (which I think very much some people--and to make it clear, I don't mean you--in this thread have conflated). "Expecting" is "The thing I want here does not seem like it should cause a problem for the GM and other players from my understanding of both" wheras "insisting" is "My understanding of this is paramount and no pushback is acceptable". Unlike some in this thread, I do think a legitimate response is "This is a structural and look-and-feel thing I'm trying in my campaign and this doesn't work with that" is a legitimate response, but I also think that's worlds away from "I have to hyper-curate every single thing a player wants to introduce, and my default reaction is 'no'". The latter only makes sense if either the GM has no faith in his players' ability to assess what fits and doesn't at all, has what sure looks like an overly rigid view of what can fit (and I don't have any more respect for that than I do of players who have a completely inflexible view of their character), or just has bought into a picture of how all-power-eminates-from-the-GM that was tiresome a half century ago and is even more so now. That's why I've used those people (and to be clear, I don't think that's super common even among pretty trad GMs, but I have hit it) as examples of degenerate examples of the GM curation urge.

 

[Thomas Shey]

[
Your assessment of the gm as "extreme" and "excessively controlling" is indeed mere opinion, but it shifts towards definition two by having all of the social graces of telling the gm obviously unreasonable things like "it's MY story, shut it and do your job" during any character creation disagreement unless you can explain why the rules or something else prevent the gm from saying no or definition one entitle the player to force the creation "a village" even over gm injection

When when you can find an example where I've suggested the latter, come back and talk. Otherwise, take your strawman elsewhere.

 

[AlViking]

I think there's a place in between those. Its the difference between "expecting" and "insisting" (which I think very much some people--and to make it clear, I don't mean you--in this thread have conflated). "Expecting" is "The thing I want here does not seem like it should cause a problem for the GM and other players from my understanding of both" wheras "insisting" is "My understanding of this is paramount and no pushback is acceptable". Unlike some in this thread, I do think a legitimate response is "This is a structural and look-and-feel thing I'm trying in my campaign and this doesn't work with that" is a legitimate response, but I also think that's worlds away from "I have to hyper-curate every single thing a player wants to introduce, and my default reaction is 'no'". The latter only makes sense if either the GM has no faith in his players' ability to assess what fits and doesn't at all, has what sure looks like an overly rigid view of what can fit (and I don't have any more respect for that than I do of players who have a completely inflexible view of their character), or just has bought into a picture of how all-power-eminates-from-the-GM that was tiresome a half century ago and is even more so now. That's why I've used those people (and to be clear, I don't think that's super common even among pretty trad GMs, but I have hit it) as examples of degenerate examples of the GM curation urge.

In my game we can always discuss this kind of stuff and I'm pretty open. But if you want to be a prince of the halfling empire I'll have to explain that there is no halfling empire, or halfling kings for that matter. In my world halflings are generally more democratic in nature, live amongst other peoples or are a small family group of traders by default. That's going to be the nature of my pushback and where I draw limits.

I'm also reminded of this video. Not that it happens often, but there have been times when I had to establish realistic expectations so we don't get another Fargrim the Great.

 

[Scott Christian]

To comment on the original topic of the thread: on one level, I am kind of sympathetic to a few of his viewpoints. I do think some of the stating of monsters is just... weird and unnecessary? Like, yeah, it's weird that the Guard Captain (CR 4) need be Strength 18 when you could just as well make him a lesser strength and just give him a higher proficiency or just... I dunno, put in numbers that look right. I get that they have a formula, but it feels that sometimes they were trying too hard to stay within the formula when the last few editions have been specifically about getting away from justifying stuff with stats. At a certain level, this also feels like a problem with naming: the Bandit Crime Lord is probably closer to a legendary Bandit Lord, someone who is an amazing adventurer in and of themselves, hence why they are a CR11 on their own. It's a problem with the framing more than the stats themselves, in my opinion.

The 3-18 scale has an extremely difficult time capturing what people feel is believable. I'll go to my grave that the best scale they have ever produced was the 3-18 100/100. The reason is this: When it comes to higher levels (which is all that really matters in a game like this), you need to be able to differentiate between the Good, great, incredible, uncanny, mind-boggling, or insanely talented; the typical heavyweight boxer versus an NFL Lineman versus Arnold Schwarzenegger vs Hafthor. They are so much stronger than most weightlifters, but as they say, there are levels to the game. Same is true for charisma and intelligence and constitution and dexterity. So when you have a system of 3-18 (or 20), and all you can give are +1 through +5, there is really no differentiation. It works great for balance, but it is poor at capturing any type of realism.

 

[tetrasodium]

When when you can find an example where I've suggested the latter, come back and talk. Otherwise, take your strawman elsewhere.

That was provided earlier here.

... "excessively controlling" & "An extreme case",

I could include"This is one of those cases where you're being, if anything, overly generous" as well. It very much seems like you recognize that d&d does not definition one entitle players to insist the gm permit them I revise the game world over a gm objection while shunning gm efforts to find some middle ground that allows the prospective player to become a player at their table and be attached to something like previously described in post 1948 that the gm does agree with but the social expectation that wotc & 5e has curated is one where definition two is an entirely reasonable mindset for players to have towards the GM provided they don't explicitly say it. I say that italicized underscored bit having seen more than one in person player try to tell me and other nearby table FLGS d&d5e AL GM's that "the GM's job is to xxx" hoping to force some desired ruling more than once.

Once again... When a player who is entitled by definition one to create a village by rules of the game or an employer/employee relationship the gm is not entitled by either definition to say no to the player world building during character creation or to decline allowing their employer to play at the table they are being paid to run. Except no such rules exist and we obviously have no reason to assume an employer/employee relationship as the default player/gm dynamic

 

[Thomas Shey]

In my game we can always discuss this kind of stuff and I'm pretty open.

Which is why I said I was not including you in this. I may have indicated I'm not in love with some of your approach in the past, but I'm not interested in misrepresenting people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That was provided earlier here.

If you don't understand my contrasting an "extreme example" with normal things I consider somewhat excessive, I don't think its my job to instruct you.

 

[tetrasodium]

If you don't understand my contrasting an "extreme example" with normal things I consider somewhat excessive, I don't think its my job to instruct you.

You never met the burden of proof for the gm refusing to allow "a village" to be either of those judgemental things because you never attempted to do so after being questioned about it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Intent is what matter more than anything else.

Er, well...no. Intent absolutely matters, that's why we care about mens rea ("guilty mind") and actus reus ("guilty act"). If intent mattered more than anything else, then evil or unlawful intent would be more important than someone actually, y'know, committing the crime; you could be arrested simply for wanting to commit a crime, since that's intent.

Intent without action is irrelevant, and action without intent is not culpable (though there are specific crimes with lower standards of intent--e.g. the difference between manslaughter and murder.) Only intent and action, together, count. Hence, it can't be true that intent matters more than anything else. It's co-equal with actually doing the deed.

Also, no one gets off the hook for a neutral illegal act like accidental death. It's just not an evil act. Like theft. Theft is generally not evil. Taking food from a grocery store to eat isn't evil. Not good. Not evil. Still illegal and punishable.

Plenty of people do! Tons of homicides--situations where humans kill other humans, regardless of other details--are never punished, because there isn't enough evidence to secure a conviction. Because the police and AG being so certain that X person committed a crime is not actually good reason to say that X did do it, and a bunch of people have been wrongly convicted because illegally overzealous prosecutors/investigators manufactured evidence to convict someone.

Even beyond that, trials are long, expensive, and not guaranteed to win. A lot of crimes, especially "neutral" ones like what you speak of here (I don't agree with your characterization, but my disagreement would require nuance and thus be too long to address here), get wiped away with plea deals, settlements, or other arrangements without anyone ever going to trial. Hell, a bunch of outright EVIL acts never get punished for the same reason. There's a prominent case frequently discussed in the news right now, where a certain infamous individual got a plea deal in the early 2000s despite not stopping the grotesquely evil deeds, which resulted in this individual being functionally not even slightly punished despite their obvious, provable guilt.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now have I told players they couldn't do something? Yes, but only when it was relevant to a game plot. My first 5E campaign I had a player who wanted to be a drow, but in my homebrew world, "drow" were not a real race: they were basically a myth created over time around non-elves seeing a secret elvish civil war ("Drow" was a bastardization of the archaic elvish word for "Imperial", and the "Drow" were Lawful elves who wanted to basically 'guide' the 'lesser races' secretly towards a more orderly world). All elves knew this, but they didn't share that information with outsiders. Knowing this, he made himself a Half-Elf and we moved on. But it was not something I simply shut down, it was something I had an in-world explanation for that he found satisfying. If he hadn't... maybe we would have worked something out further. It wasn't just a random world-building aspect, but something that was going to come up over time.

And see, this? This is you putting in the work to SHOW someone why there's a direction things are going. It's you working with the player to achieve something, and recognizing that the player's interests are (a) valid, (b) worthy of inclusion, and (c) not a threat to your precious campaign, just a complication that needs to be worked through.

None of the rank hostility I've seen in this thread. None of the "it's MY world, you're just allowed to play in it". None of the "you BUTTHOLE ENTITLED PLAYERS wrecking things for everyone else!!!!!" Just....people bringing their ideas to the table, and expecting to receive and to give respect.