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

[Retros_x]

If the Guard Captain having 18 strength annoys you then that shows that you care more about how the captain looks then how it functions

I see similar notions in a lot of online discussions and I always wonder ... who cares except the DM? Its not like a player sees the statblock and will complain "but he is only a guard captain". Yes, it is a kind of powercreep, but this is not a balanced competitive multiplayer video game, so... who does care what an 18 STR means in the narrative of the game? The players certainly don't, so why is this bad for the game or an indicator of a bad game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I see similar notions in a lot of online discussions and I always wonder ... who cares except the DM? Its not like a player sees the statblock and will complain "but he is only a guard captain". Yes, it is a kind of powercreep, but this is not a balanced competitive multiplayer video game, so... who does care what an 18 STR means in the narrative of the game? The players certainly don't, so why is this bad for the game or an indicator of a bad game.

I can understand the desire to have everything in the world follow the same rules, but as you say, it doesn’t work. And doesn’t work in fantasy/adventure fiction either. James Bond and SPECTRE goon 2 do not run according to the same rules.

 

[Distracted DM]

If the Guard Captain having 18 strength annoys you then that shows that you care more about how the captain looks then how it functions. The 18th strength along with the +2 proficiency bonus is there in order to get the +6 attack. If you reduce the 18 down to 12, you have to either create another three points of bonus that is unexplained or figure out a way to explain three more points of bonus.

I can understand the desire to have everything in the world follow the same rules, but as you say, it doesn’t work. And doesn’t work in fantasy/adventure fiction either. James Bond and SPECTRE goon 2 do not run according to the same rules.

Using flat-out different rules for NPCs is likely the best option- I just started giving them a higher bonus to attack than their CR would grant. CR being the determiner of their PB, or them even using PB, is part of the problem (in my experience).

I do understand wanting everything to work by the same rules... And 3e sort of did that. And I would never want to DM it again

To the other question of "who cares except the DM?", I have had a couple (not many) players be a little annoyed that NPCs would use flat-out different rules than the players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My issue is you seem take a comment or viewpoint in a forum post and try to extrapolate everything about the DM. One comment on a D&D forum does not a DM make. Heck, must of my discussion on these forums has little to do with how I actually DM. This is a discussion not a table of players.

I assume that if someone vociferously defends a position, it's because they practice it.

Generally speaking, folks mention when they play devil's advocate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can understand the desire to have everything in the world follow the same rules, but as you say, it doesn’t work. And doesn’t work in fantasy/adventure fiction either. James Bond and SPECTRE goon 2 do not run according to the same rules.

Unfortunately, spot on. I wish it weren't true. I really do. It pleases my physics- and math-loving heart to no end to have perfect symmetries and clean, exception-free formulae.

But the purpose and function of any random monster, as a part of the gameplay experience, is fundamentally different from the purpose and function of a player character, at least in a class- and level-based design, especially if that design aims to keep numbers low and constrained. In a pure point-buy system like Storyteller or Savage Worlds, you can in fact build every entity using the same rules, because you have extremely fine-grained control over them, and most abilities are fairly well-weighted so that giving a powerful feature costs the right amount. One level of Wizard is not equal to one level of Fighter in general, though--and the value of one level of Wizard varies to begin with. By untying threats (monsters, opponents, general dangers, even potential allies) from the designed level progression of characters, you regain that ability to precisely tailor the threat's nature for whatever purpose you seek.

It is rarely true that result or mechanic X is simply impossible in general. It is sometimes--IMO often--true that mechanic X is impossible to square with all three of requirements A, B, and C. D&D faces precisely this problem, because its overall structural elements that have become more-or-less permanently entrenched (20 character levels, a relatively short list of fairly distinct classes, six ability scores with uneven power distribution between them, two non-intersecting mechanics for determining success, a laundry list of functionally required mechanical bits and bobs e.g. "iconic" spells, etc.) are rather strong game-design commitments with tons of side effects and knock-on consequences. As a result, certain design goals may be out of reach without giving up something that people believe is absolutely required for the game to continue being "D&D".

 

[Zardnaar]

So probably try a bit of honesty, and lead with that, rather than trying to excuse your prejudice with settings based justifications. Then the people who like tortles can go join a different game.

Except they dont have to justify anything why they exclude something.

DMs prerogative what to allow. Players prerogative to play or not. Dont like what that DMs offering find a new one or run your own game ultimately.

You're and idiot if you dont listen to your players but a new player pretty much has to take what's on offer if its an existing game.

If the DM actively asks you about things that's also different. For example I ran a phb only Dragon of Stormwrack Isle. PHB to keep it simple 5 new players. Once they completed that I asked if they wanted a campaign or other starter set a d let them keep, rebuild, redo or create new characters.

No tortles that game. The campaign after.

Hmmmn may have been 1 come to think of it. Veteran player though phb only may have been a recommendation. Its been a while.

KISS for newbies though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What you say above is impossible,

It is what I have been told by an actual user on this forum. I don't want to name names, particularly when the poster in question clearly has chosen not to participate here. But I assure you it is a specific person. I can DM you the name if you care enough to know it, but I would request that you not invoke it here, again just to respect their space.

I'm pretty sure you've been in the thread when this person has specified just how much they know about their world. They know every continent, every city on those continents, and most (if not all) factions. They know so much information, it's simply impossible for there to be a location in the world they haven't already described in their notes, or so they claim.

Whether or not a race can fit in entirely, as a unique individual, or is a disruption, has nothing to do with the level of detail of the campaign. It has to do with the theme/premise of the campaign setting.

Except the level of detail is the reason why the "theme/premise" can't fit it.

Because there literally isn't a campaign theme or premise which is so utterly incompatible with turtle-people that it cannot possibly be done. I'm quite happy to be proven wrong if you can give me, say, two themes/premises that are not literally "Just No Turtles", where it would genuinely be utterly incompatible. "Sword and sorcery" ain't gonna cut it, sorry--because "sword and sorcery" is gonna include a bunch of other Weird Stuff, so the forbidding is still completely on the GM, not because "Sword and Sorcery" actually has any problem with turtle-people or whatever. (As if it were any less problematic to have elves or dwarves!) Dark Sun is "sword and sorcery" and it accommodates all sorts of things just fine. E.g. the dray, which allowed seamless integration of dragonborn into a classic setting!

And this is equally false. Nobodies fun takes the back seat. You the player have no right to expect it to happen that way. Your fun isn't more important.

But that's precisely what's being said. Player fun inherently, necessarily, takes a back seat to GM fun. If the GM's worldbuilding fun is impinged upon, to even the slightest degree, it is an unacceptable destruction--so the player's fun must be impinged upon to protect every single part of the GM's worldbuilding fun. If sacrifices must occur, only the player(s) must make those sacrifices.

That's not what I would call leadership. In fact, I would call it behavior blatantly unbecoming of anyone GMing or wanting to GM.

Again, I don't expect leaders to simply suffer all the time etc., they deserve to be happy too. But if someone has to make a sacrifice for the good of the group? I expect the GM to take the lead on doing that. I encourage the players--including myself!--to take one for the team now and then too, as that's one way of showing respect for their GM's leadership.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except they dont have to justify anything why they exclude something.

DMs prerogative what to allow. Players prerogative to play or not. Dont likecwhat that DMs offering find a new one or run your own game ultimately.

It is not a matter of whether someone can have preferences or not.

It is a matter of whether someone is inventing BS excuses in order to reify their preferences. Whether someone is pretending that the actual problem is some external, objective thing--like "I cannot do that, it would violate setting consistency"--rather than being honest and admitting that it's simply because they dislike X thing and thus don't want to see it.

If the plain and simple answer is, "I think tortles just look goddamn stupid," then I don't really have a lot of sympathy for that perspective because it seems rather judgmental, but I can at least respect being honest enough to admit it. Prettying it up with distractions like "well but see it would violate the consistency of my setting to allow that, so I'm sorry, my hands are tied!" appears disingenuous--especially when someone goes out of their way to prioritize that thing allegedly binding your hands....and then you still say it's not okay. Because that makes the original invocation of "setting consistency" (or whatever other external, semi-/pseudo-objective characteristic) look manipulative and deceptive.

"I think the things you like are stupid and thus don't want you in my game" is blunt to the point of hostility, but at least it is honest.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you don't like my limits don't join my game. Sometimes there is no compromise.

What are you limits atm?

Mine are no flyers, silvery barbs, twilight clerics.

5.5 PHB, Xanathars (ask for classes though) and Mordenkainens multiverse are generally fine. Artificers fine.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I mean, there was a half orc in at least one officially published Dragonlance work, and aren't that random third group of aquatic elves basically flat out called dark elves at points? You've certainly got options therein

The "half-orc" is an error in a book produced during an era of badly edited and rushed works. In the world as a whole "goblin blood" is used as a descriptor for similar characters. "Dark elf" in Dragonlance refers to an outcast elf and is not a reference to anything physical or biological. Notably Alhana Starbreeeze herself becomes a "dark elf" when she and her husband are toppled in a coup.