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

Which is more important?

  • Lore

  • PC options


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if Captain Ketchup was not in the instructions, it wouldn't affect the game much in the same way of 3pp.
yeah... it would be like me printing rules for new arkam investigators or buying a 3pp clue add on. either way it doesn't fit the "I was told to make a D&D character I used ONLY the PHB and not only am I being told no but in a rude way and that I AM THE PROBLEM"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

has anyone said that? has anyone said 'every single book, every single class, every single race MUST be allowed'?

cause I missed that...
People were talking about allowing Plasmoid in Dragonlance, so it sure seemed like it.

now I keep saying if you say no to a basic phb combo the player is both free to ask why and if your answer doesn't satisfy them not only can they leave but so too can your other players...
Sure. I'm sure no one has suggested forging players to play against their will. We have just suggested that the GM doesn't needt o run a game they don't want either.

THB I would most likely not show up with a half orc (I don't play many half orcs and I know if we do DL there are not orcs I will most likely want to be a 'dark' elf wizard anyway) but if a new player who has no idea sits down with a half orc and you are rude or not able to communicate a reason WHY he can't just play his halforc... I am going to serieusly reconsider if I want to play with you. The ability to roll with crazy things players do and the ablity to roll with weird things players ask is like in my top 5 DM skills I require to play in a game...
Why are you assuming rudeness and inability to communicate? "There are no orcs in this setting. Would your character concept work as a half-hobgobling or a half-ogre?"

well Gurps is VERY different, but off hand if you hand me a book and I make a character from that book THEN you tell me 'no not that' I am going to be at least a little miffed... if you don't have a reason (one I can get behind) then I will be alot miffed.
I would of course tell what is allowed before. Also, I don't think GURPS is that different. Sure it is a bigger toolkit with wider scope than D&D, but with the massive amount of stuff D&D has, it is perfectly sensible to treat it as a toolkit as well.

the better analogy is being told "Hey we want to play a 90's era Vampire the Masqurade, but Cameriala only... and a player shows up with a tremere and another a venture and another a brujha and the 4th with a toradoar and being told "this world doesn't have tremere in it" and when you ask why the answer is give "Cause mages are too smart and the tremere are dumb"
or worse yet (and this is an example red flag from one fo the story teller books) if they say "sorry eric you are too dumb to play a tremere"

again, if you have a reason, that reason can be given and evaluated by the group as a whole...
Again, no one is suggesting rudeness or poor communication your example contains.
 

What is "a compelling reason" and to whom it needs to be compelling?
Even if you ascribe more weight to the DM (which I don’t), the compelling reason has to be compelling to the other players.

If the reasons for bans or restrictions aren’t compelling to the players, they’ll just do something else. Maybe play a board gsme, maybe another player will DM a one-shot.

There are a couple of things I’ve noticed. It seems that those that push back against “DM’s word is law paradigm”:
  • tend to play with their friend group; and
  • play in a group with multiple DMs.

To me, this makes sense. If one of my friends has an issue with something in my game, I will accommodate them. I do not assume that the player is being petulant or difficult for no reason. It also means that if a DM can’t justify why they are excluding things, someone else will simply take over.

Meanwhile, those arguing in favor of DM authority :
  • tend to be forever DMs;
  • tend to believe the player is a problem player;
  • tend to believe that all the hard work they do as DMs justify the exercise of DM authority.

Naturally, it seems to me that the 1st point and the 3rd point are related. If you make a big deal about how much hard work you do as DM, then you are probably going to have fewer players that try it.
 


People were talking about allowing Plasmoid in Dragonlance, so it sure seemed like it.
um... okay even if someone wants a pasmoid that STILL isn't 'everything'
Sure. I'm sure no one has suggested forging players to play against their will. We have just suggested that the GM doesn't needt o run a game they don't want either.
nobody has suggesting forcing DMs to run things they don't want... every suggestion has been to leave (in some cases run from) the table
Why are you assuming rudeness and inability to communicate?
cause of the insults thrown in the thread... the rudeness that not only is in this thread but got the other ones on this subject shut down.
"There are no orcs in this setting. Would your character concept work as a half-hobgobling or a half-ogre?"
wasn't what started this argument.
I would of course tell what is allowed before.
I am glad you would... that wasn't the example that has started this multi thread argument... it started with a regular weekly game newish player and the DM telling people to bring characters and the player bringing a half orc... none of this "oh we agreed first" cause that was one of the first things I personally was told was me being greedy needing the DM to spell out and get player buy in with information pre character generation...
Also, I don't think GURPS is that different. Sure it is a bigger toolkit with wider scope than D&D, but with the massive amount of stuff D&D has, it is perfectly sensible to treat it as a toolkit as well.
except again... this is like saying "Hey I brought up this book (lets say athus/darksun) I explained what it is and what the restrictions would be BEFORE ANYONE MADE A CHARACTER, we all agreed and then someone went and made a orc" that just isn't the problem nor is it what started this... Nobody in this thread (or the others that I have seen) has said you can't have restrictions, even whole book restrictions... so your gurps anlogy falls apart.
Again, no one is suggesting rudeness or poor communication your example contains.
except in this thread (and the others shut down for rudeness) it is full of rudeness
 

Irlo

Hero
It's still only two ways. Are player preferences worthy of respect? If the player is earnestly enthusiastic about something and would he crestfallen to lose it, is that enough to sometimes make you reconsider? If you have a an adult conversation, is it genuinely at least possible that you could change your mind, or accept some form of genuine compromise, rather than unilateral declarations and absolute dominance?
No, if there are more than two people involved, it's more than a two-way street. Players have sincere, genuine preferences that sometimes conflict.

Yes, player and DM preferences are worthy of respect.
 

Exalted are not even defined within the rules of 5e. Asking to play a dragonborn, giff, or even a plasmoid is clearly not the same thing.
It was Exalted in Vampire. And I believe at certain editions the rules were roughly compatible. Though I could misremember.

And here you show you know it isn't the same, even as you engage in the hyperbole people keep mocking if and only if it comes from people challenging the ironclad inviolable restrictions argument.

No one--I mean this, genuinely zero people in this thread--are making the hyperbolic claim you've stated here. Numerous participants have explicitly rejected it.
Then what we are disagreeing about? Can the GM limit PC options to support worldbuilding, yes or no? I say yes, if you say yes too, we agree.

I genuinely have no idea why you are referencing GURPS. I was criticizing your ludicrously hyperbolic claim that you "have to permit Sidereal Exalted in VtM." The GURPS thing isn't even remotely related, and I find it truly saddening that you see more than the tiniest, most strained and attenuated bit of comparison between that and "I would like to play a dragonborn, please."
Again, why? Why is it is unreasonable to see D&D with its tons of content as toolkit like GURPS. Sure, more limited in scope, but a toolkit nonetheless.

What counts as "badly clashing"? I've embraced owl-folk (long before owlin came to D&D; in-setting they are burrowing owls, which actually are a thing in some desert areas) purely because a player liked owls. I worked with a player to develop his dwarf barbarian's backstory, inventing the steppe herdsmen tribes to the east, with their animal totem iconography and terrifying battle prowess that they mostly use against one another. I permitted a tiefling character, despite wanting to keep devils and demons special, and this has borne excellent fruit.

So...what would be "grossly clashing"? Because I literally cannot think of a race which would be so utterly beyond the pale that I couldn't find a way to make it work, though the player and I would need to discuss specific implementation and possible tweaks. E.g. the plasmoid people keep talking about might be an arcane experiment or an ancient relic of a lost civilization; a minotaur would likely be a native of one of the more obscure islands among the Ten Thousand Isles of the Sapphire Sea, a gith might have crash-landed on their world, etc. I find such "stranger in a strange land" stories fun and exciting, and if the player is willing to deal with the likely consequences, awesome, that's even more tools for me to frame interesting scenes with. (I should note, I find "people will be racist to you" to be utterly deplorable as far as likely consequences are concerned, so I don't do that. "Likely consequences" would be more along the lines of attracting unwanted attention, difficulties with local customs, issues if anatomical mismatch, or being hounded by someone or something.)

OK. But can you conceive that some people might run a setting with more limited palette to support the theme and uniqueness of the world?
 

Irlo

Hero
Which is why when you host a dinner party and a guest brings pie , you prevent the person and the other guests from having any because you don’t like pie.
We're all playing the game together. We're eating the same pie.

My household keep vegetarian. When we host pizza parties, no one asks for pepperoni, and, if they do, the answer is no.
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
Which is why when you host a dinner party and a guest brings pie , you prevent the person and the other guests from having any because you don’t like pie.
If the host asked people to bring dessert, then bringing pie is kind. If the host is providing their own dessert, meant to match the rest of the menu, and this is known in advance, it's being inconsiderate of what they're trying to do. If it's unknown, or if you really want to, asking the host is the polite thing to do.
 

Even if you ascribe more weight to the DM (which I don’t), the compelling reason has to be compelling to the other players.

If the reasons for bans or restrictions aren’t compelling to the players, they’ll just do something else. Maybe play a board gsme, maybe another player will DM a one-shot.
this has been my argument from the begining and even still I was told I should NOT judge (or I would be judged judgmental) if I choose not to play a game where the reasons were not compelling.
There are a couple of things I’ve noticed. It seems that those that push back against “DM’s word is law paradigm”:
  • tend to play with their friend group; and
  • play in a group with multiple DMs.
this fits me 90% of the time.
To me, this makes sense. If one of my friends has an issue with something in my game, I will accommodate them. I do not assume that the player is being petulant or difficult for no reason. It also means that if a DM can’t justify why they are excluding things, someone else will simply take over.
again that is my experience.
Meanwhile, those arguing in favor of DM authority :
  • tend to be forever DMs;
  • tend to believe the player is a problem player;
  • tend to believe that all the hard work they do as DMs justify the exercise of DM authority.
funny thing... Since 1999 I have had at least 1 campagin running every week. I had a break for a few vacations/holidays and 1 1month that we took off of TTRPGs but each had the expectation I would continue running when that ended. Until a little over a month ago (we are game 5 or 6 into jon's game) and right now I am not the forever DM for the first time in forever... My first time playing D&D was as a DM (1995). so I totally fit the 'forever DM' lable
Naturally, it seems to me that the 1st point and the 3rd point are related. If you make a big deal about how much hard work you do as DM, then you are probably going to have fewer players that try it.
that makes sense... and is why I did a whole series of tic toks on "DMing is easier then people say"
 



Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
am...kind of confused as to where you stand here. Things like "95% of players can have fun with other ideas" seems to be a "screw what you hoped to play, play what I allow or GTFO" position. But your later statements seem to indicate a pretty thoroughly critical stance against inviolable restrictions. Is that correct?

My opinion is most players are either exciting about multiple PC concepts or one extreme common one. So 95% of the time there shouldn't be a problem as long as the DM intends to run a D&D style game.

The only issue is when a player or DM are dead set on something abnormal.
 

Even if you ascribe more weight to the DM (which I don’t), the compelling reason has to be compelling to the other players.

If the reasons for bans or restrictions aren’t compelling to the players, they’ll just do something else. Maybe play a board gsme, maybe another player will DM a one-shot.

There are a couple of things I’ve noticed. It seems that those that push back against “DM’s word is law paradigm”:
  • tend to play with their friend group; and
  • play in a group with multiple DMs.

To me, this makes sense. If one of my friends has an issue with something in my game, I will accommodate them. I do not assume that the player is being petulant or difficult for no reason. It also means that if a DM can’t justify why they are excluding things, someone else will simply take over.

Meanwhile, those arguing in favor of DM authority :
  • tend to be forever DMs;
  • tend to believe the player is a problem player;
  • tend to believe that all the hard work they do as DMs justify the exercise of DM authority.

Naturally, it seems to me that the 1st point and the 3rd point are related. If you make a big deal about how much hard work you do as DM, then you are probably going to have fewer players that try it.
I'm not sure this applies to me. I play only with friends, and I wouldn't say I'm "forever GM" though I probably run more games than play in them. I also really cannot recall the sort of conflicts discussed here happening in real life. Usually people are pretty willing to go along with the GM's pitch, or if for some reason they don't find it appealing, then they don't participate in that game.

And generally as player, I want the GM to be invested in their setting, so whatever they want to do make the setting worlk for them is usually cool with me. Limited palettes tend to produce more cohesive and compelling experiences, and as player coming up with character concepts is easy for me. I really don't get the mindset of having just some one idea that you absolutely must play regardless of the setting, nor I have ever encountered such a player in RL.
 
Last edited:


Oofta

Legend
your right context matters... the entire thread and the post he responded to show the context is he is calling anyone that disagrees a douche
Calling out someone that joins a game with the purposeful intent of causing disruption a "douche" [1] is not the same as what has been said about people who restrict options when they DM.

On the one hand we have people who state a preference that the DM make a world they enjoy and make sense to them. While also stating that if you want to have a kitchen sink campaign or a collaboratively designed world, good! Go for it. On the other side we have people saying stuff about DM's that have some restrictions and their campaigns
  • DM's "precious" campaign
  • DM's decisions are made on a whim
  • DM's get their jollies banning stuff
  • If we make the DM think too much, his creativity will tank
  • Poor, poor beleaguered DMs. They only have absolute power
  • The DM should "compromise" with a player by giving the player whatever they want
  • The [DM] who thinks they're above being a player.
  • There has to be a "compelling reason" to make any restriction. The player gets to decide if the reason is compelling or not.
  • [DM's] word is unarguable law, set above those sad plebs
  • [If the PC's can't run whatever they want, it's a] dull and boring campaign
  • if you greedily hog the design of the setting to yourself then you are discouraging [player's] creativity.

Those are just a handful of examples of the things that have been said. As a DM I try to make the game fun for everyone. But I run a persistent campaign world that I've run for decades. I decided long ago that if the world makes sense to me I will be a better DM. A kitchen sink campaign for my setting doesn't make sense to me so have a list of races are allowed. If you want to play something else we can talk and maybe we can work things out, but superficially they will appear to be one of the accepted races.

The fact that you're pointing to one post out of hundreds as being just as bad when all Maxperson did was call out people who are deliberately disruptive is false equivalency.

P.S. Again, I would have not used "douche". Nerf herder, a-hole, ignoramous, jerk, no-goodnick, party pooper, schmuck, dork, addle-pated, dickwad, miscreant maybe. Douche? Nah.
 

Nah, I have a wait list. :)
For real. At the start of our last campaign, one of the guys at my table asked if his 2 friends could join but our current DM doesn't like running more than 6 players since it gets harder for each person to be involved. When I pitched the idea for our next campaign that I want to DM, people again asked if more people could join and I declined. Unless you live somewhere with a small population or are incredibly toxic or bad as a DM there's usually more people looking to find a table taking on more players from my experience.
 

Here's the disconnect. I can't think of a reason that would feel so bad so as to cause push back from me.

I’ve met a guy who banned druids because they didn’t want animals sexualized.

Basically, instead of just removing a bad player, they removed the class the bad player chose. (And then the bad player, but kept the class out.)

I’ve heard of, but never personally encountered, banning dragonborn to keep away the scalies, which is equally silly to me. In both cases, it makes me question the dm’s judgement overall in that they seem to think the race or class is somehow causing players to violate common social boundaries; it’s bad problem-detection.

Most other “bad” reasons are essentially “this makes me think you’re running a style of game I wouldn’t enjoy,” which isn’t something I really push back on beyond seeking clarity - ie if I were looking to join Maxperson’s game with a dragonborn concept, I might discuss someone with a lot less obvious draconic heritage/ someone who looks 95% human but with a couple dragony traits. But even still it’s their game so their call.
becuse it is the counter to "I want to play colnel mustard in chess"

not only is there not a main rule for it... there are NOT any rules for it... and it doesn't make sense.

so again analogies of superman in athus, or wookies in star trek or klingons in star wars are not the same at all... they aren't even close.


edit: Exalted in Vampire is not possible the rules don't fit together you would have to homebrew... you would be closer with werewolf in vampire those are at least close (although still different game systems)
Nobody CAN show up to a star trek game with character made from the (equivalant) PHB of star trek and it be a wookie.
This analogy annoys me because adding Wookies to Star Trek is trivially easy, unless the ruleset is really hard on homebrew races. The lore side of it is just ten words: "Kysshk is also a planet in the Milky Way somewhere."
 


back 2 closed threads ago we were told that if someone said they would DM (in the example they didn't even have a session 0) and you showed up with a half orc for a DL game you were the problem...
A lot of people here are talking about the matter on far more general level and not about some example from an ancient thread that has not been linked and that people are not necessarily even aware of.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top