D&D 5E When lore and PC options collide…

[GMforPowergamers]

Please show your proof that it didn't just get past 3 people, which things often do in writing. And show your proof that he was the assassin class and not just a rogue that was assassinating people.

since the important part is the race I don't know why you want proof of class... but it's weird.

as for why getting past 3+ people matters is these are supposed to be 3 at least have a passing understanding of the setting, and this mistake (and I am fine that we call it one) changed so little that it didn't make any of them see it as wrong.

so again, it doesn't make any difference.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As usual, a post that begins with “So you…” can safely be ignored.

And ones starting with 'as usual'!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, it's more of the Internet Forum Effect leading to discussions being dominated by positions far more polarized that people usually encounter in the wild.
I'd bet that if a DM pitched a campaign proposal and generated enough interest, 95% or more of the time players would come back with PCs compliant with outlined restrictions.

yup... and the idea of saying that the DM should hear out the player that 5% of the time and work with them has caused so many arguments that multi threads have been shut down.,

 

[Velderan]

And ones starting with 'as usual'!

And ones starting with "and".

Wait, that's mine too...

 

[Vaalingrade]

yup... and the idea of saying that the DM should hear out the player that 5% of the time and work with them has caused so many arguments that multi threads have been shut down.,

I am going to be so glad when DL finally comes out and we can stop having threads trying to justify or extend arguments in other threads about it.

We were having a good time with the run-up to Spelljammer. We were all having a good time.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As usual, a post that begins with “So you…” can safely be ignored.

And ones starting with 'as usual'!

And ones starting with "and".

Wait, that's mine too...

maybe we shouldn't be ignoreing posts... and we for sure should not be making it personal by TALKING about ignoreing people

 

[overgeeked]

If that situation happened, and I showed up with a pre-built half orc, and had to start over?

I think it’s pretty clear deciding on the character you’re going to play before there’s even a game to play is a mistake. It’s the player assuming all options are on the table. That might be the case, but it might not. Then the player gets mad about some options being restricted. It’s the definition of a self-inflicted wound.

The two solutions to this are: 1) referees never restrict player options, which is a non-starter for a lot of games, referees, and settings, or; 2) players never decide on a character before there’s a game to play them in.

Note that second one is not “do not make characters” nor is it “do not fiddle with character creation” nor is it “do not daydream about characters.” It is do not decide on a character before there’s a game to play them in.” Just like you wouldn’t bring a social-focused fast-talker to a dungeon crawl or a noble with lots of city connections to a hex crawl, don’t decide on a character before you know what game they’ll be in.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am going to be so glad when DL finally comes out and we can stop having threads trying to justify or extend arguments in other threads about it.

We were having a good time with the run-up to Spelljammer. We were all having a good time.

then sad part is all my posts about Soth, and Death Dragons, and Flying fortresses have gotten little to no traction... me pointing out it didn't look like the wizard robes would be color coded to alignment got a little (but more at nit picking the exact wording then actualy talking about it) and this is ALL people want to engage on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

yup... and the idea of saying that the DM should hear out the player that 5% of the time and work with them has caused so many arguments that multi threads have been shut down.,

Sure, they should hear them out. But sometimes the answer will still be "no." Though when possible the GM should at least aim for "no, but..." i.e. provide the closest setting appropriate alternative for the concept.

 

[Velderan]

yup... and the idea of saying that the DM should hear out the player that 5% of the time and work with them has caused so many arguments that multi threads have been shut down.,

I think most of these threads have many of us at least finding the common ground that there's usually something in the middle to make both people happy. As you mentioned somewhere else, you gave restrictions but didn't get too worked up about them and just said have fun and people generally worked within your stated limits, while the other DM you knew was more adversarial about it and people looked for ways to test the limits out of spite. I've ran stuff with restrictions but stressed I'll work with anyone asking for something different to try to make it work anyhow and if I can't, I'll at least explain what the problem ends up being to see if the player can see something I don't. I sincerely hope most tables are friends trying to make sure everyone at the table enjoys the game being played.