D&D General Wildly Diverse "Circus Troupe" Adventuring Parties

[Scribe]

D&D has canonically allowed reptilian (dragons), undead (vampires) fey (nymphs, satyrs, and hags) and all manner of planar (fiends, angels and genies) to produce viable offspring. Biological compatibility in D&D is more a guideline than an actual rule...

Yeah, I default to 'A God made it happen.' Any other path is both madness, and slightly (or majorly) gross.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I default to 'A God made it happen.' Any other path is both madness, and slightly (or majorly) gross.

"A wizard did it" is also a decent explanation.

 

[The Firebird]

For me this falls under "not paying attention". If during some role playing some detail is discovered, I'm not going to 'remind' a player two hours later. In my game you remember it yourself, or even better write it down. I loathe the casual player that just sits back and relaxes and does not even attempt to pay attention to anything. Then when something comes up the player is like "hey DM I've been goofing around on my phone for the last two hours, tell me the name of that king because my character would know."

This view has come under criticism. I wonder how people feel about the same approach to dungeon mapping? E.g., the GM does not provide a map, and if the players don't take notes and get lost, that's on them. That seems more accepted to me, but I'm not sure if there is a core difference between the GM not giving their players a map and not reminding their players of all the in world details.

Maybe just scope? The dungeon is limited, the world is complicated.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It's an Elf game. Real biology need not apply.

But by what degree are mammals still pigmentally challenged compared to reptiles?
do humans start as grubs and spin a cocoon and grow into humans?

we all to a degree, lessen that amount of the mundane but still keep bits of it in for sanity reasons.

D&D has canonically allowed reptilian (dragons), undead (vampires) fey (nymphs, satyrs, and hags) and all manner of planar (fiends, angels and genies) to produce viable offspring with humans. Biological compatibility in D&D is more a guideline than an actual rule...

also true

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is such an interesting one to me. I have had DMs who are clear and concise and brief. Sometimes they get asked a lot of questions afterwards, sometimes not. I have had DMs that are a bit superfluous, yet very detailed. Sometimes they lose players and get asked a lot of questions afterwards, sometimes they keep the players engaged and get no questions.

The scene dictates the amount of description. The DM dictates how it is described.

And the DM creates the scene so... kind of going around in a circle.

In any case, you make a good point. There're no guarantees either way. While I have "no questions" as a goal with my short descriptions, I realize I'm never going to experience zero questions. It's a goal that is always just out of reach but I don't actually find it frustrating - and not getting frustrated by player questions is the really important part - I just use the frequency of questions as an indicator that I will need to up my game with my descriptions next session.

Kinda like those tables that prioritize "balance." They'll never actually achieve it. /ducks

 

[Scribe]

But by what degree are mammals still pigmentally challenged compared to reptiles?
do humans start as grubs and spin a cocoon and grow into humans?

Yeah, this is what I mean. It's nonsense.