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.
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.
this is the weird part... no one is 'not going with the GMs pitch'
we said sometimes we would ask 'why' and if the answer wasn't something we and the rest of the table could agree to THEN it MIGHT be an issue... and have been jammed full of 'my way or the highway'

TBH it didn't even start out about a table (although the arugment turned into one quickly) it started with if it mattered if WotC took a stand one way or the other...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Hey Scribe. I didn't know that was option. What mustache product do you get to get your mustache long enough to twirl? Or are you buying glue on stache? If so provide a link. Thanks.
Yes. Shirt, death dice, skully, and now a wicked mustache. I HAVE THE POWER!

Not sure about the proper wax, but there are a whole slew of options for mustaches available at Walmart
ee5336f3-3f6e-4424-b379-73a5d22bd98b_1.b826f1ffe37f2316cdf7e9daa0b32b39.jpg
 

Seriously, do people do this in other games? Demand to play Sidereal Exalted in Vampire the Masquerade, to play GURPS Supers character in GURPS Napoleonics game? This is so bizarre.

When I play chess, I always insist on being Colonel Mustard.
If in order to make your point, you have to assume one of your players is trying to destroy your game, then maybe your point isn’t strong enough to stand on its own.
 

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...
There's obviously some context missing with what you summarized, but taking what you said completely at face value, yes a player just showing up without asking anything prior is the start of a problem. From the PHB:
Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.

That's before it gets to how to make a character, so it's right in the front of the book. Maybe your table has a different way of handling it, which is great for your table. With the group I play with, when a new campaign is pitched the DM explains the theme or setting and usually if they forget to say it, one of the players will ask "what books can we use? is anything off-limits?".
 


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.
nobody is trying to be disruptive... that is HIM putting a bad spin on what we said then lableing us as Douche
On the one hand we have people who state a preference that the DM make a world they enjoy and make sense to them.
nope we have no other hand, no one has argued against this one...

but you did try to one sided argue that the people (mostly DMs I might add) that say 'hey we should work with the table' are the only ones insulting well ignoreing the people on the 'DM has final say' argument being JUST as rude.
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.
no it isn't, and he isn't the only one it is just the eaisiest cause it was in responce to me and then I called him out on it like 3 times
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.
I notice you ALSO just tried to work around the language filter by useing a - in place of letters... cause you KNOW that type of language isn't supposed to be used but you want to anyway to be insulting to people who pretend to be elves in a way you disagree with... but then call the 'other side' rude.

neither side has been grandma friendly for days
 

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.
this is why pre covid I ran store games and helped people learn to DM... so there would ALWAYS be more DMs
 

this is why pre covid I ran store games and helped people learn to DM... so there would ALWAYS be more DMs
It can be intimidating at first, but I think most people feel like in order to DM you have to know the entire rule book. I always tell people new to DMing you don't have to know all the rules, you just have to improv consistently. lol
 

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.)
many years ago we had a group that we kind of joined for a bit that had 'ask art rules' things like no you can't ask for a half elf you have to explain your entire genology, and no you can't write languages down on your sheet... (this was 2e if it matters) by the way art was still playing.
I never want to go back to 'we just made it harder for someone to make characters so this guy will be LESS of a problem
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."
I mean yeah, on a theme level I see no reason that you couldn't homebrew wookie into ST or Klingon into SW it is just people wont show up expecting it.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
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...

Well, lots of stuff gets elided over in these threads. We are eliding over the conversation the DM had with the prospective players in this case, but the exact content of that conversation is key.

If the GM said, "I'm running a Dragonlance game, and that means such races and such classes are available," and you show up with something not on the list, yes, you are the problem.

If the GM didn't include the such and such, then the DM should have included that. But also, if the GM didn't say, the players really should have asked - assuming is not great for either side of this issue. It is possible for both parties to be "the problem".

Best practices for campaign GMing these days includes having entire conversations about each player's character choices, and both sides should be engaged in having them.
 
Last edited:


There's obviously some context missing with what you summarized,
yeah that wasn't even really the start, it was a short summery of multi versions of the argument still burning here.
but taking what you said completely at face value, yes a player just showing up without asking anything prior is the start of a problem.
except the DM TOLD THEM to bring D&D characters... that's it. the restrictions were added AFTER the characters were made... and some even then argued that... waith you do
From the PHB:
that this quote mean no one can make a character without running it by the DM, even when the DM tells you to make a character to come to the table...

becuse AGAIN... and AGAIN... and AGAIN we are NOT saying you can't have restrictions...
 

It can be intimidating at first, but I think most people feel like in order to DM you have to know the entire rule book. I always tell people new to DMing you don't have to know all the rules, you just have to improv consistently. lol
TBH my main advice is to go make mistakes... the worst game you run while trying to be fun will be better then most bad DMs do for years and still have players.
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
Does anyone actually think anyone being this combative, not to mention derogatory, to the opposite side will contribute a single iota of productivity to this thread? The poll is a personal preference question, and not something with any sort of objective answer. Explanations of your personal style are to be expected, sincere questions asking to understand a different perspective than your own are the best result, and yelling at someone for playing differently than you, especially if you pin the decline of the hobby on them is, functionally meaningless, and mostly likely actively worsening the quality of the thread. The only thing it accomplishes is scoring points for your side, made unfortunately clearly visible by the likes on posts, and deepening tensions between people who spend their time here. It is always possible to state why you actively prefer something without making it about why the people who disagree are bad for doing so.

Is any of this really so upsetting that it's worth this tenor?
  • Some people enjoy the history of established settings, for a vast multitude of reasons, and hewing close to source material is valuable to them.
  • Some people want to explore these settings, but are willing to experiment and change them to varying degrees, because they have different priorities.
  • Some people have crafted their own settings, and are willing or excited to let it change to reflect player desire.
  • Some people have crafted their own settings, and think that constraints and restrictions add a unique quality to the experience.
  • DMs have things they like or don't, and that will be reflected in the campaigns they run.
  • Players have things they like or don't, and that will be reflected in the characters they choose and the campaigns they participate in.
  • Some DMs care more about catering to the players' desires than their own, and that is generous.
  • Some players care more about catering to the DM's desires than their own, and that is generous.
  • If you are invited to a campaign, and there is a list of rules, it's not polite to agree to play while intending to fight them.
  • If you're inviting people to a campaign, and a player asks you if a stated rule is flexible enough to bend for them, it's not polite to not even consider what they're saying.
  • No one should intentionally try and hide/surprise other people with inflexibility.
  • DMs shouldn't run campaigns they're not enthusiastic about.
  • Players shouldn't play characters or campaigns they're not enthusiastic about.
  • DMs and players should always attempt to see if there is a satisfying compromise to a conflict, given that this is a cooperative game.
  • If there is irreconcilable conflict, sometimes that means one or more players walk away, and the rest carry on/find a new participant.
  • If there is irreconcilable conflict, sometimes that means the DM finds a new campaign to run that is a better fit for everyone involved.
  • This is only such an issue to cause actual real conflict at a vast minority of tables.
  • Given that this is a fun, social activity that people are choosing to do together, being kind to everyone at the table should be a priority for everyone.
  • Anyone who is explicitly out to cause a bad time for other people at the table is unbelievably rude.
And most importantly
  • At the end of the day, we can reasonably have different perspectives on the poll questions, without anyone being a bad person just for falling on one side or the other.
The hyperbole, the insults, the putting words in peoples' mouths, the refusal to look at posts in good faith and with the benefit of the doubt, is it worth it? What's the point?
 

Well, lots of stuff gets elided over in these threads. We are eliding over the conversation the DM had with the prospective players in this case, but the exact content of that conversation is key.

If the GM said, "I'm running a Dragonlance game, and that means such races and such classes are available," and you show up with something not on the list, yes, you are the problem.

If the GM didn't include the such and such, then the DM should have included that. But also, if the GM didn't say, the players really should have asked - assuming is not great for either side of this issue. It is possible for both parties to be "the problem".

Best practices for GMing these days includes having entire conversations about each player's character choices, and both sides should be engaged in having them.
this is why session 0 (we used to just call it character creation night in 2e) is so important... but it is also why just talking instead of insulting and/or threatening people is so important.
 

yeah that wasn't even really the start, it was a short summery of multi versions of the argument still burning here.

except the DM TOLD THEM to bring D&D characters... that's it. the restrictions were added AFTER the characters were made... and some even then argued that... waith you do

that this quote mean no one can make a character without running it by the DM, even when the DM tells you to make a character to come to the table...

becuse AGAIN... and AGAIN... and AGAIN we are NOT saying you can't have restrictions...
Yep, which is why I said there's obviously some context missing but at face value of what you said. It's not even a conversation imo, if a DM says make a character and provides no guidance, then tells me I can't use the ASI approach that is in TCoE, a subclass that is in XGtE, or I can't use a PHB class/race, I'm gonna be annoyed. If the restrictions are important enough to your concept, they should be important enough to explain them upfront. Part of explaining is some level of why, both to help your players understand their options in case something is sort of a gray area AND to help your players begin to understand the world they're about to enter. Is anyone actually arguing the opposite here?
 

YOU NEED TO USE THE PHB TO PLAY D&D
No you don't. It's no more needed than the DMG or Monster Manual. All the rules needed to play are available via free download.

No one had a 5e PHB when our group started. Now, about half the group have one. It's an optional extra like all the other books.
 

Regardless of whether I know how to the play the game properly or know, you sure know how to address people improperly and I would suggest that you quit making it personal. If you can't, then there is no point dragging this conversation around the thread any further.
Sorry for the offense, but dragging the other players round the board is a pretty standard and well-known tactic in Cluedo. Preferably to a room you have in your hand, so that every time they make a suggestion you show them the same room.
 
Last edited:

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
You cannot possibly expect me to believe you've never heard of "viking hat" DMing.
Funnily enough i have heard of the term ‘viking hat DMing’, here on Enworld a while back was the first time I encountered it, what I have not encountered is anyone giving an explanation of what it actually meant, from it’s content of use I assumed it was something to the effect of ‘DMs with an iron fist on their control of the players options’
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top