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

[Crimson Longinus]

@GMforPowergamers I don't know which "example that started this argument" you're referring to.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

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"

If a DM intends to run a setting with curated character options, but isn't up front about that, that is absolutely bad behavior.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

@GMforPowergamers I don't know which "example that started this argument" you're referring to.

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...

 

[Oofta]

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.

 

[Velderan]

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.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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."

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

But...but...pepperoni is right there in the recipe book!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.