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

[GMforPowergamers]

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"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Which is why when someone volunteers to host a dinner party, it's considered polite to criticize the menu to their face.

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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]

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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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]

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]

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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"