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

[Zardnaar]

The general impression I get from DMs who are uninterested in their players is that they have crafted some aspect of their game (story, NPCs, setting) and there primary interest is showing that off to the players rather than having the players as actually be important. If the story is paramount, it's a railroad (the PCs cannot affect the story). If it's the setting, the PCs are museum tourists (the PCs can look but not touch all the marvels the DM is showing). If it's NPCs, the PCs are groupies (there to admire and support the much cooler DM characters).

When I design things for my game, I do so with the idea "how will my players affect this?" A villain they will hate, a place they will change by their actions. A story that includes elements of their personality or history. I want my players engaged and feeling like they are doing something important for the game, not just there to be the sounding board to my own voice.

Its not that. If it ban something for story related reasons its rare and most likely that race is s phantom menace. Assumed extinct, unknown or legendary.

Originally drow, dray on Darksun. Defeats the point if a player can run atound being one.

In Star Wars terms being g a Sith in rule of 2 era. I may allow that but you cant start as one.

 

[Dire Bare]

You could play them in my D&D game.* Heck I had a player be a giant once. Not a half giant, but a full on giant!

*Not all of my games are anything goes, but some are

I just got a couple of short adventures from dndadventureclub.com for my afterschool D&D Club, and they include some bugbear character illustrations that are essentially wookies! I don't know why it seemed so revolutionary to me, but now bugbear PCs are a whole lot more interesting!

Hairy bugbear = wookie!!

 

[Zardnaar]

And we've been told that players are bratty and entitled jerks if we dare ask for anything other than whatever we're offered and the only compromise is submission or rejection.

Might need to point out who saud that. The compromises demanded by several posters all involved getting what they wanted.

I ban flyers. That's a hard one. Aasimar is the compromise.

There's 3 races effected. 2 variant from SCAG Alot of DMs ban flyers.

Main reason to ban something is mechanical. Next reason is limited access to books eg PHB+1 the one might vary.

Tashas Cauldron is on the list of ask first. Xanathars is 98% allowed except Shepard Druid which doesn't work on new rules.


I dont allow silvery barbs. Its a fun suck spell and I don't own Strixhaven.

So 3 races, 1 spell and 1 subclass are hard banned. Sorry no you cant be a Faerie Twilight cleric.

Most player dont know that stuff exists so its no problem irl.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well if we're going back to 3e, there were some with +6 and I think even +8.

I don't doubt this, but I think it's a safe assumption that most (,if not all) of those were monsters played with a Level Adjustment

And we've been told that players are bratty and entitled jerks if we dare ask for anything other than whatever we're offered and the only compromise is submission or rejection.

By WHO. Show us the specific posts and we can almost certainly show you what is misinterpreted.

 

[Dire Bare]

We've been told repeatedly that if we don't allow any possible species, it's a bad thing. No ifs, ands or buts. There is never a good enough reason to do so. We've also been told that if you don't do collaborative world building the players are stuck with a museum where they cannot touch or disturb anything.

And we've been told that players are bratty and entitled jerks if we dare ask for anything other than whatever we're offered and the only compromise is submission or rejection.

Come on folks, neither of these things is true and you know it. You are purposefully misrepresenting others views in the extreme.

If you have restricted player option lists in your fairly standard D&D game . . . it's a red flag for those of us who prefer a more open, collaborative approach favoring player agency over DM world-building. But your style is your style and isn't "wrong" but perhaps "wrong for me". If you and your players are having fun, good on ya!

If you do avoid DMs who restrict player options at their tables, that doesn't make you an "entitled player" just a player who is selective on how they spend their valuable gaming time.

Sheesh. Page after page of folks re-treading the same exaggerations of others positions.

 

[Dire Bare]

By WHO. Show us the specific posts and we can almost certainly show you what is misinterpreted.

Oh good lord, my eyes just rolled right out of my head!

Interesting who you are calling out for exaggeration, when it is flying fast and furious on all sides of this very important "debate".

 

[soviet]

I LOVE it if a GM gives me a curated list of options. It shows that they've put some thought in their campaign and have a vision of their world. Great! Let me play in that world. It will probably be a 100% unique experience and not just some flaccid Realms clone.

Oh yeah. The GM says 'no Tortlemen'. What an auteur they must be.

 

[tetrasodium]

Oh good lord,

Yes? you called?∆

my eyes just rolled right out of my head!

Interesting who you are calling out for exaggeration, when it is flying fast and furious on all sides of this very important "debate".

I noticed that you seem to accuse but decline to provide an example. Do better and use those rolling eyes to give some examples perhaps?

*∆ that's sarcasm if it's not clear.

 

[Bae'zel]

Come on folks, neither of these things is true and you know it. You are purposefully misrepresenting others views in the extreme.

Well one guy literally stated that he found the other's playstyle preference was "bordering on offensive".

It's gotten kind of crazy in here.

edit: I think they changed their post and added in "bordering on" so I updated my paraphrasing.

 

[Swarmkeeper]