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

[Umbran]

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.

 

[Irlo]

So, like a roundabout of some sort?

A roundabout if folks are amiable. A smash-up derby arena if they're not.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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]

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?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

 

[Velderan]

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?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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’