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

[AlViking]

Interesting. I would have expected that a setting with such a sharp and defined vision would have had a at least a few "this can't work in my game" subclasses based on flavor/lore. That means I could play a wild magic barbarian, a clockwork sorcerer, a soulknife rogue or a samurai fighter with no issue?

I have to own the source material and there are a few things I may ban. I can't think of anything I've ever banned for classes or subclasses off the top of my head. I have some Eberron material and dragnomarks aren't a thing in my world is the closest I can think of.

 

[Remathilis]

I have to own the source material and there are a few things I may ban. I can't think of anything I've ever banned for classes or subclasses off the top of my head. I have some Eberron material and dragnomarks aren't a thing in my world is the closest I can think of.

Everything I mentioned was either in Tasha or Xanathar's, assuming you have the two "of Everything" books there wouldn't be an issue.

You'd be cool with any of the four I mentioned?

 

[AlViking]

No, but DMs are also just people and sometimes they have a vision that they want to follow for a game. And they also can be so in love with how the idea on how they want to run the next game the same way a player can be in love with the idea of running a turtle as a character the next game.

And neither position is an invalid position.

I wanted my next game to be a spelljammer game. I had an Idea for how it was going to start (PCs without memories waking up in an abandoned asteroid base, no Warlocks or Clerics at level 1 - later they can multiclass if they find a god or patron). I proposed that to my usual players and they went with it.

But we also had a session -1, where we discussed things and where I proposed other possible campaign Ideas (like your ship sank, stranded on an island, hard core survival mode) and where I listend to the players and tried to figure out what they like. But I really wanted that beginning for the spelljammer campaign. And that is a valid enough reason to do that (there was also no Pushback from my players, because they trust me to run a fun game and that I do things for a reason).

Even though I have my own homebrew world I still adjust my campaign based on what the players want. It's a big world with a lot of variety so it just depends on whether or not people have much of a preference. I also pay attention to what people ask the most about and what they get excited about and give them more opportunities to follow through on that. But to me that's GMing 101.

My games are far more flexible than most campaigns I've played in because I don't use published modules.

 

[AlViking]

Everything I mentioned was either in Tasha or Xanathar's, assuming you have the two "of Everything" books there wouldn't be an issue.

You'd be cool with any of the four I mentioned?

Nobody's ever asked and I'm not familiar with them but I don't remember ever banning a subclass. The only restriction is warlock patrons but that's because of lore. Something like an anti-paladin wouldn't work because of the no evil policy.

 

[TwoSix]

Look, if only D&D is holding your friendgroup together, then there is something wrong.
I also do other stuff with friends, even if we don't play the same D&D game right now.

You seem to have a very specific table relationship and based on that social construct you now want to force all other DMs here to act as if they same specific table relationship applies.

Is it that abnormal to have a friend group primarily organized around game night, but the actual game you're playing isn't that important?

If my friend Bob really hates Spelljammer, we'll table the Spelljammer pitch and do something else.

 

[M_Natas]

No, but when everyone has work and family obligations it's often the easiest way to get everyone in one place.

Yes, it's called "equality." As in I don't feel the need to put my own needs above those of my players. I am the facilitator and host, not their boss. They sacrifice a little of their autonomy to heed my calls, and I in turn make sure their needs are covered. I don't treat them as commodity and I don't expect I can easily replace them with the next Joe who comes down the road.

Radical, I know.

Look, if you only can get your friends together with a D&D game, I don't judge you for it.
But your social construct is not the majority of d&d groups and friend groups.
I'm still seeing my friends, even if we don't play a D&D game together right now.

Your specific situation where D&D is the only thing holding the friendship and -group together is a you-situation and it is silly to even think, that everybody needs to do it your way, even if they are in totally different situations.
You can't fix problematic/difficult social dynamics by forcing your playstyle onto other DMs.

 

[M_Natas]

Is it that abnormal to have a friend group primarily organized around game night, but the actual game you're playing isn't that important?

My friend group is not ... "Organised" that way, no. We do different stuff and not always everybody can and want to come to all activities.

If my friend Bob really hates Spelljammer, we'll table the Spelljammer pitch and do something else.

And like I said, we discussed different campaign Ideas at session -1.

 

[Remathilis]

Look, if you only can get your friends together with a D&D game, I don't judge you for it.
But your social construct is not the majority of d&d groups and friend groups.
I'm still seeing my friends, even if we don't play a D&D game together right now.

Your specific situation where D&D is the only thing holding the friendship and -group together is a you-situation and it is silly to even think, that everybody needs to do it your way, even if they are in totally different situations.
You can't fix problematic/difficult social dynamics by forcing your playstyle onto other DMs.

Wow. Apparently I don't friend correct for Enworld! Proof @EzekielRaiden was right. If you were here to lecture about unsafe social dynamics, you failed miserably.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That person was wrong.

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

And now you are wrong. Theme/premise isn't based on the level of detail. Dark Sun has a tight theme/premise, but with far less detail than the Forgotten Realms, which has a very broad and vague theme/premise. You can dump entire new races all over the Realms without it registering a blip, but even a single member of some races will disrupt Dark Sun.

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!

It's not whether it CAN be done, but rather if it's going to be a disruption if it IS done. I can take Dragonlance and get rid of Draconians, replacing them with Dragon Tortles if I want. It would be a huge disruption to what Dragonlance is, though.

"Can't possibly be done" is a standard that fails on its face. Some settings like the Realms can accept pretty much any race without issue. Others like Dark Sun can't.

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.

No that's not "being said." Maybe one or two people have said that, I don't know because I missed half the thread. The rest of us are saying we will try and compromise, but if that compromise isn't acceptable, then the answer will have to be no, because full tortle, regardless of how it got there, is a disruption to the setting.

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

And it's unbecoming for any player to want to play a race that isn't on the curated list. That's the player saying "Screw you. Your setting and game don't matter to me. I'm going to disrupt your game if I want to." to the DM and all of the other players who didn't do that. That sort of attitude is a huge red flag that the player is going to be a disruption in a lot of other areas of the game, because of his or her self-centered nature.

The only time there should be a situation where a player comes to the table with a race or class that has been curated out is if somehow the player wasn't aware of the restriction before session 1. Prior to that, it should be no more than a possibility if the player finds out at session 0, or shouldn't happen at all if the player found out during the pitch.

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.

No. Nobody has to take the lead and it's wrong to expect the DM to do so. Nor is allowing a disruptive race into the setting good for the group. It's only good for the selfish player expecting it to be done. It's a disruption to literally everyone else who accepted the setting theme/premise like folks entering a social game do.

The DM should try to compromise where possible IF the player legitately didn't know about the curation before session 1. It's iffy at session 0, but could happen. After session 0, the player is being a disruptive jerk if he insists/expects to get his way and be allowed to play a curated race. It's not at all hard to make a fun and exciting member of the race the player agreed to play when he joined the game.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I think those are both bad assumptions.