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

[tetrasodium]

A player wants to play a tortle . . . simply because they like the idea of playing a turtle-person, is a very reasonable reason. IMO. It doesn't need to be any more involved that, "That sounds fun!" Good enough!

A DM who doesn't want tortles in their game . . . maybe they do have a good reason! That's what Session Zero is for, to hash out that kind of stuff. But IME, a lot of DMs ban things like tortles arbitrarily and without good reason. IMO, of course.

Now, is that the DM's call? Yes. Is it my call to roll my eyes and walk away? Yes.

Are the two preferences equal? Player wants to play a tortle, DM doesn't like tortles? IMO, no. DMs set the stage for the game . . . but the players should have primary agency over their characters.

If you shoot down my PC concept and your reasoning (IMO) sucks . . . you are putting your "setting consistency" over my player agency to create and control my own character. If you have a good reason and clearly communicate it to me . . . I'll roll with it.

Of course, we also have to consider the other players at the table. If you are the one player who is all about turtle people, and the other players would rather play a grim-and-gritty urban thieves guild adventure . . . but again, that's what Session Zero is for. If there is a disconnect, someone has to compromise or decide to walk away. Either choice is fine.

You are looking too hard to find compromise by insisting that the only people who have consistently talked about working with players when possible to find some workable compromise.

That collapses when faced with the insistence that no compromise is possible because it's not called a tortle with the body structure statblock and culture of tortle. The reasons you quoted from mamba are the capitulation or bust ones that prevent any compromise not a starting point for rejection.

Heck at one point someone even insisted the gm needs to allow it because it's difficult for a player to bring themselves to say they don't want to join a game

 

[mamba]

A player wants to play a tortle . . . simply because they like the idea of playing a turtle-person, is a very reasonable reason. IMO. It doesn't need to be any more involved that, "That sounds fun!" Good enough!

A DM who doesn't want tortles in their game . . . maybe they do have a good reason! That's what Session Zero is for, to hash out that kind of stuff. But IME, a lot of DMs ban things like tortles arbitrarily and without good reason. IMO, of course.

is the DM’s ‘I do not like tortles in my game’ as good a reason as the player’s ‘I would like to play a tortle’?

IMO, no

I guess that is where we disagree

If there is a disconnect, someone has to compromise or decide to walk away. Either choice is fine.

this we agree on

 

[Zardnaar]

Who said add everything? But everything works in Eberron. And, yes, it's always the DM's option on what to allow and what not to.

If you are running an Eberron game, and shoot down my tortle PC . . . as the DM, that's your call. But IMO, you are an overly restrictive DM who doesn't quite get Eberron, and I'm not interested.

The tortle itself in Eberron isnt a problem. More if everyone isnt picking Eberron stuff.

I would just run not Eberron. If players aren't interested in engaging with a settings offerings I dont see the point of running it.
Real life it wouldn't get to that point. I would sort out if people were actually interested in the pitch and point out it's pointless running it if its just FR 2.0 in a funny hat.

You would get to play your tortle. I would just switch to FR assuming other players picked "tortles".

 

[Dire Bare]

is the DM’s ‘I do not like tortles in my game’ as good a reason as the player’s ‘I would like to play a tortle’?

No.

IMO, of course.

If that's the beginning and end of it, "I dislike humanoid turtle people." No.

IMO, players should have primary agency over their characters. Keeping in mind the group.

If the DM is trying to curate and craft a specific campaign or theme and really doesn't feel that turtle people fit into that campaign . . . we should talk about that in the initial pitch or at Session Zero.

If the majority of the players are buying what the DM is selling, but you find the tortle ban arbitrary and dumb . . . don't play a tortle or find a different game.

Based on the responses in this thread from some defending DM fiat, I'm pretty sure I'd walk away from their tables. Their style and preferences do not seem to match with how I want to spend my gaming time.

 

[Maxperson]

"Sorry guys, I would rather play online with a bunch of strangers than play Spelljammer with you." is probably a good way to make sure you don't get pinged when the next game rolls around!

But then again, I would rather not run Spelljammer than run something so odious that a player (a friend of mine) would prefer to bail than play. Because again, I see game as an activity between friends first and an artistic endeavor second. Which is why I won't propose something people aren't interested in and if there is enough opposition, I move on to a different idea rather than forcing ultimatums.

I mean, you could also be a lot more tactful than that and bow out without insulting them, but that's just me I guess.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is the cause of a lot of problems. A lot of DMs are too precious about their creations, and don’t want those irritating players messing it up. Hence all the ways they try to limit player freedom.

Perhaps that's what you would be like if you created a curated setting. And for sure some other DMs are like that, but if you want me to believe that "a lot" of them are like that, you'll have to put up some numbers.

Unless you're twisting statistics of course. 1% of the DMs out there could be stretched to be considered a lot, but relatively speaking, they would still be rare. I don't believe a high percentage of DMs who create settings are like you describe. Do you have hard numbers from a reputable source to back you up?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

is the DM’s ‘I do not like tortles in my game’ as good a reason as the player’s ‘I would like to play a tortle’?

In my opinion, absolutely not. It’s not the DM’s game, it’s everyone’s game. The DM’s personal tastes are no more important than any other player’s. If the group were to take a vote and the majority decided they didn’t like tortles, that would be a good enough reason.

If the DM has advertised the game as a low fantasy game, and everyone had signed up for that, then that would be a good enough reason (along with elves, dwarves and other assorted sub-Tolkien cliches). But there is no need to “ban” anything. If the players are on board with the concept, they will make something that fits the concept.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

if you created a curated setting

I don’t create settings. I think it’s detrimental to the roll of dungeon master, and largely a waste of time making stuff that players aren’t interested in and don’t want to engage with. Did that when I was 12, more than enough.

I’ve seen plenty of DMs get cross when the players don’t treat their cliched fantasyland like the next Middle Earth though.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t create settings. I think it’s detrimental to the roll of dungeon master, and largely a waste of time making stuff that players aren’t interested in and don’t want to engage with. Did that when I was 12, more than enough.

I’ve seen plenty of DMs get cross when the players don’t treat their cliched fantasyland like the next Middle Earth though.

Maybe it's because I live in Los Angeles, but most of those I've played with have enjoyed the setting lore.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Maybe it's because I live in Los Angeles, but most of those I've played with have enjoyed the setting lore.

Maybe you are exceptionally good at making it interesting. I can only speak from my personal experience (and ability).