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

[soviet]

They do know that physical turtleman is an immovable point because I explicitly state that in the invite.

Catching up on the thread, but can I just check what you mean here?

I agree that if the premise is explicitly 'you are all dwarves' or something, a player saying 'hey can I be a tortleman' is not cool. The GM is absolutely right to say no. If a player has a very good explanation for how such a character might fit with this premise then maybe asking is OK, but they should probably still expect to be shot down.

I agree that if the premise is explicitly 'no tortlemen', like there is a specific list of banned races, or if you're playing in a heavily pre-defined setting like Middle-earth or something where tortlemen do not exist, again maybe there is room for a player with a very good explanation to ask, but they should expect a no.

My understanding of your situation was more along the lines of 'this is a fairly generic D&D world and the main races are elves, dwarves, humans, and tieflings, but with a twist'. In that case, where you haven't explicitly ruled out tortlemen, that's where I think a flat refusal to even consider them is unreasonable.

So you have an explicit list of 'not allowed' races that you give to players and 'tortlemen' are on that list?

 

[tetrasodium]

Are you familiar with the Eberron setting?

The setting has very unique and new themes . . . for the time it was launched . . . but most certainly already had almost everything in D&D baked in from the start. And very explicitly stated that there was a place for everything not already described in the books.

Does Eberron have drow elves? Yes, but are those drow elves identical to the drow from Greyhawk or the Realms? No, they have a very unique, yet familiar, story and culture. The same goes for almost every element in the setting . . . it exists in core D&D, but is expressed differently in Eberron.

Do tortles exist in Eberron? I don't think they were ever described in any of the Eberron books . . . but a DM who says "No" is missing the point of the setting and being overly and unnecessarily restricting, IMO. Adding in tortles or other D&D elements hardly makes Eberron a "generic" or "kitchen-sink" D&D world.

I think we probably agree on quite a bit, but that bold bit feels a bit misleading in its brevity if the reader dies not already grok∆ the reason why.

This thread has had dozens of pages debating over if a gm is even allowed to say no and if it's reasonable to call giving a player the exact thing they wanted in every way after it was refused rather than modifying the thing to fit is compromise or capitulation.
There are a lot of ways to decline a thing while still curating eberron like yes if & yes but to apply an appropriate twist or localization to a thing. Beyond that straight up saying "no because" to a thing is still reasonable curation when the thing is too far outside eberron in conflict with something already present or carrying too much of some other setting or some level of social graces violation.

,∆ the word not the ai.

Edit:no unless& similar is certainly fine too

 

[soviet]

Though uncommon (and I know someone will come along and claim its not possible for this to work without degenerate results, but I suspect that's just expectation rather than any logic), I'd be very cautious to assume that's true at every table everywhere, ever. There is nothing whatsoever I know of that would prevent a group consisting of four players and a GM to use voting to decide final says. I've done it about specific rules decisions in games any number of times, even if I don't do so universally.

I suggest that anyone who has experience of being a manager or leader in the real world knows that it is done with consent. In fact seeking consensus and being willing to negotiate and compromise - not on everything, clearly, but where possible - is a sign of confidence and skill in a manager or leader. 'It's my way or the highway' is an ineffective approach.

 

[Mort]

I simply don't see the point of making Eberron into Generic D&D World.

Kitchen sink does not equal generic!

The whole point of Eberron is that it has all of the "standard" D&Disms (at the time) but with a twist - and then extra added on that.

For example, I love the Eberron take on gnomes - they hoard knowledge and use it as a weapon. Properly executed - they're actually pretty terrifying.

Tortles? They could be humanoids warped by the Day of Mourning. They could be mutated descendants of giants from Xen'drik. The PC Tortle could be an escapee from a House Vadalis experiment to produce super soldiers. Lots and lots of specific Eberron options.

Point being, for me, if you (as DM) want to exclude a race, exclude a race, lots of other options out there. But if it's a setting like Eberron, it's not really because of setting consistency!

 

[mamba]

I mean, if your reasoning and justification doesn't align with my own preferences, that's okay. But to simply say, "No tortles. Why? Because, that's why!" Ah, no thanks.

So far we basically got ‘because I like playing a tortle / TMNT / Master Oogway’ and ‘because I don’t like tortles’ (let’s face it, if you did, they would not be on the banned list) as the main reasons.

Unless one side has a more convincing reason (not sure it exists, but I am open to the possibility) I don’t see either side as having a compelling argument why they should win. Instead it is more about what compromise works so both likes/dislikes are met

 

[SableWyvern]

(let’s face it, if you did, they would not be on the banned list) as the main reasons.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I love skaven, but I wouldn't allow them as an option for PCs in an Old World game unless it was specifically intended to be a skaven game. A game with skaven PCs mixing with more regular characters simply isn't one I'm interested in running. I could work with players to make it happen, but I almost certainly wouldn't, because it would undermine what makes the setting and game interesting to me. I'd have no issues playing in such a game, I just do no want to run it, and I don't run games I don't want to run.

I feel somewhat similarly about Eldar in a Rogue Trader game, and I'd prefer not to have Eldar PCs. However, the presence of Eldar is plausible and wouldn't make me feel the entire concept of the game was being undermined, so I would work with a player who really wanted one.

 

[mamba]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I love skaven, but I wouldn't allow them as an option for PCs in an Old World game unless it was specifically intended to be a skaven game. A game with skaven PCs mixing with more regular characters simply isn't one I'm interested in running.

Don't know enough about the game, are Skaven a playable race or more like the Draconians in DL?

Also, I am not seeing anything here that I would not consider personal preference. I'd lump that into like / do not like.

 

[SableWyvern]

Don't know enough about the game, are Skaven a playable race or more like the Draconians in DL?

Also, I am not seeing anything here that I would not consider personal preference. I'd lump that into like / do not like.

They're not generally offered as a playable race in WFRP, although I'm sure official or semi-official rules for it must have been released at some point.

A fully skaven-focused game could be a hell of a lot of fun.

My underlying point is that if a GM curates something out of a game, that would indicate they don't like that thing as a playable option in the specific context of the game they want to run, but it doesn't necessarily mean they don't like that thing generally, or even as a playable option under different circumstances.

 

[TwoSix]

Don't know enough about the game, are Skaven a playable race or more like the Draconians in DL?

Also, I am not seeing anything here that I would not consider personal preference. I'd lump that into like / do not like. Maybe I do not know enough about the Skavens though and there is a good 'objective' reason

Same. I know very little about Warhammer, but a quick google isn’t showing skaven as a PC option for Warhammer.

I definitely view not facilitating a non-defined race as less problematic that excluding an existing race.

 

[TheSword]

I’m very lucky that my main group basically always says to me “We will enjoy the game most, that you enjoy running the most” and they pretty much always let me pick what to do. I get where they’re coming from. A game I’m enjoying is going to get more time investment from me. I’ll work harder at it and it’s more likely to last longer. The reverse also applies.

I’m a big fan of self censorship. If you want a campaign to be cool, run for a long time and see some interesting stuff I shouldn’t have to ban stuff, just don’t try to undermine the campaign. I remember running Kingmaker and at one point in the second chapter one player decided to kill an important good NPC. Everyone was shocked and when asked he said it was because his character was evil and he didn’t like the NPC. There was nothing explicitly game breaking about this. We carried on for a couple of sessions but I got less and less enthusiastic running a game with a PC like that. I then suggested stopping.

I have tons of ideas for campaigns. More than I could ever play. If one becomes a chore I cut my losses. I’m not bending into a pretzel for a player that wants to push boundaries. That counts as much for a player that created a character with 26 AC or a DC 20 spell saving throw as one that wants play something I don’t want to run for. Life’s to short to play with those folks.

On the Eberron side, kitchen sink setting is not the same as kitchen sink campaign. Restrictions are just as valid in Eberron as anywhere else if that’s what’s appropriate to the campaign.