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

[TwoSix]

You joke, but . . .

There are actually giant space turtles in the Spelljammer setting . . . gammaroids! The name sounds like a medical problem, but they are canon!

Canon giant turtle?

 

[Belen]

Michaelangelo: Monk... Rogue? Bard? hmmm

Fighter/ (Mage Conjurer): He fights and conjures pizza.

 

[Maxperson]

But isn't that a direct denial of what folks have been saying?

Now you don't care if the player is trying to meet you in the middle. They have to give you everything you want, or you don't want them around. That's precisely the opposite of what folks keep saying.

Does anyone wonder why people hear the insistence that meeting in the middle is supposedly a thing, and then hear this, and see the previous insistence as seriously disingenuous?

This habit of yours to keep lumping everyone in one of two camps and to the same degree, is where you continually get yourself into trouble.

Two things have been said, and not all by the same people, and to varying to degrees. First, for long term games with friends, compromise and consideration for others(DMs and players alike) is king. Second, for pick up games at game stores, conventions, etc., the DM's idea is king.

If I'm playing with friends, I work to get them characters they like and will have a blast with, though truthfully I rarely have to lift a finger as they do most or all of it themselves. They in turn don't act like problem players bringing characters types that go against the curations that everyone agreed to prior to character creation.

If I'm going around to stores trying to gather players for say, an Egyptian game and you aren't into that theme, you aren't going to be a player. There are hundreds, if not thousands of other players in the Los Angeles area I can go to and I will find a group to play that theme. And there's nothing wrong with you turning down my theme or me turning down a player who isn't interested in an Egyptian style game.

And remember, both of those have varying degrees to them. They aren't all or nothing. You can have 5 people with long term groups who don't all do the exact same stuff to the exact same degree in a long term game with friends.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not many . . . I think even mine might have a pinch of it.

Ah, I'm afraid you missed the mark, as this is litotes, not hyperbole

 

[Maxperson]

It's what the word means--because this is how people use it. If you don't like that, that's your prerogative, but I don't see where you can claim these definitions are "bad" when they come from the three most widely known professional dictionaries (Random House, Collins, and Merriam-Webster).

You don't get to declare the meaning of a word just because you don't like what the dictionary editors observed and recorded.


Source? Because as far as I can tell this is just a you assertion. I've never heard the term, or anything particularly like it, in discussion of TTRPGs before.

RPGs have redefined words since their inception. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative, but you will just be confusing yourself and others if you don't accept that.

 

[Dire Bare]

First of all the werewolf and vampire examples are not hyperbole because they actually happened. While it was the reason I initially created the curated list it's not the reason I've kept it all these years. As @Remathilis pointed out in today's game we have shifters and dhampyr. But while I used to allow everything and anything and finally realized that I liked running the game more when I could have a relatively small list of races that actually made sense to me. I could now do world building where I had a good sense of what it meant to be a dwarf versus an elf and how they tended to view each other for example.

I'm better as a DM and enjoy the game more because I put in some minor limits. Why should my preferences be ignored?

I don't doubt you've had players with unreasonable requests, like werewolves or vampires with all the upsides and no downsides.

But you come across as if all player requests that are outside your restricted list are unreasonable. A player who wants to play a tortle isn't being unreasonable, although your setting may not accommodate them. A player who wants to play a super-powered werewolf is a different problem.

If in your discussion with the player, you find its the super-powers they want more than the idea of "werewolf", then yes, you should probably tell them "no". But if you suggest using the shifter (were-touched) species from Eberron and they love that . . . then it's the idea of a werewolf more than the mechanics and a different kind of request. Or if you can find a third-party werewolf "species" or class that you feel is balanced . . .

Allowing one player to play a tortle doesn't mean you'll also have to let the next player roll up a super-powered werewolf. Player requests range in how reasonable they are . . . and not all players are mature enough to fully understand their requests might be unbalanced and unreasonable (I work with a lot of middle-schoolers, you'd be amazed at some of the character requests I get).

 

[TwoSix]

Not gonna lie, I really DO want to convince some players to do a TMNT in Eberron campaign some day. 4 Tortle Monks with different specialties to reflect the characters somehow. Maybe via multiclassing.

Leonardo: Monk-Paladin
Raphael: Monk-Barbarian
Donatello: Monk-Artificer
Michaelangelo: Monk... Rogue? Bard? hmmm

We did a Tortles one-shot before, about 2 years ago. Donatello was an Artificer, and Metalhead was a Warforged Fighter. Leo was a Fighter, Mikey was a Ranger, and Raphael was a Psion who was actually Krang in a clone body.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, I bolded a sentence in your statement.

"Players should do X, unless Y" means you are specifically saying that the default is doing X. Meaning, GMs simply deserve to be trusted and obeyed. That's not an inaccurate summary. It's literally the argument you just made, and the same argument you've made many times before. Merely being a GM instantaneously confers trust, respect, obedience, etc. The GM must screw up badly to ever warrant even questioning those things, let alone rescinding them.

Nope! You're twisting the meaning of my words by taking things out of context.

 

[AlViking]

I don't doubt you've had players with unreasonable requests, like werewolves or vampires with all the upsides and no downsides.

But you come across as if all player requests that are outside your restricted list are unreasonable. A player who wants to play a tortle isn't being unreasonable, although your setting may not accommodate them. A player who wants to play a super-powered werewolf is a different problem.

If in your discussion with the player, you find its the super-powers they want more than the idea of "werewolf", then yes, you should probably tell them "no". But if you suggest using the shifter (were-touched) species from Eberron and they love that . . . then it's the idea of a werewolf more than the mechanics and a different kind of request. Or if you can find a third-party werewolf "species" or class that you feel is balanced . . .

Allowing one player to play a tortle doesn't mean you'll also have to let the next player roll up a super-powered werewolf. Player requests range in how reasonable they are . . . and not all players are mature enough to fully understand their requests might be unbalanced and unreasonable (I work with a lot of middle-schoolers, you'd be amazed at some of the character requests I get).

I have a curated list the people know about before we ever have a session 0. It's never been an issue in real life. On the other hand I don't think a DM should just give players whatever they want, a DM's preferences should not be subservient to the wishes of one player. If I say yes to one player then I have no leg to stand on saying no to another.

 

[Belen]

Nope! You're twisting the meaning of my words by taking things out of context.

I thought you just meant that you should respect the DM until the DM shows they are bad. Really, all parties should respect each other until proven otherwise.