Tasha's Backlash

[carrdrivesyou]

So, now that I have had time to read most of the options in Tasha's, my player base fully expects me to open up the entire book to them as usable options. I do not particularly care for a lot of the book's contents (just my opinion), and decided to limit it rather severely, especially since the campaign is halfway finished (by estimate). This caused a but of trouble at my table, and may end up causing one of my players to just quit a game. I find this rather odd, because back in 3.5/PF days, I never really had any backlash or gripe for not allowing certain books except from the occasional power gamer.

Has anyone else had this issue? Is this something that is 5e specific? Am I really a bad DM because I don't like a lot of the content in a new source book? Would love to compare notes here...

[TheMango55]

I mean if a guy wants to play something from the new book, and his current DM won’t let him, I can’t blame him for quitting if he can get into a new game with someone who lets him play how he wants.

[Mr Adventurer]

Assuming they've all got characters they were happy with before... doesn't the book go so far as to specify it's all optional? In the case of the additional class features for existing classes (not the new class or new subclasses) it even specifies you need to discuss them with your DM.

[Amnestic]

I do not particularly care for a lot of the book's contents (just my opinion),

It's not bad to have an opinion, but you should be prepared to explain why you have it. Themes? Power level? Something else?

As a DM, yes, you do have final say on what's included in the game and what's not, but it's reasonable for players to want an explanation behind excluding/"severely limiting" an official book.


Am I really a bad DM because I don't like a lot of the content in a new source book?


You're not a bad DM for not liking certain content. How you approach the exclusion could be bad DMing depending on how you did it/will do it, and that's the same for any book or piece of content.

With regards to the 3.PF comparisons, it may be due to the wealth (some might say 'bloat', depending on your viewpoint) of options compared to 5e, which has comparatively few. Some of the Tasha's options have mechanical options not well-explored by other subclasses (eg. druids getting an alternate use of Wild Shape).

[OldTrees1]

Depends on which parts were involved:

1) The extra freedom in character creation is political for some and apolitical for others.
2) Tasha's had some buffs for classes. If you selectively allowed buffs then that could be seen as class favoritism.
2b) Tasha's is not 5.5E but some might think of it as such, so they might want to play 5.5E instead of 5E.
3) Everything else in the book that I know of is the same kind of content as in any 5E or 3E splatbook. So I would expect the normal background level of discussion.

If I had to bet, I suspect it was #1 and I suspect it was the species ability scores. To some players the D&D races, possibly due to being so similar to humans, can be seen as ethnicities. And there is problematic history when viewed through that lens. The persistence of racial ability modifiers is also problematic when viewed through that lens.

[Guy Lombard-O]

When I first read a number of the new optional rules (heck, even before that - when I first heard about a number of them on this forum) my initial reaction was not positive. I've had more time to digest them now, and I like them better than before. But I'm still not wild about a few of them, and wouldn't allow them in a game I was DMing...even if I started that game up now, post-Tasha's release.

The fact that you're already mid-campaign when this book was dropped means (at least to me) that this campaign was based upon the rules and understandings which everyone had when it started up. So no, I think you're well within your rights to exclude whatever Tasha's rules you want from this particular game. Going forward, I'd say it's one of those session zero things which ought to be discussed up front.

The only note I'd make is that using this logic is more persuasive if you simply exclude the entirety of Tasha's from the campaign, rather than allowing this bit but not that part. The only possible exception I'd make is the new spells, but even just that weakens the basic reasoning behind the exclusions.

You could also just explain that you really haven't had the time to analyze the new rules in the book and how they might effect your game, and that you're therefore excluding them for the time being.

[stoutstien]

5E is opt in by design. The players probably shouldn't assume that any material is automatically added to the game just because it was published. OTOH the new content hasn't seen enough actual play time to accurately determine that anything should be altered.

[ZRN]

Depends on which parts were involved:

1) The extra freedom in character creation is political for some and apolitical for others.
2) Tasha's had some buffs for classes. If you selectively allowed buffs then that could be seen as class favoritism.
2b) Tasha's is not 5.5E but some might think of it as such, so they might want to play 5.5E instead of 5E.
3) Everything else in the book that I know of is the same kind of content as in any 5E or 3E splatbook. So I would expect the normal background level of discussion.

If I had to bet, I suspect it was #1 and I suspect it was the species ability scores. To some players the D&D races, possibly due to being so similar to humans, can be seen as ethnicities. And there is problematic history when viewed through that lens. The persistence of racial ability modifiers is also problematic when viewed through that lens.

He said the campaign is already in progress, so why would that come up? People aren't building new PCs presumably. The only thing that would seem like a possible issue mid-campaign (barring PC death) is some of the optional class abilities, and I could see being annoyed if, say, I was playing a ranger and was told I don't get to use the new optional abilities (which are arguably WOTC admitting the ranger is underpowered without them).

[CheddarChampion]

Sounds like the disagreement is based on people's expectations:
Your players expect to be allowed to play anything from and use "Optional" rules from the "Core" material.
You expect to get to decide what is allowed in the game you run and what isn't allowed in the game you run. Shiny new book be damned.

Maybe I'm being captain obvious, though.
For what it's worth, which is nothing, I agree with your expectations. To the players, Adventurer's League is over there ->

[Warder]

So, now that I have had time to read most of the options in Tasha's, my player base fully expects me to open up the entire book to them as usable options. I do not particularly care for a lot of the book's contents (just my opinion), and decided to limit it rather severely, especially since the campaign is halfway finished (by estimate). This caused a but of trouble at my table, and may end up causing one of my players to just quit a game. I find this rather odd, because back in 3.5/PF days, I never really had any backlash or gripe for not allowing certain books except from the occasional power gamer.

Has anyone else had this issue? Is this something that is 5e specific? Am I really a bad DM because I don't like a lot of the content in a new source book? Would love to compare notes here...

It's not just you. 5e is definitely the "anything goes edition", spurred on by WotC themselves, and more restrictive settings or campaigns tend to be viewed in a negative light these days, in my experience. Don't get me wrong, I think player empowerment is great too, but as I said in another thread here i much prefer tighter character creation than kitchen sink variants, which is why many of the options in Tasha are quite unappealing to me, sadly.

[MoiMagnus]

1) Chances are that they were already mildly discontent with 5e as a system, but didn't have any constructive suggestion of "how to fix 5e so that they enjoy it more". They see in Tasha some solutions to their problems with 5e. A talk on why exactly they think Tasha options will improve the game would help you to understand them better.
[E.g I don't know if you plan to include the new summon spells, but personally I just didn't like the PHB summon spells, and would never consider using them. Even as a DM, I've never used them. I'm not sure how to describe why I don't like them, but I don't like them. The Tasha's spells however, they're as I would have wanted to have summon spells from the beginning.]
=> This is a source of resentment. Before solutions are available, peoples put up with their frustrations and accept that "it's the best we can reasonably do", but when a new solution is rejected, it can be a breaking point.

2) Another possibility is Hype. New 5e content is scarce, and in some way, WotC build hype for this content (at least for some categories of players following news). They are excited to test those new options and test them like fan of a franchise being exited of a new entry to their franchise. And even if some of them might a posteriori hate those new options, they still want to try them.
=> It would be quite immature to quit just for that, but this could be enough to start some heated discussions & bad ambiance, pushing peoples to quit.

[DwarfFighter]

This caused a but of trouble at my table, and may end up causing one of my players to just quit a game.
...
Has anyone else had this issue? Is this something that is 5e specific? Am I really a bad DM because I don't like a lot of the content in a new source book? Would love to compare notes here...

I have never had a player quit just because I didn't allow additional material. Call his bluff on this.

I think the official Wizard's logo makes this stuff more of a "core" supplement than the million 3.x splat books ever were. To the players I am sure this sounds a lot like not allowing a new multiplayer DLC in your lobby. Their expectation would be that this is just as acceptable, indeed required, as Xanathar's or Volo's stuff.

[carrdrivesyou]

Well, in this particular game, 2 of 4 players were raging because I didn't want to use the book at all, and were ready to quit just on that premise alone. One of them went as far to challenge me on a personal and political level because I was not planning on implementing some of the new rules before I even had a chance to read them.

That all being said, I limited it to: new feats, spells and class options for classes players already have, and fighting styles. I figure that would be enough to sate them, and gives me the ability to limit time perusing new rules rather than actually playing.

Are my players being unreasonable then?

[MaxWilson]

Well, in this particular game, 2 of 4 players were raging because I didn't want to use the book at all, and were ready to quit just on that premise alone. One of them went as far to challenge me on a personal and political level because I was not planning on implementing some of the new rules before I even had a chance to read them.

...

Are my players being unreasonable then?

Well, that's rude. They were definitely not being reasonable when they said those things to you. Hopefully they felt bad afterwards.

[stoutstien]

Well, that's rude. They were definitely not being reasonable when they said those things to you. Hopefully they felt bad afterwards.

Aye. Sounds like open seats to me.

[Amnestic]

Are my players being unreasonable then?

Pretty unreasonable yeah, if what you've said is accurate.

[Sception]

On the one hand, quitting a campaign over not allowing new material when you were having fun with the old material seems a bit silly, but at the same time if a player specifically wants to play something from the new book and the game you're running doesn't allow that content, then you can't entirely blame the player for looking for another game that does.

That said, I generally find when a player leaves a game, there's usually other stuff that's been going on under the surface for a while, and the stated reason for leaving is either a 'straw that broke the camel's back' or a convenient excuse that doesn't require the person to straight up say they don't like playing with one or more particular other people in the game. As a DM you want to try to be open so that individual players can come to you if they have some specific issue with you or one of the other players, but tabletop rpgs are a social game and sometimes some people just don't click socially, so letting someone bow out as gracefully and with the as little direct conflict as possible is sometimes the best thing to do.

If it really is about not getting to play with the new toys, well... that may seem a bit petty, but at the same time 5e has been out a long time now, and new stuff does not get added frequently. Even 2e more regularly added new player content via splat books and the like. Even for players who like the core game and engine, it's possible to get bored with the existing options after years of playing around with them, and then jump at something new when there's finally something available. For a player feeling that, having that shut down can kind of take the wind out of your sails.

[TheMango55]

It’s not necessarily either of you being unreasonable. As the DM you can pick what you want to be in the game.

But if a player really wants to be a super buff Teifling Rune Knight and they can’t in their current game, it’s not unreasonable to quit your game and find another.

[Asisreo1]

Its about cordiality at this point. If the way you described them are accurate, I've DM'd children more understanding than them by miles.

Its fine if they want something that you don't and they don't want to play because of it, but if choice words are being exchanged and a proper agreement for disagreement is not established, I'd say to just drop them. They apparently aren't your friend.

[MrStabby]

So your world, your limits. Were they happy to play the game before Tasha's came out? If so, then nothing has really changed about your game. The problem is that you table seems to have got into a rut where people need to justify choices to other players. If you can have a world where tieflings don't exist you can have a world where the Spirit Shroud spell doesn't exist; other players thinking to somehow hold you to account for this and you needing it to justify it to them is a bit wierd. Explain - yes. That's fine and reasonable.

That said, with people not everything is simple. Their grievences over a new book released might be a cover for some other form of dissatisfaction with the campaign and if a player is really enjoying the game then its unlikely they would be looking to leave over something like this. Best to have a broader ranging conversation about what is and what ins't working for them.

I have a number of problems with Tasha's that might lead me to not use it:

1) It helps bleed all the classes together and diminishes the destinctiveness of certain characters. This is mostly the ACF abilities adding spells to more class lists (some I can get behind such as adding some of the radiant damage spells to the cleric lists, but if it were one or the other, I would forbid this). No there is an upside in that it lets people create some more thematic characters if they have more choice - but a DM can allow that anyway (you want to use a bard to play more of a charismatic "preacher" cleric - go ahead and we can swap in appropriate domain and cleric spells, but ASK first).

2) New racial options. I might come round to this, but mostly what I have seen is a desire to cherry pick powerful stat/race combinations and to make good ideas better rather than bad ideas playable. I think it also has a negative impact on diersity, not only of races but also of classes. When my group saw this three seperate people thought to play a mountain dwarf wizard - out four people if three want to play the same class then it does say something is rotten with the state of balance in the game.



I certainly wouldn't feel that comfortable adding this kind of content mid campaign. One reason is that people made their choices based on not just what was available but also the niche they wanted to fill. If you add capability to certain classes/options then they are no longer so special in fulfiling their role. If people want their character to be special, then this can be a bit of a pain. Furthermore, not all classes get an equal amount and some players may regret not playing a different concept when something is retroactively made availble to them or feel that if everyone else gets something then their character should as well - but there is nothing in the book they want.

I would suggest having a discussion about what everyone actually wants - specifically. You can keep anything that seems reasonable, fits your setting and fits the type of adventure you want to run. But ask them also what they would want that was not in the book. If someone has a druid and wanted spells to have more options with insect swarms but didn't find anything in Tasha's they wanted, then work with them. Don't let the content in your games be dictated by the books - make the rules and rullings about what works for your table and your adventure.

And worst case, they might be willing to DM instead and to give you a chance to be a player.

[Sception]

Do any of your players frequent the forum? Hearing their side might be helpful.

[MoiMagnus]

Are my players being unreasonable then?

No, but Yes, but maybe No.

No: It's reasonable to quit a game you don't enjoy.

but Yes: It's totally unreasonable to get heated and raging on this, especially since your inclusions are pretty moderate. But even if you banned the whole book, that's not an appropriate reaction.

but maybe No: There is a chance this problem was just the tip of the iceberg. You don't get on a political and personal rambling without having some pre-existing conflicts and resentment.

I don't know either how you talked to them about the issues, and if you just went with a moderate "I'm only adding minimal changes to the 5e system, not the big new changes, which I will decide to include or not only in my next campaign" or if you actually argued against some features with something like "This is not how D&D should work" which can devolve into a heated argument.

[carrdrivesyou]

So your world, your limits. Were they happy to play the game before Tasha's came out? If so, then nothing has really changed about your game. The problem is that you table seems to have got into a rut where people need to justify choices to other players. If you can have a world where tieflings don't exist you can have a world where the Spirit Shroud spell doesn't exist; other players thinking to somehow hold you to account for this and you needing it to justify it to them is a bit wierd. Explain - yes. That's fine and reasonable.

...

That said, with people not everything is simple. Their grievences over a new book released might be a cover for some other form of dissatisfaction with the campaign and if a player is really enjoying the game then its unlikely they would be looking to leave over something like this. Best to have a broader ranging conversation about what is and what ins't working for them.

They were delighted with the game as far as it has gone on, and the only critiques I have had were: (1) I needed to give out a few more magic items, which I did, and (2) toning down the battles to be a bit less severe, which I did.



Do any of your players frequent the forum? Hearing their side might be helpful.

Sadly not, although I have pointed them here on many occasions. In fairness, their arguments were as follows:

Player One: "Ppl who hate on tasha's are just having a kneejerk reaction to change." "No one in any of my campaigns is mirroring your assessment." " just disagree with hating on the book, tasha's is the best thing to happen to 5e ever." This player also came after me personally with rather choice words, then refused to debate further and has missed 2 of 4 sessions since discussion.

Player Two: Much more polite and debated finer points. While she is not delighted with my judgement and choice of allowed material, has continued to be an ongoing part of the group, and has agreed to disagree on the subject. I play in a game she DMs, and we are still friends, despite the tension of disagreement. "I don't think it's worth arguing. In the context of this campaign, it's your rules. We all agree to that." Player Two and I have different design philosophies and regularly debate them (pleasantly, if with a bit of friendly snark and sarcasm).

Players Three and Four are fine with my judgement call and have offered no specific critiques or opinions.



No, but Yes, but maybe No.

No: It's reasonable to quit a game you don't enjoy.

but Yes: It's totally unreasonable to get heated and raging on this, especially since your inclusions are pretty moderate. But even if you banned the whole book, that's not an appropriate reaction.

but maybe No: There is a chance this problem was just the tip of the iceberg. You don't get on a political and personal rambling without having some pre-existing conflicts and resentment.

I don't know either how you talked to them about the issues, and if you just went with a moderate "I'm only adding minimal changes to the 5e system, not the big new changes, which I will decide to include or not only in my next campaign" or if you actually argued against some features with something like "This is not how D&D should work" which can devolve into a heated argument.

I told them that I would be opening up further options as the campaign progressed, as I came to understand the book and its contents, specifying that it may be next campaign before the book is fully available. I went on to explain that I was doing this so that I do not get blindsided as the DM from a new ruling that I am unaware of, and so that I can balance encounters appropriately.

[MaxWilson]

It’s not necessarily either of you being unreasonable. As the DM you can pick what you want to be in the game.

But if a player really wants to be a super buff Teifling Rune Knight and they can’t in their current game, it’s not unreasonable to quit your game and find another.

+1. Quitting a game is not per se unreasonable, even if personal attacks + quitting a game is.

[Willie the Duck]

So, now that I have had time to read most of the options in Tasha's, my player base fully expects me to open up the entire book to them as usable options. I do not particularly care for a lot of the book's contents (just my opinion), and decided to limit it rather severely, especially since the campaign is halfway finished (by estimate). This caused a but of trouble at my table, and may end up causing one of my players to just quit a game. I find this rather odd, because back in 3.5/PF days, I never really had any backlash or gripe for not allowing certain books except from the occasional power gamer.
Has anyone else had this issue? Is this something that is 5e specific? Am I really a bad DM because I don't like a lot of the content in a new source book? Would love to compare notes here...
...
Well, in this particular game, 2 of 4 players were raging because I didn't want to use the book at all, and were ready to quit just on that premise alone. One of them went as far to challenge me on a personal and political level because I was not planning on implementing some of the new rules before I even had a chance to read them.
That all being said, I limited it to: new feats, spells and class options for classes players already have, and fighting styles. I figure that would be enough to sate them, and gives me the ability to limit time perusing new rules rather than actually playing.
Are my players being unreasonable then?
The person making political or personal attacks crossed a line, full stop (and excluded from further analysis, since I consider my position on that clear). Other than that, we don't know. We know the what and why, but not the how (not how much of they why they heard). Did you lay out a clearly communicated and well reasoned position and argument for said position to them and they turn around and behave like brats, or did you lob some brickbats at the book (making it sound like you'd only heard the soundbite review) and they were the one to respond with well reasoned arguments for the new material inclusion -- we simply don't know.

Overall, no, it is not 5e specific. Gamers have been split (not evenly, but rarely with an incredible majority to one side or the other) to questions like 'is supplemental material valuable?,' 'should it be added to existing games as it comes out?,' and so forth not just for every edition, but for most TTRPGs in general. That said, 5e probably adds some urgency to the positions simply because of the relative slowness of new material output (relative at least to 2e and the WotC era, I started with AD&D and BX/BECMI, where new player-facing material came out slower than this). I think that a lot of people feel like they *finally* got a new book of options and are darn sure going to want to use them. The impulse is, I feel, in no way ridiculous. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that an existing and ongoing game needs to include it. Perhaps someone else could have volunteered to run a startup campaign with the new material (letting people not only use new spells or added class features, but also new race a archetype options, since everyone would be making new characters).


2) New racial options. I might come round to this, but mostly what I have seen is a desire to cherry pick powerful stat/race combinations and to make good ideas better rather than bad ideas playable. I think it also has a negative impact on diersity, not only of races but also of classes. When my group saw this three seperate people thought to play a mountain dwarf wizard - out four people if three want to play the same class then it does say something is rotten with the state of balance in the game.
Honestly, I've only seen this cherry-picking minmaxing show up on forums like this. My IRL gaming didn't have hexblade dips or coffeelocks or similar when Xanathar's came out (and when PHB launched PAM/shield/1-handed quarterstaff, or fighter starting off with two hand crossbows as starting equipment exclusively to sell for money)
either, because everyone knew everyone else would know about them as well and judge them for having gone with such builds. Regardless, the game has always had 'cheeze,' and really every group just needs to decide for themselves if it is off limits or not. This book is another case of the basic problem, but not a more egregious one.


I would suggest having a discussion about what everyone actually wants - specifically. You can keep anything that seems reasonable, fits your setting and fits the type of adventure you want to run. But ask them also what they would want that was not in the book. If someone has a druid and wanted spells to have more options with insect swarms but didn't find anything in Tasha's they wanted, then work with them. Don't let the content in your games be dictated by the books - make the rules and rullings about what works for your table and your adventure.

And worst case, they might be willing to DM instead and to give you a chance to be a player.

Definitely this. 'A bunch of people on the internet whom you've never met listened to my telling of the events, and agree you're all being completely unreasonable' isn't a way to resolve this. Listening and talking (and negotiating and creating) is.

[Pex]

If hypothetically a campaign was in Game Session 3 when the book came out it's not unreasonable for players to ask for a tweak for the new content but also not unreasonable for the DM to decline. If you're in game session You Lost Count, it's not reasonable to ask for changes of past decisions. Play out the campaign as is. If something could be available for future decisions, asking is fine but don't count on it. Play out the campaign. Quitting over this is dumb.

If a new campaign is to start and the DM declines Tasha in Game Session 0, it's perfectly fine for a potential player to decline the campaign.

[EdenIndustries]

tasha's is the best thing to happen to 5e ever.

This might be the most unreasonable part of the whole thing! I say that half in jest, but to me Tasha's is way less interesting than Xanathar's, for example.

[micahaphone]

Personally I disagree with you but it's also your table and your (ongoing!) campaign so you do you. Whether or not you include parts (or all) of Tasha's book, it shouldn't have that major of an effect on the game tbh. If I were joining a new table as a player, I'd prefer that the table was using these rules but other than the subclasses, if you looked at a random snapshot of the game in play I doubt you'd be able to tell if Tasha was allowed or not.

From what you've written it seems like player 1 has some other axe to grind or underlying beef or something. Player two sounds more like my opinion, ie we disagree and it doesn't majorly impact our ability to play a game together. Like maybe player 1 is trying to impress another person or they dislike some personal opinion you stated a few sessions ago, or maybe (most likely) the two of you have different approaches to tabletop rpgs and this was the final straw to break the camel's back. Maybe he likes things just 5 degrees different from how you run games and Tasha's rules happened to line up with a lot of what he liked, and now that there was an official wotc book that aligned with his preferences, he was excited to finally have a starting point for his preferences.

[OldTrees1]

Well, in this particular game, 2 of 4 players were raging because I didn't want to use the book at all, and were ready to quit just on that premise alone. One of them went as far to challenge me on a personal and political level because I was not planning on implementing some of the new rules before I even had a chance to read them.

That all being said, I limited it to: new feats, spells and class options for classes players already have, and fighting styles. I figure that would be enough to sate them, and gives me the ability to limit time perusing new rules rather than actually playing.

Are my players being unreasonable then?

Since the personal and political levels were brought up, then it sounds like this is a more complex issue for them than "just another splat book". This forum had 3-4 50 page threads primarily arguing about one of those types of topics.

It sounds like they are being a bit unreasonable, but it sounds like they have a problem that they are struggling to get you to see. More details about which rules are in question might help. Hearing from those players might help. And your group having another calm mature conversation listening to why they want those rules would help.

My own take from the discussion around tashas: If a player needs one of those rules for a political reason (for example if D&D races feel like ethnicities instead of species), then that need is greater than my personal dislike for the poor game design (because I see the races as species instead of ethnicities). So I would default to allowing that rule IFF requested.

[Tvtyrant]

So, now that I have had time to read most of the options in Tasha's, my player base fully expects me to open up the entire book to them as usable options. I do not particularly care for a lot of the book's contents (just my opinion), and decided to limit it rather severely, especially since the campaign is halfway finished (by estimate). This caused a but of trouble at my table, and may end up causing one of my players to just quit a game. I find this rather odd, because back in 3.5/PF days, I never really had any backlash or gripe for not allowing certain books except from the occasional power gamer.

Has anyone else had this issue? Is this something that is 5e specific? Am I really a bad DM because I don't like a lot of the content in a new source book? Would love to compare notes here...

There are probably 10 players for every person willing to DM. Drop the player in question on the grounds that making personal attacks over a game is either way out of line or your world views are completely irreconcilable and find a new one.

[patchyman]

He said the campaign is already in progress, so why would that come up? People aren't building new PCs presumably. The only thing that would seem like a possible issue mid-campaign (barring PC death) is some of the optional class abilities.

Well, there are new feats and new spells also. I disallowed Mind Sliver as being an extremely good cantrip that makes a strong class even stronger (wizards). Wizards are also the big winners spells-wise, as they can cast most of Tasha’s spells.

Feats-wise, I can see people not liking certain feats. I don’t have an issue with the psionic flavour feats, but I know some people don’t like them. The “Chef” feat breaks verisimilitude for me, so I was tempted to ban it, though ultimately I didn’t. Finally, I had concerns about cherry-picking with the Eldritch adept feat, though this has not been a problem to date.

[OldTrees1]

He said the campaign is already in progress, so why would that come up? People aren't building new PCs presumably. The only thing that would seem like a possible issue mid-campaign (barring PC death) is some of the optional class abilities, and I could see being annoyed if, say, I was playing a ranger and was told I don't get to use the new optional abilities (which are arguably WOTC admitting the ranger is underpowered without them).

Yes it being a campaign in progress does make it sound like ability modifiers would not come up. However it is the only topic that I would expect enough backlash prompt a thread like this or to cause the "political and personal attacks" (mentioned after your post). Not being allowed the ranger options could be annoying. The DM only allowing the Wizard options but nothing else could feel like bitter favoritism. But I would not expect such a big reaction on those topics.

More context would help.

[Rule-Of-Three]

I think reaction to Tasha's is rooted in the differing motives of players for enjoying TTRPGs. While there are certainly intersectional elements for most players, the truth is that different elements appeal to different people. Some people are motivated by advancing a narrative and shaping a world-building game, others the tactical elements of maneuver, and problem solving. Some are very into the RP element, others just want to hang out with their friends and participate in something collectively.

The ones that are probably most relevant for Tasha's are the players that want to optimize. It's a real motivation that I've seen over the many years. Some players are just there to demonstrate how well they can do a "thing." It's a legitimate motive, players were doing it before video games became came part of the culture, and exponentially more so now. It's part of our hobby.

So now it's a sourcebook comes out that's not a splat book, that's promoting a less static approach to backgrounds, and completely unlocks the toolbox available, I don't blame somebody who's at the table to optimize for getting salty if they're told they can't do it.

[paladinn]

There's a reason that AL play usually limits options to PH + 1 book. Outside of the core books, everything is optional and by DM fiat.

Even in 3x, how many books were considered "always accepted"? How many DM's really wanted to deal with Incarnum?

If there is really a hew-and-cry about more "always accepted" options, we'll be closer to a 5.5 or 6e than we think.

[mistajames]

Well, I don't really agree with you about Tasha's. With a few exceptions (i.e. - racial stat swapping, custom race), I find most of the book to be fairly uncontroversial. The additional class options and spell lists expansions are explicitly subject to DM approval. There are a few classes that are stand out as being more powerful than others, but nothing that's outright gamebreaking (as with 3.X, most of the worst offenders in 5e are in the PHB). Sorcerer and Monk both got some good and flavorful subclasses that are probably stronger than what existed before, but Monk is the worst class in 5e by a fairly hefty margin, and Sorcerer is probably the worst primary caster. Most of the changes to existing classes and spells and stuff is fairly well thought-out.

That said, our opinions are irrelevant to your game. You're DM, you can literally houserule whole classes, feats, races, spells, etc. into- or out of existence in your campaign if you really want. It's kind of pissy for players to get too caught up in how you decide to houserule, so long as your rulings are made in advance and you don't micromanage.

[MaxWilson]

This might be the most unreasonable part of the whole thing! I say that half in jest, but to me Tasha's is way less interesting than Xanathar's, for example.

I have a similar impression, and I'm not entirely sure why. With the exception of Clockwork Souls, overpowered clerics, and Genie Warlocks (which I rather like for fixing high-level warlock play), paging through Tasha's puts me to sleep. I haven't even read all of the magic items yet (they bore me), and I've only read most of the subclasses once: the Bard, Paladin, Druid subclasses especially just feel so redundant that I don't even know why they exist.

The bad Xanathar's classes like Sun Soul monk felt poorly-implemented, but the Tasha's stuff feels poorly-conceived, with no reason to even exist in the first place. I wonder if I would still feel this way if Tasha's had come out before Xanathar's. (I guess you could say something similar about the Dream Druid and Shepherd Druid, since Land Druid and Moon Druid are already a fairly complete set of druidic archetypes, but Shepherd Druids are so mechanically strong that they practically justify themselves as just "summoner druid." Tasha's is more like a book full of almost nothing but Dream Druids.)

[ZRN]

Well, in this particular game, 2 of 4 players were raging because I didn't want to use the book at all, and were ready to quit just on that premise alone. One of them went as far to challenge me on a personal and political level because I was not planning on implementing some of the new rules before I even had a chance to read them.

That all being said, I limited it to: new feats, spells and class options for classes players already have, and fighting styles. I figure that would be enough to sate them, and gives me the ability to limit time perusing new rules rather than actually playing.

Are my players being unreasonable then?

I mean, the forum isn't couples therapy (and even if it were, we're only hearing your side of the story), but I certainly think it's fair to say "let me read the rules before making a decision on whether to include them," and if you really got that across (rather than a blanket refusal) I don't understand their reaction.

If you're already letting them use the feats, spells, AND class option, what's left? I guess new subclasses and the racial ability rules? The new subclasses are pretty decent IMHO and not really controversial outside the sorcerer ones (which are a bit more powerful than existing options) and maybe the cleric ones (same reason).

The racial ability rules are almost certainly what got you arguing politics. Honestly I think it was a bit of a misstep for WOTC to mention this rule in their press release about politics stuff, because the rule itself is IMHO both good for the game and basically apolitical. It lets you play a goblin sorcerer or orc wizard or whatever without feeling like you've basically sacrificed an ASI - that's basically it. There are balance concerns but they're minor and as DM you could probably sniff out any abuses (or for that matter any combos that don't fit the campaign) pretty easily.

[carrdrivesyou]

I mean, the forum isn't couples therapy (and even if it were, we're only hearing your side of the story), but I certainly think it's fair to say "let me read the rules before making a decision on whether to include them," and if you really got that across (rather than a blanket refusal) I don't understand their reaction.

If you're already letting them use the feats, spells, AND class option, what's left? I guess new subclasses and the racial ability rules? The new subclasses are pretty decent IMHO and not really controversial outside the sorcerer ones (which are a bit more powerful than existing options) and maybe the cleric ones (same reason).

The racial ability rules are almost certainly what got you arguing politics. Honestly I think it was a bit of a misstep for WOTC to mention this rule in their press release about politics stuff, because the rule itself is IMHO both good for the game and basically apolitical. It lets you play a goblin sorcerer or orc wizard or whatever without feeling like you've basically sacrificed an ASI - that's basically it. There are balance concerns but they're minor and as DM you could probably sniff out any abuses (or for that matter any combos that don't fit the campaign) pretty easily.

This makes sense. There is probably a communication error or something that I overlooked that may have upset Player One. What that may have been is beyond me however. This has been a rather educational thread, regardless, and I am going to give it a good think before moving forward.

[GiantOctopodes]

Just want to echo some points already made:

It is not unreasonable to want to use new material as a player

It is not unreasonable to limit what material is used in your game.

It is entirely possible for two reasonable people to find they are not a good fit for each other in relation to the game they want to play, and that's ok

It is unacceptable to attack someone personally for the structure of the game they wish to play in, from either direction

In the event a player is doing so, there are plenty of other fish in the sea. Best of luck to them finding the DM who will run the game they wish to play, but it is WAY harder to find a DM who caters to your exact taste than it is to find another player willing to fill an open seat.

Beyond that, at this point I would kick them both, not only even if you're friends with them out of game but Especially if you're friends with them out of game. If they don't want to play in your system that's fine, no harm no foul. Regardless, if they have demonstrated they cannot resolve conflicts in or about the game without it spilling over, if you wish to preserve the out of game relationship, you have no business being in a game with them. If you have no out of game relationship with them, you have no reason to tolerate such behavior. Either way, they should go. Just mho based on the situation as described.

[Stangler]

Don’t let the power of being the dm go to your head. Ultimately these issues are often more about control than Anything else.

It is really reasonable for them to assume that the new rules would be applicable. If they are seriously thinking of leaving the group then there is probably more to the story than you are telling.

[Warpiglet-7]

Well, in this particular game, 2 of 4 players were raging because I didn't want to use the book at all, and were ready to quit just on that premise alone. One of them went as far to challenge me on a personal and political level because I was not planning on implementing some of the new rules before I even had a chance to read them.

That all being said, I limited it to: new feats, spells and class options for classes players already have, and fighting styles. I figure that would be enough to sate them, and gives me the ability to limit time perusing new rules rather than actually playing.

Are my players being unreasonable then?

Good riddance. Wash. Your. Hands.

Once it leaves fun and goes personal or political, you should cut ties with impunity.

I accept that different people have different opinions. I cannot accept fit throwing because I may not share them. D&D is not for preschoolers and there is no reason to tolerate that behavior.

Have a discussion? Hear them out? Sure. Have your values attacked so they can play with different optional rules?

There are so many players looking to play. Why waste time on ones who slander you?

[StoneSeraph]

Regardless, if they have demonstrated they cannot resolve conflicts in or about the game without it spilling over, if you wish to preserve the out of game relationship, you have no business being in a game with them. If you have no out of game relationship with them, you have no reason to tolerate such behavior.


This cannot be overstated. There is no room for out-of-game personal attacks. Based on what OP has described, they're well within their right as a DM to boot Player 1 from the table at cause.

It has been alluded that this situation is a "straw that broke the camel's back" with respect to other underlying negativity towards the DM and/or the game itself. That is an explanation for such behavior. It is not an excuse. Even if the DM were totally apathetic to player satisfaction or if the player had made several good-faith attempts to reconcile issues in the past, there's no justification for making it personal.

Player 2's agreement to disagree seems most reasonable: "I don't think it's worth arguing. In the context of this campaign, it's your rules. We all agree to that." Such a stance would not warrant dismissal, but that would be the end of the discussion in the moment.

[KaussH]

Don’t let the power of being the dm go to your head. Ultimately these issues are often more about control than Anything else.

It is really reasonable for them to assume that the new rules would be applicable. If they are seriously thinking of leaving the group then there is probably more to the story than you are telling.

The power of the DM?
Do you mean the fact that the DM is allowed to choose optional rules to put into a game setting? Anything from homebrew to core books. And that adding a whole new book mid campain isnt a gimme ?

[Tanarii]

I had several players threaten to quit playing because I refused to immediately allow Xanathars content immediately in my campaign without extensive one-shot play testing.

I did what I always do: pointed and said "there's an AL table right there, knock yourself out".

I don't recall I actually lost any. Given that many of my player base at the time was explicitly drawn from ex-AL players who were repelled by the extreme optimization that AL encourages with it's open door inclusionary policy to the rules, that's hardly surprising.

Take your time. If you've got one group of players, wait until a new adventure arc (or series of arcs) starts with new characters. Then only allow the options you're sure of. If you've got multiple groups or an open table campaign, throw in a few one shots allowing focused testing of specific options you want to see how they work.

But never let a threat of a player quitting force your hand into doing something you don't really want to do. If they don't want to play in your game, that's their problem. If you run out or fail to draw enough players to have a game, then and only then consider changing.

That's why I'm ran 5e instead of BECMI for example. :smallamused:

Edit

Well, in this particular game, 2 of 4 players were raging because I didn't want to use the book at all, and were ready to quit just on that premise alone. One of them went as far to challenge me on a personal and political level because I was not planning on implementing some of the new rules before I even had a chance to read them. If they made personal or political attacks because of your decision not to include new rules, kick them from your game right now.

[Dragonsonthemap]

If politics came into it, I have a feeling that the race customization rules are at issue in principle, regardless of whether or not the player actually wants to use it. Not banning it might actually resolve the issue entirely; this is the most heated debate in D&D since 4e came out, and there's a fair number who see it as a central moral issue for the hobby in general. It wouldn't surprise me if that's the entirety of what there is to it (as for its effect on the rules, I can't really say - all but one of my play groups homebrewed in something similar years ago, and that last one only didn't because it's new).

[Rule-Of-Three]

If politics came into it, I have a feeling that the race customization rules are at issue in principle, regardless of whether or not the player actually wants to use it. Not banning it might actually resolve the issue entirely; this is the most heated debate in D&D since 4e came out, and there's a fair number who see it as a central moral issue for the hobby in general. It wouldn't surprise me if that's the entirety of what there is to it (as for its effect on the rules, I can't really say - all but one of my play groups homebrewed in something similar years ago, and that last one only didn't because it's new).

That was my impression as well. Retroactively changing race and reallocating stats or advantages is a particularly attractive option for players that are always trying to squeeze out one more DPR.

The issue hinges around theories of authority, and how individual groups and players take it. A DM that constantly appeals to regulation with RAW or RAI appeals might be subtly promoting the message and interpretation that what official WotC puts out is what goes. In that case, being told "no you can't" use these options is much like a babysitter put in charge that tells the kids no video games after dark when the parents are normally fine with it. Yes, they've chosen to exercise their rights over the game, but the players know that it's personal.

My advice is take control of your game from the jump. Tell the players that RAW and RAI are guidelines, and that you'll exercise final judgement over your campaign. So long as you're consistent, you'll be fine. Unfortunately too many parties and DMs only have these conversations after the fact.

[Jerrykhor]

I can understand your players. Its not much different than pre-Tasha's if a DM were to ban Xanathars for example. There will be a lot less players showing interest if you were to openly invite random players. People expect official books to be allowed at the minimum.

[cutlery]

I suppose it depends on if you said “I won’t allow TCoE” or “I won’t allow this part of TCoE because [reason]”.

In the latter case, it rather matters a lot what [reason] was and how it was worded, but there are far more players than people willing to DM - find some that feel the same as you.

[Samayu]

IMO, absolutely reasonable: "The campaign has already started. There will be no new material." Though I'm sure it could be stated more politely and reasonably than that.

As GM, I wouldn't make any concessions to them unless I was in danger of losing the campaign.

[patchyman]

In RPGs, a tension exists between players that prioritize character optimization and those who donÂ’t. A group in which nobody prioritizes optimization is fine. A group in which everyone prioritizes optimization is also fine.

A group in which some prioritize optimization and some donÂ’t *may* be fine, but can also run into trouble despite everyone involved wanting to have fun and acting in good faith.

A non-exhaustive list of potential issues includes:
- non-optimizers are not having fun because their characters are ineffective compared to those of unoptimized players;
- optimizers bored because the monsters geared to the non-optimizers;
- DM stressed because he is having trouble finding encounters to challenge optimizers;
- combat in general becoming swingier because of the use of high level monsters;
- optimizers not having fun if the DMÂ’s measures to rebalance the challenge target them disproportionately;
- all players if the DM responds to optimization concerns by not allowing certain subclasses, races, feats or spells: optimizers because they wanted to try them out, non-optimizers because the options may have non-optimized uses.

XanatharÂ’s did a good job of providing options for both optimizers and non-optimizers that did not exacerbate this tension. Pretty much the only XanatharÂ’s options that I regularly see on the boards as inflaming debate are the Hexblade (more powerful than other bladelocks and too easy to multi-class) and the Healing Spirit spell.

TashaÂ’s was less successful in this. Some options that work for optimizer and non-optimizer tables separately donÂ’t work for a mixed table, by which I mean that they can substantially increase the power difference between optimizers and non-optimizers.
- Custom Lineage;
- Proficiency swaps;
- Mobile Ability Boosts;
- Twilight Cleric;
- Certain feats;
- Aberrant Mind and Clockwork sorcerer;

As I read the book, I found myself thinking both “this subclass has an interesting flavour and is a cool addition to the game” and “an optimizer with this option could very easily overshadow other players”, sometimes about the same option!

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Well, in this particular game, 2 of 4 players were raging because I didn't want to use the book at all, and were ready to quit just on that premise alone. One of them went as far to challenge me on a personal and political level because I was not planning on implementing some of the new rules before I even had a chance to read them.

That all being said, I limited it to: new feats, spells and class options for classes players already have, and fighting styles. I figure that would be enough to sate them, and gives me the ability to limit time perusing new rules rather than actually playing.

Are my players being unreasonable then?

No, they aren't.

This is clearly important to them, and with the whole "limit time" thing you've said to them that issues that are important to them don't matter to you and that you'd rather ignore their concerns for the sake of a game. DnD is cool, but not the most important thing out there. My recommendation would be to sit down and have a calm discussion where you ask why these rules are important to them. Even if you feel the changes may be unbalanced, I would advise just letting the players feel welcome and able to have fun how they want in a space that feels safe for them. You can always add another goblin if an elf having +2 strength really breaks the game apart for whatever reason. And if its a narrative constraint...Well, narratives always change, and DnD ought to be a story told cooperatively with the table, not as an adversarial tale of Player vs DM.

[KaussH]

Even if you feel the changes may be unbalanced, I would advise just letting the players feel welcome and able to have fun how they want in a space that feels safe for them. You can always add another goblin if an elf having +2 strength really breaks the game apart for whatever reason. And if its a narrative constraint...Well, narratives always change, and DnD ought to be a story told cooperatively with the table, not as an adversarial tale of Player vs DM.

See, i dont see this as a binary matter. Give players anything they want vs the Dm is against the players. That is kind of silly.
If a player wants that level of crunch and narrative control, then they can run a game. And use whatever optional or even homebrewed rules they want.

[MaxWilson]

No, they aren't.

This is clearly important to them, and with the whole "limit time" thing you've said to them that issues that are important to them don't matter to you and that you'd rather ignore their concerns for the sake of a game. DnD is cool, but not the most important thing out there. My recommendation would be to sit down and have a calm discussion where you ask why these rules are important to them. Even if you feel the changes may be unbalanced, I would advise just letting the players feel welcome and able to have fun how they want in a space that feels safe for them. You can always add another goblin if an elf having +2 strength really breaks the game apart for whatever reason. And if its a narrative constraint...Well, narratives always change, and DnD ought to be a story told cooperatively with the table, not as an adversarial tale of Player vs DM.

How does any of that make personal attacks reasonable?

[OldTrees1]

How does any of that make personal attacks reasonable?

It is quite possible both sides (rather than just the players) were unreasonable. However IsaacsAlterEgo does a good job of attempting to help the OP get insight into why the players might have had such a strong reaction.

[Tanarii]

How does any of that make personal attacks reasonable?
Yeah, there's no defense for that.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Personally, I would say it depends on what you object to. Tasha's is divisive because it is intrinsically and explicitly political.

There's a very real chance that based on your reasoning for not including things, I would not fault the player for leaving. Also, given that it's halfway through the game, I would absolutely read through trying to hide behind mechanical balance arguments. It's literally halfway through the game, at this point almost all your abilities are locked in. Even permitting retroactive shifting ability scores wouldn't change anything optimization wise, and would likely be a negative effect on optimization.



As a GM, I of course would have allowed it. I default to yes on all officially published material, including unearthed arcana, provided it is the most up-to-date version of the material in question. I don't see a good reason to tell players no on anything. A RPG is about the players and their characters and their stories; the GM is a facilitator.

[KaussH]

As a GM, I of course would have allowed it. I default to yes on all officially published material, including unearthed arcana, provided it is the most up-to-date version of the material in question. I don't see a good reason to tell players no on anything. A RPG is about the players and their characters and their stories; the GM is a facilitator.

And as gm thats your right to accept everything. However the gm is a bit more than a facilitator. Players could just write stories if that was all it was. Gms provide setting details, merge stories, provide backrounds to have stories, ect. No gm, no shared stories.
Not every gm is a " kitchen sink" gm. Some gms will homebrew, just stick to core rules, only allow x races or classes, use just Y extra books, ect. And since this is a matter of gm agency, it can be for as little reason as " i dont want to use x rules" .

Now if a player dislikes to, they are welcome to ask, and a gm should listen but.. no personal attacks or strong arming. If the player is that hot for a new book, rule, ect then they can run a game with said rule.

[LordCdrMilitant]

And as gm thats your right to accept everything. However the gm is a bit more than a facilitator. Players could just write stories if that was all it was. Gms provide setting details, merge stories, provide backrounds to have stories, ect. No gm, no shared stories.
Not every gm is a " kitchen sink" gm. Some gms will homebrew, just stick to core rules, only allow x races or classes, use just Y extra books, ect. And since this is a matter of gm agency, it can be for as little reason as " i dont want to use x rules" .

Now if a player dislikes to, they are welcome to ask, and a gm should listen but.. no personal attacks or strong arming. If the player is that hot for a new book, rule, ect then they can run a game with said rule.

There's more at play than that here.

First off, I disagree strongly with the notion that the GM maintains sole possession of the game and should arbitrarily forbid rules for no reason other than that they don't like them. GM's would just write fanfiction if that were the case. The game is a collective experience of the group, not the property of the GM which the players are along for the ride on. The players should generally be the drivers of the narrative, with the GM serving to craft a setting for the players to play in and a narrative to the players actions. The GM should still be having fun with the game, but it's important to keep sight that it's a collective fun-having experience.



Now, the specific material we're talking about here is Tasha's, and I have an inclination that we're very specifically talking about the flexible heritage feature, because the person already stated that they permitted basically everything else of interest. These rules are explicitly stated by WotC to be political in origin.

I've removed the rest of my post, but I'm going to end my piece saying that there is no such thing as an truly apolitical D&D game, so one should always be cognizant of and ready to have a discussion about the political and ideological implications of decisions.

[Mr Adventurer]

Personally, I would say it depends on what you object to. Tasha's is divisive because it is intrinsically and explicitly political.

Yeah, Life, including gaming, is intrinsically and explicitly political by that measure. Tasha's just has drawn attention to it's response to concerns that have become more widely understood more recently. The status quo is as political as change is.


there is no such thing as an truly apolitical D&D game, so one should always be cognizant of and ready to have a discussion about the political and ideological implications of decisions.

Yes, absolutely.

[Warpiglet-7]

There's more at play than that here.

First off, I disagree strongly with the notion that the GM maintains sole possession of the game and should arbitrarily forbid rules for no reason other than that they don't like them. GM's would just write fanfiction if that were the case. The game is a collective experience of the group, not the property of the GM which the players are along for the ride on. The players should generally be the drivers of the narrative, with the GM serving to craft a setting for the players to play in and a narrative to the players actions. The GM should still be having fun with the game, but it's important to keep sight that it's a collective fun-having experience.



Now, the specific material we're talking about here is Tasha's, and I have an inclination that we're very specifically talking about the flexible heritage feature, because the person already stated that they permitted basically everything else of interest. These rules are explicitly stated by WotC to be political in origin.

I've removed the rest of my post, but I'm going to end my piece saying that there is no such thing as an truly apolitical D&D game, so one should always be cognizant of and ready to have a discussion about the political and ideological implications of decisions.

Assuming one agrees with this premise, the players response to it is unacceptable. People donÂ’t always see things the same way.

LetÂ’s say I disagree with the political message of TashaÂ’s. The DM includes the book. ItÂ’s ok for me to throw a hissy fit?

If someone has the belief that politics are implicit in every decision we make and that they are value bound to throw a fit every time someone does not fall in line with their belief system in a dungeons and dragons game, they are free to act accordingly.

....at someone elseÂ’s house....in someone elseÂ’s game....

I hope the OP weighs out the fun vs. stress factor and makes a decision that is good for them and their health. Never let someone else define the parameters of right and wrong for you. Decide for yourself. Otherwise you will end up with tanarÂ’ri, heartburn and a game you wonÂ’t like.

[StoneSeraph]

I disagree strongly with the notion that the GM maintains sole possession of the game and should arbitrarily forbid rules for no reason other than that they don't like them. GM's would just write fanfiction if that were the case.

This applies to players in equal measure, in that players should not attack, browbeat, or otherwise cajole their DM over rules the DM chooses not to use.


The game is a collective experience of the group, not the property of the GM which the players are along for the ride on. The players should generally be the drivers of the narrative, with the GM serving to craft a setting for the players to play in and a narrative to the players actions. The GM should still be having fun with the game, but it's important to keep sight that it's a collective fun-having experience.

And yet a DM is needed to facilitate the game, unless the whole exercise devolves into everyone writing their own fictions, defeating the purpose of the game entirely. If a player chooses to leave because of a DM's decision on how the game is run, that is their decision... but the table's enjoyment of the game is not contingent on the presence of that player. The player finds a new DM, the original table carries on. Win-win, with no need for personal attacks.


there is no such thing as an truly apolitical D&D game, so one should always be cognizant of and ready to have a discussion about the political and ideological implications of decisions.

If the group decision to leave politics and baggage at the door before playing is a political decision in of itself, then yes, perhaps you're right. Nevertheless, I'm aware of a few tables, mine included, who do not tolerate any IRL modern political allusions or discussions during sessions, the same going for personal issues. Those issues can be brought up out-of-game and addressed civilly amongst friends like everything else; if you want to make your game a political allegory, find another table or run one yourself, as you will have more fun there.

It is unfair to impose one's desire to have a political dialogue, let alone the political opinions themselves, on a group of people that may just want to roll dice and fight dragons and be left alone to do so.

[Warpiglet-7]

This applies to players in equal measure, in that players should not attack, browbeat, or otherwise cajole their DM over rules the DM chooses not to use.



And yet a DM is needed to facilitate the game, unless the whole exercise devolves into everyone writing their own fictions, defeating the purpose of the game entirely. If a player chooses to leave because of a DM's decision on how the game is run, that is their decision... but the table's enjoyment of the game is not contingent on the presence of that player. The player finds a new DM, the original table carries on. Win-win, with no need for personal attacks.



If the group decision to leave politics and baggage at the door before playing is a political decision in of itself, then yes, perhaps you're right. Nevertheless, I'm aware of a few tables, mine included, who do not tolerate any IRL modern political allusions or discussions during sessions, the same going for personal issues. Those issues can be brought up out-of-game and addressed civilly amongst friends like everything else; if you want to make your game a political allegory, find another table or run one yourself, as you will have more fun there.

It is unfair to impose one's desire to have a political dialogue, let alone the political opinions themselves, on a group of people that may just want to roll dice and fight dragons and be left alone to do so.

Well stated

[ZRN]

Those issues can be brought up out-of-game and addressed civilly amongst friends like everything else; if you want to make your game a political allegory, find another table or run one yourself, as you will have more fun there.

It is unfair to impose one's desire to have a political dialogue, let alone the political opinions themselves, on a group of people that may just want to roll dice and fight dragons and be left alone to do so.

I certainly don't think heavy-handed (or even light-handed) political allegory is a necessary inclusion in your D&D game. But just refusing to talk about politics doesn't make the game less inherently political.

This is true of any medium, but in particular D&D has always spent a lot of time thinking about e.g. race and culture. The game world stipulates that different intelligent races are inherently smart or dumb or good or evil, and asks us to try to figure out what that means socially and morally in the game world - it seems a pretty clearly intended allegory for SOMEthing, given that Bob Salvatore and others spent hundreds or thousands of pages writing about it!

To me, saying that D&D is apolitical by default just ignores a huge amount of the accumulated fiction and lore associated with D&D and its worlds, which is kind of a shame. A lot of authors THOUGHT they were saying something about differences, and acceptance, and even if we think they made bad assumptions, it seems almost ruder to just ignore those messages and pretend the whole game has always just been about unproblematically stabbing bad guys and taking their stuff.

[KaussH]

Now, the specific material we're talking about here is Tasha's, and I have an inclination that we're very specifically talking about the flexible heritage feature, because the person already stated that they permitted basically everything else of interest. These rules are explicitly stated by WotC to be political in origin.

I've removed the rest of my post, but I'm going to end my piece saying that there is no such thing as an truly apolitical D&D game, so one should always be cognizant of and ready to have a discussion about the political and ideological implications of decisions.

While i wholehearted support politics and isums handed in game, Tasha's add on about that is purely mechanical and does nothing to address backrounds and stereotypes. If player want to talk game politics that has little to nothing to do with the optional rules and if the gm allows them.

The issue here, is the gm, didnt want to add new rules, and a player had a fit. Optional new rules at that. If that player feels that way, they need to find a new table.


Now for a little soapbox. In my view, Tasha's does not in fact address the problematic cultural and sexual issues in dnd races and game structure. Its a nice attempt, but it simply addresses some mechanical issues in making pcs that want diff mechanical issues their race choice comes with.

[carrdrivesyou]

So, to clarify a few points:

1. My game is not political. It's a grimdark "end of the world" and "zombie apocalypse" style game. The only politics the party has come across came from a sanctuary from one of the character's backstories.

2. As for the racial bits, I do allow ALL official races, even the ones I think are mechanically OP such as the Yuan-ti. I personally did away with the whole "goblins are evil because they are goblins" and the "all drow are Lolth worshippers and hate other races" bits. i stopped using those tropes back in my 3.5 days because I disagreed with it. I have demonstrably shown that characters of every race are able to think freely for themselves. One of the first encounters they had were with a band of Orcs just drinking at the bar, and minding their own business, while they encountered another group of Orcs a few sessions later that were cultists. They have also met heroic and evil humans, elves, dwarves, and goblins. So if someone has an issue with my game because of race/politics, THEY very much bring it to the table. The issue I had was that the player chewed me out for not allowing the new racial rules, and insisted that I was biased in a rather negative way towards "nonhuman" races. All of this despite NOT using these rules or having any of them applicable to their character.

3. After several talks with Player One, I have come to understand that in their own games, they do not care or game balance at all, and let players choose their own "power level" to play at. This difference in game design and philosophy plays a critical role in our disagreements I think.

4. Finally, I must reiterate that I do NOT possess a copy of Tasha's yet, and am just reading what I see on DNDBeyond. I would be a bad DM to allow material I am unfamiliar with, as I could not adequately prepare for such things.


EDIT: Also, there is equal representation for all genders, orientations, good and evil, etc. in my games. I do not discriminate against anyone for any reason. Players can expect to come across super friendly NPCs as well as super evil "All kobolds must die" types. How they choose to react to blatant evil is up to them.

[Sception]

I have a hard time believing a zombie apocalypse game is completely apolitical, even if that might have been the intent. The roots of the zombie apocalypse genre are deeply political. There are gun nut survivalist zombie apocalypse stories, environmentalist anti-pollution zombie apocalypse stories, anti-capitalist/anti-consumerist zombie apocalypse stories, zombie apocalypse stories where the real villain is the the military industrial complex, where the real villain is commercialized consumer culture, where the real villain is the cruelty of humanity that only the strictures of the now collapsed society held in check, where the real villain is the corruption or ineptitude of a society failing to heed scientific experts during a pandemic (likely to be popular going forward)...

Even the zombie apocalypse stories that are only aiming to be action movies or comedic parodies without any deliberate political message of their own still end up making accidental (and sometimes inept or unfortunate due to lack of intentionality) political statements anyway, simply by incorporating without any consideration or examination tropes taken from the foundational works in the genre which were intentionally and overtly political.

I don't think you can completely escape politics in any genre. But zombie apocalypse stories *in particular* are not going to escape making or being interpreted as political statements. Not when politics have been baked into the genre since it's inception, and especially not when we're fast approaching two million people dead in a global pandemic that many governments around the world have deliberately mismanaged for entirely political reasons.

[LordCdrMilitant]

While i wholehearted support politics and isums handed in game, Tasha's add on about that is purely mechanical and does nothing to address backrounds and stereotypes. If player want to talk game politics that has little to nothing to do with the optional rules and if the gm allows them.

The issue here, is the gm, didnt want to add new rules, and a player had a fit. Optional new rules at that. If that player feels that way, they need to find a new table.


Now for a little soapbox. In my view, Tasha's does not in fact address the problematic cultural and sexual issues in dnd races and game structure. Its a nice attempt, but it simply addresses some mechanical issues in making pcs that want diff mechanical issues their race choice comes with.

{Scrubbed}}
Then, halfway through the game, there's not really much of an effect it could have [even if you let them shift their race bonuses retroactively, by the time you're halfway through the game doing so would likely make your character less optimized assuming it was well optimized in the first place], so there's no reason to explicitly single it out for barring except to voice opposition to the ideal.




Finally, anything artistic, D&D included, is political. {Scrubbed} In addition, whether you're exploring the past or the future, said exploration of people and cultures and the problems facing them is also always political. There will always be political implications in a D&D game.
Chosing to "willfully ignore" them is still taking a political stance on the topics in question.

[stoutstien]

If you don't have excess to a copy of Tasha's the whole conversation is moot. How can a player reasonably expect new materials to be used without providing it to the DM for review?

[MaxWilson]

Otherwise you will end up with tanarÂ’ri, heartburn and a game you wonÂ’t like.

Nitpick/tangent: the invention of Tanar'ri and Baatezu and the Blood War improved the game. "Type V Demon" is not as cool as "Marilith," and giving them actual backstories and motives makes them easier to roleplay coherently.

Fight me.



Then, halfway through the game, there's not really much of an effect it could have [even if you let them shift their race bonuses retroactively, by the time you're halfway through the game doing so would likely make your character less optimized assuming it was well optimized in the first place], so there's no reason to explicitly single it out for barring except to voice opposition to the ideal.


No reason, really?

You're trying to make this political but the objection I have to Tasha's poorly-thought-out rules patch has more to do with GDS/Simulationism or rolling vs. point buy than with real-world politics.

There is also a lot of other poor-quality stuff in Tasha's (like redundant subclasses) that I don't want in my games because it's poor design, so in a sense you have a point about singling out--the whole book is poor quality. But not all the rules are poor quality in the same way, so the various parts of the book are banned for different reasons.

[OldTrees1]

So if someone has an issue with my game because of race/politics, THEY very much bring it to the table. The issue I had was that the player chewed me out for not allowing the new racial rules, and insisted that I was biased in a rather negative way towards "nonhuman" races. All of this despite NOT using these rules or having any of them applicable to their character.

This was what I expected.

Yes, that player was bringing the issue to the table. They are seeing the races through a different lens than you are. In that lens the default rules are problematic. People don't have complete control over what lenses they see through, especially without constant effort ill befitting playing a relaxing game. Tasha's new racial rules were made specifically to address the lens that player is seeing though. It removes the problematic part of the rule.

Due to the lens I see the D&D species through, I don't need Tasha's new racial rules, and they have unfortunate side effects that I don't want. However those concerns of mine are lesser concerns both quantitatively and qualitatively. So if, and only if, a player brought that issue to my table, I would use Tasha's new racial rules.

I suspect you will reach a similar conclusion when you have had time to review the material. Hopefully this explanation can help you listen to the players concerns, understand why this is a big issue for them, and help you communicate your good intentions.

Given the increased context I will answer your opening question again

Has anyone else had this issue? Is this something that is 5e specific? Am I really a bad DM because I don't like a lot of the content in a new source book? Would love to compare notes here...
The forum itself had a similar argument break out. I suspect some group out there has had this issue. This is not something 5E specific. If Tasha's racial rules was added in any edition it could have this reaction. You are not a bad DM for not liking or needing a lot of the content of the new book. But in this case it sounds like one of the players has a more significant concern. It is worth continuing that conversation.

[opaopajr]

Sounds like guests bullying the host midway through the festivities, no? :smallannoyed:

We can express our opinions without being belligerent or casting aspersions on someone who is graciously providing the entertainment. Once that happens then other responsibilities of the host kick in, like: enforcing civility and safety of others, having self-respect of persons place and things, and pushing out abusive behavior until it calms back down. :smallwink: Sounds like drunks crashing the fun, hopped up on excitement and demaning their own way at the expense of others.

Respect yourself and the calm others. Don't be bullied. :smallsmile:

[KaussH]

Whether or not you think its effective,




Finally, anything artistic, D&D included, is political. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}In addition, whether you're exploring the past or the future, said exploration of people and cultures and the problems facing them is also always political. There will always be political implications in a D&D game.
Chosing to "willfully ignore" them is still taking a political stance on the topics in question.

I never disagreed with that part. Tho as always, my orcs may not be your orcs. My dwarves may not be your dwarves, ect. However politics are a narrative issue, and shouldnt be a mechanical issue. New and optimal stat rules being forced on your gm are diffrent than " hey bob, your elves are a bit racist arnt they. Can we talk about that?"

But at the end of the day, gm didnt want to use an optional ruleset in game, mid game. Player got upset and attacked gms personal beliefs and politics. Kinda not cool at all.

[Mr Adventurer]

And yet a DM is needed to facilitate the game, unless the whole exercise devolves into everyone writing their own fictions, defeating the purpose of the game entirely.

Just to point out that this is a false equivalence.



If the group decision to leave politics and baggage at the door before playing is a political decision in of itself

There's no "if" about it - this is a political decision.


Nevertheless, I'm aware of a few tables, mine included, who do not tolerate any IRL modern political allusions or discussions during sessions, the same going for personal issues.

That is a political decision.


if you want to make your game a political allegory

That is a false equivalence.


It is unfair to impose one's desire to have a political dialogue, let alone the political opinions themselves, on a group of people that may just want to roll dice and fight dragons and be left alone to do so.

I absolutely agree.

The status quo is political. You have to understand that and have the conversation at the table, or acknowledge that you aren't going to do that and are taking the political decision to support the status quo which the game you are playing represents.

It's fine to do that! I do it with my own group of white male gamer cis-presenting straight-presenting friends. But we had the conversation.


So, to clarify a few points:

1. My game is not political.

I'm afraid you are mistaken:


EDIT: Also, there is equal representation for all genders, orientations, good and evil, etc. in my games. I do not discriminate against anyone for any reason. Players can expect to come across super friendly NPCs as well as super evil "All kobolds must die" types. How they choose to react to blatant evil is up to them.

See?

To be clear: I don't condone players mistreating you or anyone else. That is a separate issue to whether or not games are political.

[micahaphone]

As an aside, I think it's hilarious to see the "is art inherently political" argument popping up on a dnd forum as well. I can't escape it these days!

Almost as though it's inherent.....

[KaussH]

As an aside, I think it's hilarious to see the "is art inherently political" argument popping up on a dnd forum as well. I can't escape it these days!

Almost as though it's inherent.....

I think part of the issue is, we keep seeing people trying to strip all politics from an art, medium, game. Not realizing that it in fact turns into a political move. I prefer when politics are clearly stacked and added with intent.

[Darzil]

Politics is in RPGs by design. Fantasy worlds are very often comments in some aspects of the real world.

If anything it is the real world that is changing, getting obsessed at looking at everything via a PARTY political lens.

[micahaphone]

I think part of the issue is, we keep seeing people trying to strip all politics from an art, medium, game. Not realizing that it in fact turns into a political move. I prefer when politics are clearly stacked and added with intent.

I agree completely! Reminds me of some people's complaints about character customization options in recent video games. You can be a man, or a political. That level of reduction, anything that's not the status quo is "politics".
It feels like a reverse "death of the author" kind of discussion, where clearly the author didn't intend any subtext or themes.

[MoiMagnus]

That is a political decision.

IMO, a decision is only political when someone around the table disagree with it.

When peoples complain about having politics in their game (or other hobbies), they don't really care about political subjects being represented, they mostly care about opposing political opinions being confronted to one another, or to their personal opinion.
Consensus and shared values are usually not considered as political because they don't give rise to disagreements.

[Mr Adventurer]

IMO, a decision is only political when someone around the table disagree with it.

Decisions have values regardless of people's reactions to them.

Edit: for example, putting the burden of initiating change wholly onto those negatively affected by something is tacitly supporting the status quo.


When peoples complain about having politics in their game (or other hobbies), they don't really care about political subjects being represented, they mostly care about opposing political opinions being confronted to one another, or to their personal opinion.
Consensus and shared values are usually not considered as political because they don't give rise to disagreements.

Maybe, maybe not - but the decision is political either way and should be the subject of discussion before it's made.

[Warpiglet-7]

Decisions have values regardless of people's reactions to them.

Edit: for example, putting the burden of initiating change wholly onto those negatively affected by something is tacitly supporting the status quo.



Maybe, maybe not - but the decision is political either way and should be the subject of discussion before it's made.

If this is true, and I don’t fight some evil in all of my pass times I am supporting it? I give to some charities for children but in game say nothing about it. Do I support child abuse? or if we do murder hobo games we endorse murder?

I simply don’t see it that way at all. If we have mostly evil orcs or pretend in game that larger creatures are stronger than smaller ones is no endorsement at all of any racial superiority leanings (whatever the construct of race really is).

We might get told it’s the same as endorsing evil or doing evil and we might find vocal others to agree but that in itself does not make that a fact.

I don’t buy it for a second. I don’t want bad things for other people. But I also don’t think make believe story time does anything to further those ideas either. If I did, I would make changes to my game. I don’t disagree about avoiding harm to others. I simply disagree that changing racial modifiers or whatever has any tangible effect on anything outside of a dice rolling game. And further, there is no empirical support for either opinion at all.

There is some indication that RPG players are as a group a bit more ope minded and accepting however though that is only correlational with small sample sizes and without much if any replication.

Violence which is packed and seeping from the game is not correlated with real life violence either and I don’t have evidence to make a special exception for certain “political” ideas either. If there is more than opinion about the matter, I have never seen a citation in the literature to support it.

[ZRN]

So, to clarify a few points:

1. My game is not political. It's a grimdark "end of the world" and "zombie apocalypse" style game. The only politics the party has come across came from a sanctuary from one of the character's backstories.

2. As for the racial bits, I do allow ALL official races, even the ones I think are mechanically OP such as the Yuan-ti. I personally did away with the whole "goblins are evil because they are goblins" and the "all drow are Lolth worshippers and hate other races" bits. i stopped using those tropes back in my 3.5 days because I disagreed with it. I have demonstrably shown that characters of every race are able to think freely for themselves. One of the first encounters they had were with a band of Orcs just drinking at the bar, and minding their own business, while they encountered another group of Orcs a few sessions later that were cultists. They have also met heroic and evil humans, elves, dwarves, and goblins. So if someone has an issue with my game because of race/politics, THEY very much bring it to the table.

I think maybe you're defining "political" differently than others here? Because you say your game isn't political but then state a bunch of decisions you made in world-building that reflect a specific (and IMHO good) political view of the world: antiracist, egalitarian, etc.

I think D&D has always been very intentionally "political" in the sense that it's very interested in exploring race, culture, the nature of good and evil, etc. Historically a lot of the people writing official D&D stuff have also been straight middle-class white American men, so even well-intentioned explorations of these topics sometimes come off a bit "problematic" from a contemporary perspective. I think it's a good thing that politics evolve, and that (for example) people like you are changing up some of those old tropes to create a world that speaks better to your players. I don't just mean "thank goodness they're finally getting rid of that old problematic stuff about dumb orcs" - I think it's actually beneficial to everyone to keep having those conversations and exploring their biases and assumptions, figuring out what should be preserved and what should be adapted - because we're making those same decisions about culture at large.

The people at WOTC are also trying, in a haphazard and clunky way, to make sure the game rules keep up with that ongoing cultural conversation. When 5e came out they made sure that there were no racial penalties, basically to ensure half-orcs weren't always dumber and uglier than everyone else; now, a half decade down the road, they're taking that a bit further by trying to ensure that unusual race/class combos don't always feel inferior. That of course doesn't mean you have to use these rules - maybe they hurt more than they help in your game! But I think that's the intent.

[KaussH]

So since some of us are on diff pages, an example. I will use pc for political choices.

" The king (pc) has asked you to ride out of the kingdom (pc) and rid a local village (mayhap pc) of the savage (pc) goblins who have been raiding it. "

Same set up, diff pc.

"The Sovereign (pc) has asked you to ride into their (pc) nation (pc) and rid a local village ( mayhap pc) of the brutal ( pc) goblins who have been stealing (pc) from my people."

( i may have missed some)
But this one line, shows a huge culture and political snapshot. The task is the same, but the world has a diff feel.

Note, i used goblins for ease and spelling. But to be honest that word might need a (pc) note as well. :)

[Theoboldi]

So since some of us are on diff pages, an example. I will use pc for political choices.

" The king (pc) has asked you to ride out of the kingdom (pc) and rid a local village (mayhap pc) of the savage (pc) goblins who have been raiding it. "

Same set up, diff pc.

"The Sovereign (pc) has asked you to ride into their (pc) nation (pc) and rid a local village ( mayhap pc) of the brutal ( pc) goblins who have been stealing (pc) from my people."

( i may have missed some)
But this one line, shows a huge culture and political snapshot. The task is the same, but the world has a diff feel.

Note, i used goblins for ease and spelling. But to be honest that word might need a (pc) note as well. :)

That sounds like a lot of sophistry that swaps words around, but accomplishes no actual change within the world.

So I'm completely convinced, that is absolutely political.

......I hope that's a generic enough joke to steer clear of the real life politics rules.....And yes, that's all I had to contribute. I'll see myself out.

[KaussH]

That sounds like a lot of sophistry that swaps words around, but accomplishes no actual change within the world.

So I'm completely convinced, that is absolutely political.

......I hope that's a generic enough joke to steer clear of the real life politics rules.....And yes, that's all I had to contribute. I'll see myself out.

Snork :)

My point, ( tho off track) is that even basic presumptions ( king, kingdom, ect) can in fact be political even by accident.

[TyGuy]

"thank goodness they're finally getting rid of that old problematic stuff about dumb orcs"

What's problematic about dumb orcs?

[mistajames]

Don't know how this got onto talking about politics.

As to game balance, the only balance that matters is balance between the PCs. So long as each gets their time to shine, the game is reasonably engaging for everyone, and everyone is happy with how much spotlight they're getting, all is fine in the world.

I let my PCs optimize all they want. I also customize my monsters. In a RHoD game I ran a few years ago, I ran hobgoblin elites with Polearm Master, bugbear barbarians with Barbarian Rage, and Hobgoblin Devastators who had access to metamagic. When I ran Against the Cult of the Reptile God, my Spirit Naga had an at-will Dominate Person effect and could throw around Fireball against a level 4 party, cuz Explictica Defilus could do that in the original adventure. I gave her legendary actions and lair actions, and then took them away when she was too tough for the L4 party. The encounter ended with a party member giving herself over to her patron's demonic corruption and going full-on Naruto mode to avoid a TPK.

At the end of the day, a good time was had by all, and that's all that matters.

[Tanarii]

Don't know how this got onto talking about politics.
Because the OP stated they had a player personally and politically attack them.

Even if you allow politics in your TTRPG games, which are not despite claims here inherently political, that's not acceptable.

[MrStabby]

Because the OP stated they had a player personally and politically attack them.

Even if you allow politics in your TTRPG games, which are not despite claims here inherently political, that's not acceptable.

I think it's worth separating the idea of a game that is political and a game that can be made political.

I would not really want to play the former. I wouldnt want to play with people who would do the latter.

"This game is an allegory for late 1950's Italian Politics" is the kind of thing that would really turn me off a game. I mean its the kind of thing used to grab attention at the expense of fun. If there was no allegory intended or otherwise perceived it wasn't political - but it got made political. Personally I wouldnt want to spend my limited free time with people dragging the real world into my fantasy sessions.

I think that the OP should rightly be concerned about this (if it is indeed what is happening) as politicising what was a fun, casual game might adversely impact the enjoyment of others. It isnt about the validity of any cause or otherwise, but about the time, place and willingness of audience to make any points.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

What's problematic about dumb orcs?

Because the same people that say "your choice to not engage in difficult conversations about race, gender, etc in your hobby is inherently political (subtext you are a bigot)" look at classic depictions of dumb Orcs and thought "What a hateful depiction of oppressed minorities of the real world".

[KaussH]

Because the OP stated they had a player personally and politically attack them.

Even if you allow politics in your TTRPG games, which are not despite claims here inherently political, that's not acceptable.

So can you give a plot starter idea that does not have any political overtones in it? No political structure, any isums, no diversity exclusions, ect?

[PhoenixPhyre]

"This game is an allegory for late 1950's Italian Politics" is the kind of thing that would really turn me off a game. I mean its the kind of thing used to grab attention at the expense of fun. If there was no allegory intended or otherwise perceived it wasn't political - but it got made political. Personally I wouldnt want to spend my limited free time with people dragging the real world into my fantasy sessions.


Amen to this. As a worldbuilder, especially, I dislike the idea/statement/judgement that everything is intrinsically tied to real-world "politics" and that it's all allegories or references to real-world things. That basically eliminates the whole point of having anything other than alternate-histories. The worlds that I build stand on their own, or they fall entirely. If things are defined by references to the real-world, they're not whole and complete and organic in and of themselves. Which means I've failed. And in fact cannot succeed. Which is a horrible idea to contemplate. And solipsistic to boot. That only the real world could every possibly exist and that all those other worlds of which we dream are nothing but shadows, instead of things that could be real, somewhere in another universe. Ugh.

Let fantasy be fantasy. Shoving real-world "messages" into it just turns it into more of the same stuff we deal with every day, and anviliciously at that.

And there's absolutely no excuse for attacking people. Even if they disagree with you politically. At most you politely excuse yourself from the game and go elsewhere. I've done it when I could no longer have fun.


So can you give a plot starter idea that does not have any political overtones in it? No political structure, any isums, no diversity exclusions, ect?

I reject the premise. Not everything that has politics (in-universe) has real-world politics. Which is what is being discussed here. You can have kingdoms, queendoms, democracies, alien communal structures, etc. All without any intimation that you, the writer, believe any of those things are right or should be applied in the real world. And if someone can't disassociate fantasy from reality (because that's what this comes down to, conflating the fantasy reality for our real reality), I don't want them at any of my tables.

[KaussH]

I reject the premise. Not everything that has politics (in-universe) has real-world politics. Which is what is being discussed here. You can have kingdoms, queendoms, democracies, alien communal structures, etc. All without any intimation that you, the writer, believe any of those things are right or should be applied in the real world. And if someone can't disassociate fantasy from reality (because that's what this comes down to, conflating the fantasy reality for our real reality), I don't want them at any of my tables.

You seem to have missed the point. A gm does not have to use their politics, or politics they support. But they do have to realize what they pick has political weight, preconceived notions, ect.
It is far from a matter of having an issue separating reality from fantasy. It is simply a matter of understand the world you create. Or run in the case of using someone else's source world.

[Unoriginal]

Every single group activity is inherently political in one way or another. Because politics is one of the inherent ways we as a social species interact with others and with the world.

That does NOT mean that politics are a RELEVANT factor in everything.


Now, for OP's situation, here's my take:

1. OP was more than reasonable and perfectly to not commit to accepting something they did not read/did not read fully

2. It is a DM's right AND a DM's role to decide what is and is not accepted in their game. If a DM does not like something to the point of wanting to refuse it being in their game, then it is much better to do the responsible and reasonable thing and just not accept it, rather than the alternative of going "well this bothers me but I'll grind my teeth and allow it", which more often than not result in the DM either growing more miserable or cause them to lose interest as the campaign goes on. DMing a campaign you do not enjoy is soul-crushing, sooner or later.

3. It is a player's right AND a player's role to decide if they want to play the game the DM provides access to. If the player does not enjoy the game as it is, and neither the player nor the DM change their mind after a polite discussion, then the player is perfectly reasonable in leaving. Playing a game you do not enjoy is soul-crushing, sooner or later.

4. Attacking someone on the personal and/or political plane because they don't agree with a rule question is not reasonable or anything but a jerkass move.

5. It has nothing to do with the Tasha's itself, the player wanted something and reacted badly when told no. Some players react like that when they show up with absurd homebrew from D&D Wiki.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You seem to have missed the point. A gm does not have to use their politics, or politics they support. But they do have to realize what they pick has political weight, preconceived notions, ect.
It is far from a matter of having an issue separating reality from fantasy. It is simply a matter of understand the world you create. Or run in the case of using someone else's source world.

If people are bringing in their preconceived notions into my setting, that's on them. Because I don't have any control over what those are--they won't even be consistent between people. Works should be judged by what the author put into them, not by what the reader brings along with them. A writer can write about patently horrific things without it being a commentary on those things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

If there's conflict, everyone needs to either talk it out civilly or agree to disagree. In the latter case, they can separate and play at different tables. There is never justification for hostility or attacks. Or, as seems to have happened here, imputing moral failings for not letting people powergame. Or for disagreeing about the political import of some factors.

I'm not responsible for the baggage players bring to the table. They are. If that baggage gets in the way, we probably should play at different tables. Which is totally fine. There are lots of settings, lots of games I have no desire to play in. But that doesn't make any of us bad. It's just purely a matter of taste.

[KaussH]

Now, for OP's situation, here's my take:

1. OP was more than reasonable and perfectly to not commit to accepting something they did not read/did not read fully

2. It is a DM's right AND a DM's role to decide what is and is not accepted in their game. If a DM does not like something to the point of wanting to refuse it being in their game, then it is much better to do the responsible and reasonable thing and just not accept it, rather than the alternative of going "well this bothers me but I'll grind my teeth and allow it", which more often than not result in the DM either growing more miserable or cause them to lose interest as the campaign goes on. DMing a campaign you do not enjoy is soul-crushing, sooner or later.

3. It is a player's right AND a player's role to decide if they want to play the game the DM provides access to. If the player does not enjoy the game as it is, and neither the player nor the DM change their mind after a polite discussion, then the player is perfectly reasonable in leaving. Playing a game you do not enjoy is soul-crushing, sooner or later.

4. Attacking someone on the personal and/or political plane because they don't agree with a rule question is not reasonable or anything but a jerkass move.

5. It has nothing to do with the Tasha's itself, the player wanted something and reacted badly when told no. Some players react like that when they show up with absurd homebrew from D&D Wiki.

Sounds good to me. :)

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

If people are bringing in their preconceived notions into my setting, that's on them. Because I don't have any control over what those are--they won't even be consistent between people. Works should be judged by what the author put into them, not by what the reader brings along with them. A writer can write about patently horrific things without it being a commentary on those things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

If there's conflict, everyone needs to either talk it out civilly or agree to disagree. In the latter case, they can separate and play at different tables. There is never justification for hostility or attacks. Or, as seems to have happened here, imputing moral failings for not letting people powergame. Or for disagreeing about the political import of some factors.

I'm not responsible for the baggage players bring to the table. They are. If that baggage gets in the way, we probably should play at different tables. Which is totally fine. There are lots of settings, lots of games I have no desire to play in. But that doesn't make any of us bad. It's just purely a matter of taste.

Depicting "horrific things" and trying to treat it as apolitical is, in fact, a political position. Your politics are just as political as anyone elses! Just because to you, that's just the way it is, doesn't mean that isn't a political position. Also, "Baggage" is a pretty loaded phrase for people who have differing opinions than you.

[Unoriginal]

Works should be judged by what the author put into them, not by what the reader brings along with them.

Uhm, PhoenixPhyre, do you really want to argue this point, given the position you've made clear you have regarding the concepts of RAW and RAI?

[MrStabby]

Depicting "horrific things" and trying to treat it as apolitical is, in fact, a political position. Your politics are just as political as anyone elses! Just because to you, that's just the way it is, doesn't mean that isn't a political position. Also, "Baggage" is a pretty loaded phrase for people who have differing opinions than you.

Depicting these things is apolitical. It is value free.

Judging them to be horrific is the political part. However, the judgement is what the audience brings when they bring to bear their values, experiences and preconceptions. It isnt the world that is political but the audience.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depicting "horrific things" and trying to treat it as apolitical is, in fact, a political position. Your politics are just as political as anyone elses! Just because to you, that's just the way it is, doesn't mean that isn't a political position. Also, "Baggage" is a pretty loaded phrase for people who have differing opinions than you.

At that point, the word "political" has lost all meaning. Just like "special"--if everything is political then nothing is meaningfully political. There are horrific things in any setting with verisimilitude. The characteristics behind those are not references to anything in the real world other than a shared understanding that people will sometimes do horrific things to each other.

Baggage is pretty neutral. Or at least it was intended as such. I don't care if it's positive connotations or negative ones or unrelated ones. If anyone brings real world politics of any flavor, even ones I agree with, to the table, I'll ask them to stop. And if they don't, I'll ask them to find a different table. And if I can't stop doing so, I'll back out of the game. It's not a value judgement, it's a statement of fact. The writer is not responsible for what the readers get after they filter things through their own beliefs. They're responsible for what they write, and only that. And a writer can write about things they do not believe, and doing so does not reflect on their own morality (or lack thereof) or anything else. It exists in its own fictional space, as its own thing, to be judged (or not) on its own merits.


Uhm, PhoenixPhyre, do you really want to argue this point, given the position you've made clear you have regarding the concepts of RAW and RAI?

Yes. Because the two are manifestations of the same issue. There is text. Then there is what works best for an individual table. It's not even RAI--I care very little about RAI except as a data point. Ultimately, neither the text nor the words of the developers matter one whit. All that matters is what the table decides. The same applies to settings--if a table decides that real world political references are important, that's fine. Or if not, then that's also fine. Just I'd rather it not happen at my table.

What I disagree with is reading the text and claiming that that reading is binding on other people. The forum's reading of the text, whether they call it RAW or not, is not binding on anyone else. Not even on their own tables unless they choose to make it so. Read into it what you want. Just don't claim that your reading somehow has extra weight for anyone else. The same goes for the developers themselves--what they read into it is a data point, an attempt at persuasion. But nothing else.

[Unoriginal]

Depicting these things is apolitical. It is value free.

Judging them to be horrific is the political part. However, the judgement is what the audience brings when they bring to bear their values, experiences and preconceptions. It isnt the world that is political but the audience.

The audience and the author, since the author had to have a judgment when they wrote it too, based on their values, experience and preconceptions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The audience and the author, since the author had to have a judgment when they wrote it too, based on their values, experience and preconceptions.

Speaking strictly as a matter of personal taste, I've found a very strong correlation between the visibility (to me as an audience member) of the author's judgement on the subject matter and the chance that I won't like the work. The best, for me, is when an author can take a metaphorical step back and write/build something that might be real without passing visible judgement on the matter. Because, in my experience, letting your judgement of the subject matter influence you as a writer runs the very strong risk of putting a thumb on the scale.

As a writer/worldbuilder, I've found I have to choose what things I can write about so that I can (try) to remain as neutral as possible. Chronicling events and societies from a distance but letting them evolve. It's part of how I try to not write anything that's (to me) pure good or pure evil. And part of why I dislike cosmological alignment--it interferes with that neutral stance by declaring things Good and Evil as a matter of settled setting fact.

But again, that's entirely personal taste. And not 100% causal, just highly correlated.

[Unoriginal]

At that point, the word "political" has lost all meaning. Just like "special"--if everything is political then nothing is meaningfully political.

That is correct. Any group activity, including communicating, is political, so mentioning it is not meaningful.





Yes. Because the two are manifestations of the same issue. There is text. Then there is what works best for an individual table. It's not even RAI--I care very little about RAI except as a data point. Ultimately, neither the text nor the words of the developers matter one whit. All that matters is what the table decides. The same applies to settings--if a table decides that real world political references are important, that's fine. Or if not, then that's also fine. Just I'd rather it not happen at my table.

What I disagree with is reading the text and claiming that that reading is binding on other people. The forum's reading of the text, whether they call it RAW or not, is not binding on anyone else. Not even on their own tables unless they choose to make it so. Read into it what you want. Just don't claim that your reading somehow has extra weight for anyone else. The same goes for the developers themselves--what they read into it is a data point, an attempt at persuasion. But nothing else.

Well the thing is, with that reasoning, if it's "on them" that people are bringing in their preconceived notions into your setting, it's "on you" if you're bringing your preconceived notions into your setting.

Your view is that your setting is not 'intrinsically tied to real-world "politics" and that it's [not] all allegories or references to real-world things'. If we follow your reasoning above, then it is not any more binding than anyone's else view on the question.

[MaxWilson]

Depicting "horrific things" and trying to treat it as apolitical is, in fact, a political position. Your politics are just as political as anyone elses! Just because to you, that's just the way it is, doesn't mean that isn't a political position. Also, "Baggage" is a pretty loaded phrase for people who have differing opinions than you.

I'm trying to stay out of you guys' political debate because there's enough contention in the world already but about depicting horrible things, I just want to share this gaming advice: http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/945/story-games-101-saying-terrible-things/


I love bringing terrible subject matter into games. Love it. Because I want to explore the problems of society and the human condition. The last thing I want to play is a game where everyone is great and society works fine, because that teaches me nothing.

So: how do you bring in serious issues and explore the problems of society and the human condition without making everyone at the table wonder what kind of horrible person you are?

First off, assume one-hundred percent of the time that everyone else will believe that you are what you create. Yeah you are playing a character, or describing an imaginary society, but assume that no one will see the separation between you and your fiction.

Second, embrace that as the person bringing in the tough material, it is your job to prevent a misunderstanding. If you want to go into deep water, it’s your responsibility to bring the flotation devices. And even if it wasn’t your responsibility, you probably should want to, because who wants to be misunderstood?

Luckily the fix is incredibly easy: make the fiction (say what your character is doing or saying, etc.) and then immediately break character and tell the other players that, yeah, that’s a really terrible thing you’re bringing into the game. Then describe why it’s terrible. “Yeah, my character is being completely abusive and exploiting her husband’s feelings to guilt him into doing what she wants.” Or, “the councilor is completely confident the laws are just, but the whole system exploits the lower caste. This society is messed up.” And then I’ll go right back to adamantly defending that society in-character and argue why this oppression is good and necessary.

Say that what you said is terrible, then say why it’s terrible. Or do it the other way and preface material by saying “I’m going to add something really terrible here,” then say why it was terrible after you create it.

Is it more complicated and nuanced rather than just terrible? Then say that! “Yeah, it’s kind of horrible for him to do that, but he’s driven by some awful circumstances. Yeesh.” The whole point is to show the difference between your fiction and your real beliefs. Say what you think about it.

The hard part isn’t doing it, it’s remembering that it’s necessary, because everyone doesn’t know you and can’t read your mind.

This won't work in cases where people have real-life disagreements about what's terrible or not, but for those of us more interested in exploring fantasy worlds (including ones with awful things in them) than in having real-world fights with other players, it may be useful advice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well the thing is, with that reasoning, if it's "on them" that people are bringing in their preconceived notions into your setting, it's "on you" if you're bringing your preconceived notions into your setting.

Your view is that your setting is not 'intrinsically tied to real-world "politics" and that it's [not] all allegories or references to real-world things'. If we follow your reasoning above, then it is not any more binding than anyone's else view on the question.

Sure. You're welcome to bring whatever view you want. Just...not to my table please. If someone wants to take my setting and do whatever with it (as long as that's allowed by the rather permissive license I've chosen), that's their issue. What I disagree with are claims that I intended XYZ and am therefore PDQ. That because I wrote about something in a particular way that I must believe <other thing> and am thus a <good person|bad person|whatever>. Because that tells nothing about the work and everything about the reader.

If someone said "I don't like the hat you're wearing, so you're a bad person for wearing it", I think we'd all agree (hopefully?) that that's unnecessary, impolite, and an improper judgement. The same goes for the work. "You wrote about X, so you must be a bad person" is, to me, a step to far. "You wrote about X in a way I don't like"--that's a totally fine judgement, even if I happen to like how I wrote about X. Going beyond that and imputing moral deficiency (or excellency!) to the person behind the work crosses my personal line. Especially when it's based on a reader-side opinion or preconception.

I have a strong negative reaction to "I don't like it, so it must be bad" and constructions with similar meanings. "I don't like it" is fine, as is "I like it." But the added step? That's converting personal opinion into a supposed fact and using it as a weapon to get someone else to change to your liking. And that's something I don't like.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Sure. You're welcome to bring whatever view you want. Just...not to my table please. If someone wants to take my setting and do whatever with it (as long as that's allowed by the rather permissive license I've chosen), that's their issue. What I disagree with are claims that I intended XYZ and am therefore PDQ. That because I wrote about something in a particular way that I must believe <other thing> and am thus a <good person|bad person|whatever>. Because that tells nothing about the work and everything about the reader.

If someone said "I don't like the hat you're wearing, so you're a bad person for wearing it", I think we'd all agree (hopefully?) that that's unnecessary, impolite, and an improper judgement. The same goes for the work. "You wrote about X, so you must be a bad person" is, to me, a step to far. "You wrote about X in a way I don't like"--that's a totally fine judgement, even if I happen to like how I wrote about X. Going beyond that and imputing moral deficiency (or excellency!) to the person behind the work crosses my personal line. Especially when it's based on a reader-side opinion or preconception.

I have a strong negative reaction to "I don't like it, so it must be bad" and constructions with similar meanings. "I don't like it" is fine, as is "I like it." But the added step? That's converting personal opinion into a supposed fact and using it as a weapon to get someone else to change to your liking. And that's something I don't like.

I disagree with what you've written here entirely, especially the bit about hats. There are in fact certain hats that if worn are extremely indicative of political or moral positions. Same with certain styles of writing, even if you don't intend them to carry a political message, they do. I assure you that your setting is full of political messaging, you just might not be aware of it. And if you ban anyone from your table for being "political" what you end up doing is banning anyone who disagrees with you politically, because again, everything is inherently political. If you're seeing things as apolitical, that is because you agree with the politics of those things.

It's interesting to me that you put absolutely everything on readers/players for simply engaging with a work. Do you think that writers, yourself included, have no biases and don't put their life experiences and opinions into their work? It's basically unavoidable.

[Unoriginal]

Speaking strictly as a matter of personal taste, I've found a very strong correlation between the visibility (to me as an audience member) of the author's judgement on the subject matter and the chance that I won't like the work. The best, for me, is when an author can take a metaphorical step back and write/build something that might be real without passing visible judgement on the matter. Because, in my experience, letting your judgement of the subject matter influence you as a writer runs the very strong risk of putting a thumb on the scale.

As a writer/worldbuilder, I've found I have to choose what things I can write about so that I can (try) to remain as neutral as possible. Chronicling events and societies from a distance but letting them evolve. It's part of how I try to not write anything that's (to me) pure good or pure evil. And part of why I dislike cosmological alignment--it interferes with that neutral stance by declaring things Good and Evil as a matter of settled setting fact.

Well, ironically, it means that your judgments on the subject matters of both author neutrality and cosmological alignmments are pretty strongly influencing your work, and as a result would be pretty visible.


I disagree with what you've written here entirely, especially the bit about hats. There are in fact certain hats that if worn are extremely indicative of political or moral positions. Same with certain styles of writing, even if you don't intend them to carry a political message, they do. I assure you that your setting is full of political messaging, you just might not be aware of it. And if you ban anyone from your table for being "political" what you end up doing is banning anyone who disagrees with you politically, because again, everything is inherently political. If you're seeing things as apolitical, that is because you agree with the politics of those things.


There is a huge difference between "I don't like your hat, therefore you are a bad person" and "your hat is the symbol of your support of X, I judge X to be Y, therefore I judge you as Y".



And if you ban anyone from your table for being "political" what you end up doing is banning anyone who disagrees with you politically, because again, everything is inherently political. If you're seeing things as apolitical, that is because you agree with the politics of those things.

It's true that if the DM were to ban people for being "political", then they should ban people who agree with them too.


That being said there is nothing wrong with not wanting to play with people you don't get along with for out-of-game reasons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree with what you've written here entirely, especially the bit about hats. There are in fact certain hats that if worn are extremely indicative of political or moral positions. Same with certain styles of writing, even if you don't intend them to carry a political message, they do. I assure you that your setting is full of political messaging, you just might not be aware of it. And if you ban anyone from your table for being "political" what you end up doing is banning anyone who disagrees with you politically, because again, everything is inherently political. If you're seeing things as apolitical, that is because you agree with the politics of those things.

It's interesting to me that you put absolutely everything on readers/players for simply engaging with a work. Do you think that writers, yourself included, have no biases and don't put their life experiences and opinions into their work? It's basically unavoidable.

So you believe that it's totally ok to judge someone as being morally wrong for the clothes that they wear? Because that was the meaning of that statement. And that's something that I find personally distasteful. But whatever, everyone's welcome to their opinions.

If you want to use a work as a political lens, feel free. Just...not around me please. Because your doing so harms my fun, just like my disliking that harms yours. And the point of the game, or so I believe, is to have fun.

I believe I wrote up there somewhere that I prefer if the writers' biases are as invisible as possible. They exist--everyone has biases in all sorts of ways--and will inevitably influence things. I just prefer, personally, that the observed effect of those biases remain as minimal as possible even and especially when I agree with/share them. I've stopped reading/watching plenty of works that were too obviously designed to push a message. Or that had strong biases visible. Including many where I agreed with the message being pushed. So it has nothing to do with what I agree with.

I will note that this applies to fiction, especially fiction not set in the real world. And it's mostly a matter of worldbuilding--if your real-world biases and opinions are heavily coloring your work, you've made something, in my eyes, that can't stand alone. Can't be truly thought of to exist, somewhere in another universe. It moves from "let's explore this thing that could be real" to "here's why I'm right about <topic>."

And that's the last I'll say on the matter. Believe what you will. I'd just ask you not to impute those beliefs onto other people.


I do agree with you in general. 1) In specifics, we can't discount the fact that sometime the author do actually put what they believed in front and center and that ignoring it is not constructive to the understanding of the work. But even in that case it is not the reader's feelings on the question that matter.

2)Well, ironically, it means that your judgments on the subject matters of both author neutrality and cosmological alignmments are pretty strongly influencing your work, and as a result would be pretty visible.

1) Sure. But as far as fiction goes, I prefer to just not consume works that strike me as being motivated that way. It's distasteful and rarely ends somewhere I want to go, even if I agree with their beliefs.

2) Sure, its' turtles (opinions) all the way down. The initial conditions of a work matter. But I'd hope that people who never met me, never talked to me, could experience my works just as well as those who do know me. Even if you don't know that I, personally, dislike alignment, you can judge the work based on how well it meets its stated themes and on the craftsmanship. Even if you dislike the subject matter. I'd rather, personally, read a work where I disagree with the premises but which is well-written and engaging than one that I agree with exactly and which is poorly-written, has flat characters, or bad plots or shallow worldbuilding.

[Unoriginal]

So you believe that it's totally ok to judge someone as being morally wrong for the clothes that they wear? Because that was the meaning of that statement. And that's something that I find personally distasteful. But whatever, everyone's welcome to their opinions.

If someone wear a t-shirt where it is written "I support [insert thing you judge as morally wrong]", would you judge them as being morally wrong?

[Warpiglet-7]

Sure. You're welcome to bring whatever view you want. Just...not to my table please. If someone wants to take my setting and do whatever with it (as long as that's allowed by the rather permissive license I've chosen), that's their issue. What I disagree with are claims that I intended XYZ and am therefore PDQ. That because I wrote about something in a particular way that I must believe <other thing> and am thus a <good person|bad person|whatever>. Because that tells nothing about the work and everything about the reader.

If someone said "I don't like the hat you're wearing, so you're a bad person for wearing it", I think we'd all agree (hopefully?) that that's unnecessary, impolite, and an improper judgement. The same goes for the work. "You wrote about X, so you must be a bad person" is, to me, a step to far. "You wrote about X in a way I don't like"--that's a totally fine judgement, even if I happen to like how I wrote about X. Going beyond that and imputing moral deficiency (or excellency!) to the person behind the work crosses my personal line. Especially when it's based on a reader-side opinion or preconception.

I have a strong negative reaction to "I don't like it, so it must be bad" and constructions with similar meanings. "I don't like it" is fine, as is "I like it." But the added step? That's converting personal opinion into a supposed fact and using it as a weapon to get someone else to change to your liking. And that's something I don't like.

Very well put. The mind reading and then false conclusions based on XYZ is maddening.

If you disagree with the assessment it’s just “evidence” for PDQ.

So some claim to know your mind better than you do. If you let them know they are not actually correct, they remind you that they “know” and you are just unable to see reality. They can though and will point it out.

Funny how that circular thing can go on and on and on. And here you were playing pretend monsters and brave knights. But they got your number. They know what you truly think, what it really means because of “their opinion.” Wtaf. Move on OP. You can find people that want to have fun and play and don’t try to forcefully psychoanalyze you either their special powers and insights.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Go forth, roll dice and have fun.

[Unoriginal]

1) Sure. But as far as fiction goes, I prefer to just not consume works that strike me as being motivated that way. It's distasteful and rarely ends somewhere I want to go, even if I agree with their beliefs.

2) Sure, its' turtles (opinions) all the way down. The initial conditions of a work matter. But I'd hope that people who never met me, never talked to me, could experience my works just as well as those who do know me. Even if you don't know that I, personally, dislike alignment, you can judge the work based on how well it meets its stated themes and on the craftsmanship. Even if you dislike the subject matter. I'd rather, personally, read a work where I disagree with the premises but which is well-written and engaging than one that I agree with exactly and which is poorly-written, has flat characters, or bad plots or shallow worldbuilding.

Reading those two statements, a question comes to mind (for everyone):

Do you consider yourself as a consumer of your own work?

[PhoenixPhyre]

If someone wear a t-shirt where it is written "I support [insert thing you judge as morally wrong]", would you judge them as being morally wrong?

No. I taught lots of kids who (and whose parents) came to school wearing clothing (and who posted and said things) supporting causes I believe are not just morally wrong but horrifically so. That does not make them morally wrong. While I'm not perfect, I try not to judge any person as morally wrong. Causes? Actions? Even beliefs? Sure. But pushing that on to people themselves is a belief that I believe is morally wrong in and of itself.

And as to being a consumer of my own work--90% of the time I'm the only consumer. But again, I prefer to step back and judge/enjoy/dislike it as if it were its own thing, existing outside of me. As if I'm just chronicling what exists out there somewhere. If I only enjoy it because I agree with the messages being portrayed, in my own eyes I've failed.

[TyGuy]

Depicting "horrific things" and trying to treat it as apolitical is, in fact, a political position. Your politics are just as political as anyone elses! Just because to you, that's just the way it is, doesn't mean that isn't a political position. Also, "Baggage" is a pretty loaded phrase for people who have differing opinions than you.
po·lit·i·cal
/pəˈlidək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: political
relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.
"a period of political and economic stability"
Similar:
governmental
government
local government
ministerial
parliamentary
party political
diplomatic
legislative
policy-making
constitutional
public
civic
state
administrative
bureaucratic
relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics.
"a decision taken for purely political reasons"
Similar:
activist
active
militant
factional
partisan
party
party political
interested in or active in politics.
"I'm not very political"
motivated or caused by a person's beliefs or actions concerning politics.
"a political crime"

phil·o·soph·i·cal
/ˌfiləˈsäfək(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: philosophical; adjective: philosophic
1.
relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
"philosophical discussions about free will"
Similar:
theoretical
analytical
rational
metaphysical
logical
reasoned
esoteric
scholarly
erudite

Please stop conflating these two terms.

[Ninja Dragon]

I've read all the OP's posts and one thing that called my attention is that I still have no idea what the features whose two players want to use are.

The OP also said they included class features, feats and spells, so I'm at a loss for what they really want. Sure, there is the race creation stuff, but unless they intend to have their characters jump of a cliff to make new ones, that shouldn't come up. And I don't think any player should expect the right to change character's ability scores retroactively, with or without Tasha.

It feels to me that either the OP is ommiting something critical (namely the reason they actually fought) or the players are being particularly unreasonable. Particularly this player 1, who feels like someone who's had a lot of internet discussions on the subject and decided to bring them to your table just to defend his stance on Tasha, regardless of what that means for his characters.

I suggest you be practical and ask those players what they really want. Cuz it sounds like this could be solved just by letting their articulate their wishes in practice. If they refuse to do that and just want to engage in philosophical discussions about the book, tell them you aren't interested and move on. Cuz it sounds to me like player 1 wants to quit your table just because they dislike your stance on Tasha, not because you disallowed them to use any specific class feature they wanted.

[Mr Adventurer]

Just wanted to chime in to say that some posters, Unoriginal and KaussH especially and I think IsaacsAlterEgo, you are doing a great job of expressing the truth of it - better than I would have.

The idea that any work can be wholly divorced from its context, or that it's context can exclude politics, is baffling.

[Tanarii]

So can you give a plot starter idea that does not have any political overtones in it? No political structure, any isums, no diversity exclusions, ect?
Fight the bad guys, take their stuff, gain XP.

It's really simple.

[Warpiglet-7]

Just wanted to chime in to say that some posters, Unoriginal and KaussH especially and I think IsaacsAlterEgo, you are doing a great job of expressing the truth of it - better than I would have.

The idea that any work can be wholly divorced from its context, or that it's context can exclude politics, is baffling.

What about a game like checkers or chess? Is chess political since it has more powerful kings and queens vis a vis pawns? Not just asking rhetorically but wonder how far people take their assertion about politics in games.

What about me painting a landscape? Political?

[carrdrivesyou]

I've read all the OP's posts and one thing that called my attention is that I still have no idea what the features whose two players want to use are.

The OP also said they included class features, feats and spells, so I'm at a loss for what they really want. Sure, there is the race creation stuff, but unless they intend to have their characters jump of a cliff to make new ones, that shouldn't come up. And I don't think any player should expect the right to change character's ability scores retroactively, with or without Tasha.

It feels to me that either the OP is ommiting something critical (namely the reason they actually fought) or the players are being particularly unreasonable. Particularly this player 1, who feels like someone who's had a lot of internet discussions on the subject and decided to bring them to your table just to defend his stance on Tasha, regardless of what that means for his characters.

I suggest you be practical and ask those players what they really want. Cuz it sounds like this could be solved just by letting their articulate their wishes in practice. If they refuse to do that and just want to engage in philosophical discussions about the book, tell them you aren't interested and move on. Cuz it sounds to me like player 1 wants to quit your table just because they dislike your stance on Tasha, not because you disallowed them to use any specific class feature they wanted.

Player Two was interested in feats and fighting styles, which I had originally not allowed the latter of. We debated for some time, and I acquiesced to their request of allowing. I started another thread discussing that (Interception Debate) because I honestly do not understand why that should be allowed with a ranged weapon, which this player's character used, almost exclusively. They did not intend on changed anything else, although considered multiclassing with other, newer options.

Player One never specified exactly what they wanted to use from Tasha's, but instead went on rants and such regarding how I as a DM am terrible because I was not allowing the new racial rules to take effect, and had taken offense to my discussion with Player Two regarding the Interception fighting style. It should be mentioned that these two players are dating (not something I like at my table, but it started AFTER the campaign did). They did not tell me what they wanted or expected to use, just stated flatly that anyone that did not immediately approve of TCoE's new optional rules was a terrible person.


I, personally, am a little slow on the social uptake, which is why I decided to come here to ask for opinions. Half the reason I DM is so I can learn a bit more about social behaviors. From what I have gathered, this is a rather divisive book for the community, but most seem to be in favor of the idea that Player One had no right to attack me personally, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I also understand that Official books are expected to become available for use upon release, regardless of possession status. The idea of using optional rules and alternate class features SHOULD be within the DM's purview, but it would seem that this conflicts with my previous point, and so creates a bit of contention.

[Tanarii]

I, personally, am a little slow on the social uptake, which is why I decided to come here to ask for opinions. Half the reason I DM is so I can learn a bit more about social behaviors. From what I have gathered, this is a rather divisive book for the community, but most seem to be in favor of the idea that Player One had no right to attack me personally, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I also understand that Official books are expected to become available for use upon release, regardless of possession status. The idea of using optional rules and alternate class features SHOULD be within the DM's purview, but it would seem that this conflicts with my previous point, and so creates a bit of contention.
The beginning of Tashas clearly states that the entire book is optional rules, and to check with your DM. If players have an expectation that the rules are official and must be used, the official rules themselves tell them that they are wrong.

But really, the only takeaway here is you have a player you need to kick from your game ASAP.

[stoutstien]

Player Two was interested in feats and fighting styles, which I had originally not allowed the latter of. We debated for some time, and I acquiesced to their request of allowing. I started another thread discussing that (Interception Debate) because I honestly do not understand why that should be allowed with a ranged weapon, which this player's character used, almost exclusively. They did not intend on changed anything else, although considered multiclassing with other, newer options.

Player One never specified exactly what they wanted to use from Tasha's, but instead went on rants and such regarding how I as a DM am terrible because I was not allowing the new racial rules to take effect, and had taken offense to my discussion with Player Two regarding the Interception fighting style. It should be mentioned that these two players are dating (not something I like at my table, but it started AFTER the campaign did). They did not tell me what they wanted or expected to use, just stated flatly that anyone that did not immediately approve of TCoE's new optional rules was a terrible person.


I, personally, am a little slow on the social uptake, which is why I decided to come here to ask for opinions. Half the reason I DM is so I can learn a bit more about social behaviors. From what I have gathered, this is a rather divisive book for the community, but most seem to be in favor of the idea that Player One had no right to attack me personally, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I also understand that Official books are expected to become available for use upon release, regardless of possession status. The idea of using optional rules and alternate class features SHOULD be within the DM's purview, but it would seem that this conflicts with my previous point, and so creates a bit of contention.

The fighting style conversation is a red herring. I would remove both players from my table and move on.

Also bolded portion is just flat out wrong. There no such assumption unless the DM says so at the beginning.

[Waterdeep Merch]

The assumption of all published options being available in all games is atrocious gatekeeping, and anyone arguing for their immediate use in a game where the DM doesn't own it should be swiftly booted.

This is strictly bad for the hobby. There are already too few DM's. Making it so every newbie needs to own, read, and comprehend, bare minimum, five books only further raises the floor and intimidates new DM's. You should expect nothing that isn't in the SRD, and even then, you shouldn't be making personal attacks based on what a DM does and doesn't want to include when even that changes. If you don't like it and can't convince your DM otherwise, leave. Play another game that suits you better, or make your own.

I didn't consider Tasha's all that bad, but the sheer entitlement that's come with it is making me rethink it. I'm not likely to disallow it, but any player that goes on the attack before I even explain it's inclusion is getting the boot.

[TyGuy]

Player One never specified exactly what they wanted to use from Tasha's, but instead went on rants and such regarding how I as a DM am terrible because I was not allowing the new racial rules to take effect, and had taken offense to my discussion with Player Two regarding the Interception fighting style...
They did not tell me what they wanted or expected to use, just stated flatly that anyone that did not immediately approve of TCoE's new optional rules was a terrible person.

Ah just as I suspected, the old "this product has woke content and is therefore beyond reproach" fallacy. It happens a lot in movies.

You're playing with an ideologue carrdrivesyou. Up to you if you want to be patient with them. But like some people in this thread have demonstrated, they can't help but see everything through their own political lense where they start with conclusions and work their way backwards. This is a perfect example.

Conclusion: Tasha's is woke and just what this world needs. Therefore anyone that has criticism of the book is either not woke, or worse, a bigot.

The reason these people think everything is inherently political is because of a thing called intersectionallity. The takeaway is that it can and will encompass literally everything about you and what you do.

[Mr Adventurer]

What about a game like checkers or chess? Is chess political since it has more powerful kings and queens vis a vis pawns? Not just asking rhetorically but wonder how far people take their assertion about politics in games.

What about me painting a landscape? Political?

I would say: Yes, of course. It's no further a reach. The effects and expression may be different, of course, as with anything complex; and that has a direct effect on how important it is to be aware of the politics you are engaging with by engaging with those activities. But you can't divorce yourself and the actions you take from your own context.


You're playing with an ideologue carrdrivesyou. Up to you if you want to be patient with them. But like some people in this thread have demonstrated, they can't help but see everything through their own political lense where they start with conclusions and work their way backwards.

{Scrubbed} so far as I can see, those of us who are advocating that context includes politics haven't actually generally argued for or against the inclusion of Tasha's in any game, nor for or against its quality. To be honest this really looks like you yourself have made some assumptions and are arguing those, either due to unconscious bias{Scrubbed}

[TyGuy]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}so far as I can see, those of us who are advocating that context includes politics haven't actually generally argued for or against the inclusion of Tasha's in any game, nor for or against its quality. To be honest this really looks like you yourself have made some assumptions and are arguing those, either due to unconscious bias {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Either people are conflating politics with philosophy because they are simply mistaken or because they want to make everything political, consciously or subconsciously.

[stoutstien]

Ah just as I suspected, the old "this product has woke content and is therefore beyond reproach" fallacy. It happens a lot in movies.

You're playing with an ideologue carrdrivesyou. Up to you if you want to be patient with them. But like some people in this thread have demonstrated, they can't help but see everything through their own political lense where they start with conclusions and work their way backwards. This is a perfect example.

Conclusion: Tasha's is woke and just what this world needs. Therefore anyone that has criticism of the book is either not woke, or worse, a bigot.

The reason these people think everything is inherently political is because of a thing called intersectionallity. The takeaway is that it can and will encompass literally everything about you and what you do.

To be be fair intersectionality in and of itself is not to blame as much as it's watered down internet quiz version that gets regurgitated like any other carbon copy meme. Sociology and psychology has always been plagued by this.

Intersectionality is very useful for stat modeling which is something else that gets its own fair share of warping when used incorrectly.

[Theoboldi]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} so far as I can see, those of us who are advocating that context includes politics haven't actually generally argued for or against the inclusion of Tasha's in any game, nor for or against its quality. To be honest this really looks like you yourself have made some assumptions and are arguing those, either due to unconscious bias
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

That does not check out, however, because of the context that your own actions are in. In declaring that all actions carry a political component, and that not only can you not ignore the context you are in but your actions will always have some sort of ripple effect through the statements they make, you are also creating the implication that any act of expression that does not actively seek to advance a morally good cause is therefore either morally bad or at the very least ignorant.

That may not be your intention, but it very much is how your words come across within both their context and content.

[OldTrees1]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} so far as I can see, those of us who are advocating that context includes politics haven't actually generally argued for or against the inclusion of Tasha's in any game, nor for or against its quality. To be honest this really looks like you yourself have made some assumptions and are arguing those, either due to unconscious bias {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I believe TyGuy was referring to my comment about lenses and not to the discussion about if everything is inherently political.

The comment about intersectionality was the part targeted at your subthread.



You're playing with an ideologue carrdrivesyou. Up to you if you want to be patient with them. But like some people in this thread have demonstrated, they can't help but see everything through their own political lense where they start with conclusions and work their way backwards. This is a perfect example.

Conclusion: Tasha's is woke and just what this world needs. Therefore anyone that has criticism of the book is either not woke, or worse, a bigot.

The reason these people think everything is inherently political is because of a thing called intersectionallity. The takeaway is that it can and will encompass literally everything about you and what you do.

That is not what my comment about lenses said or meant.

Lenses affect how were perceive the observations. This is not "reasoning backwards", this is just the normal behavior of observation. Red Green color blind individuals observe color though a different lens than Bees (which have 4 functional color receptors). D&D players hear the word "Orcs" through a different lens than Warhammer players do.

Conclusions can then be derived forward (not backward) from the observations. So someone having a different lens basically results in a slight difference in starting premises. In this particular case it might be the premise about whether D&D races are ethnicities or species. That single premise difference alters some of the conclusions we would reach.

Given insight into both perspectives (thanks to those long argument threads) I think the proponents for Tasha's new racial rule want and need it much more than those of us that dislike it dislike it. Between reasonable individuals, I believe the conclusion would be to allow the new rule IFF it is requested.

[TyGuy]

I believe TyGuy was referring to my comment about lenses and not to the discussion about if everything is inherently political.

The comment about intersectionality was the part targeted at your subthread.




That is not what my comment about lenses said or meant.

Lenses affect how were perceive the observations. This is not "reasoning backwards", this is just the normal behavior of observation. Red Green color blind individuals observe color though a different lens than Bees (which have 4 functional color receptors). D&D players hear the word "Orcs" through a different lens than Warhammer players do.

Conclusions can then be derived forward (not backward) from the observations. So someone having a different lens basically results in a slight difference in starting premises. In this particular case it might be the premise about whether D&D races are ethnicities or species. That single premise difference alters some of the conclusions we would reach.

Given insight into both perspectives (thanks to those long argument threads) I think the proponents for Tasha's new racial rule want and need it much more than those of us that dislike it dislike it. Between reasonable individuals, I believe the conclusion would be to allow the new rule IFF it is requested.
I'm talking about the type of person that calls their DM a terrible person because DM is cautious about using content DM doesn't even own. That type of person is likely working back from conclusions.

You touch on something I was just pondering over breakfast though. Would there be the same amount of ideological hoopla if they were just referred to as species? I honestly think there wouldn't be.

I disagree that DMs should allow the new racial rule if they don't care for it. But I think there's better alternatives that work as a good compromise.

[Unoriginal]

I I think the proponents for Tasha's new racial rule want and need it much more than those of us that dislike it dislike it. Between reasonable individuals, I believe the conclusion would be to allow the new rule IFF it is requested.

I do not see how it is reasonable.

Some people want those rules for a variety of reasons. Others don't, also for a variety of reasons.

Between reasonable individuals, the conclusion would be that those two groups are better off not not playing with each other.

"It hurts you less, so you should be the one to suffer" is not a reasonable position in the context of having fun playing a game, where no one should suffer. It would only be reasonable in the context of pragmatism in an assess-spending-evaluation situation where the goal is to minimise how much is spent.

"I do not like it but not to the point of of I want to stop playing with you" would be a reasonable answer, but not one tied to what you said.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: closed for review. Probably permanently.

[Pirate ninja]

Modly Roger:

Thread reopened. Please post with caution and avoid references to real world political issues and also ensure your posts don't cast aspersions on other posters.

[OldTrees1]

I do not see how it is reasonable.

Some people want those rules for a variety of reasons. Others don't, also for a variety of reasons.

Between reasonable individuals, the conclusion would be that those two groups are better off not not playing with each other.

"It hurts you less, so you should be the one to suffer" is not a reasonable position in the context of having fun playing a game, where no one should suffer. It would only be reasonable in the context of pragmatism in an assess-spending-evaluation situation where the goal is to minimise how much is spent.

"I do not like it but not to the point of of I want to stop playing with you" would be a reasonable answer, but not one tied to what you said.

Thank you for pointing out other reasonable conclusions that I should have also listed. Sorry the thanks was delayed by 3 days. :smallredface:

Playing in separate groups is also a reasonable conclusion. I do not get the impression that the topic is that severe on both sides, but if it is, then that is a good answer.

However this is not a case of "It hurts you less, so you should be the one to suffer", it is a case of "It minorly annoys you on a rare occasion and the other player is suffering. There is room for you to voluntarily tolerate the minor annoyance to improve the game." And remember the context, I am one of those that dislikes the new rule, so I was recommending we tolerate the new rule, if/since we can tolerate it, and IFF another player needs the new rule.

"I do not like it but not to the point of of I want to stop playing with you" would also be a reasonable answer. However I get the impression that one side might not be able to have that answer, but the other side might. All based on how the severity of the issue is different to each side.

So yes the full list is: Tolerate the status quo, or tolerate the change, or create separate games.

[MaxWilson]

Playing in separate groups is also a reasonable conclusion. I do not get the impression that the topic is that severe on both sides, but if it is, then that is a good answer.

It's basically an extension of the rolling vs. point buy debate, which tends to generate strong feelings even BEFORE you add in real-world political statements from WotC, so I would absolutely expect strong feelings on both sides.

[EdenIndustries]

and IFF another player needs the new rule.

This is the part that baffles me a bit. *Needs* it? Needs it for what? To have fun? D&D just isn't fun without it? There was just no way at all to have fun in D&D unless they can swap ability score boosts from their race around? That's the lynchpin of their entire fun of D&D?

[Second Wind]

This is the part that baffles me a bit. *Needs* it? Needs it for what? To have fun? D&D just isn't fun without it? There was just no way at all to have fun in D&D unless they can swap ability score boosts from their race around? That's the lynchpin of their entire fun of D&D?

A character concept quickly becomes unfun if the mechanics of the game make the character bad at what they're supposed to be good at.

[MaxWilson]

A character concept quickly becomes unfun if the mechanics of the game make the character bad at what they're supposed to be good at.

Which is why the Tasha's debate is just point buy vs rolling debate in disguise.

[OldTrees1]

This is the part that baffles me a bit. *Needs* it? Needs it for what? To have fun? D&D just isn't fun without it? There was just no way at all to have fun in D&D unless they can swap ability score boosts from their race around? That's the lynchpin of their entire fun of D&D?

A sufficiently problematic element can ruin the fun of an otherwise fun game. For some players, Tasha's new racial rules patch out a problematic element. Elaborating further would get too close to being against forum rules.

I dislike Tasha's new racial rules. However I don't need its absence. So IFF a player needed those rules, I would include the rule.


It's basically an extension of the rolling vs. point buy debate, which tends to generate strong feelings even BEFORE you add in real-world political statements from WotC, so I would absolutely expect strong feelings on both sides.


Which is why the Tasha's debate is just point buy vs rolling debate in disguise.

Which side is it in that analogy? I am a fan of point buy and I dislike Tasha's new rule.

Also, strong is relative, but I hear you loud and clear. I might be underestimating the strength of the dislike, despite being someone that dislikes the new rule.

[MaxWilson]

Which side is it in that analogy? I am a fan of point buy and I dislike Tasha's new rule.

Also, strong is relative, but I hear you loud and clear. I might be underestimating the strength of the dislike, despite being someone that dislikes the new rule.

Those who dislike point buy and prefer rolling, I predict, are likely to dislike Tasha's variant as well because it's basically the same thing: putting concept first instead of deriving concept from rolls/stats.

Those who like point buy might still dislike Tasha's for other reasons.

[EdenIndustries]

A character concept quickly becomes unfun if the mechanics of the game make the character bad at what they're supposed to be good at.

Bad? It's the difference between starting with a +2 and a +3. That's not making the character *bad*, that's making the character slightly less than absolutely min/maxed. So...yeah, either we're talking about players that are extremely spoiled and entitled (which I'll assume isn't the case to assume the best of people), or something else is in the works here, like...



A sufficiently problematic element can ruin the fun of an otherwise fun game. For some players, Tasha's new racial rules patch out a problematic element. Elaborating further would get too close to being against forum rules.

I dislike Tasha's new racial rules. However I don't need its absence. So IFF a player needed those rules, I would include the rule.

Like something like this. Insofar as this has been discussed to death already, the fact that this thread was only recently unlocked, and the fact that, as you say, a deep-dive into the details will break forum rules I guess I'll just say I dislike Tasha's new racial rules *and* I disagree that they patched out any problematic element at all. But we can just agree to disagree so as to keep the thread from being locked again :smallsmile:

[Pex]

Bad? It's the difference between starting with a +2 and a +3. That's not making the character *bad*, that's making the character slightly less than absolutely min/maxed. So...yeah, either we're talking about players that are extremely spoiled and entitled (which I'll assume isn't the case to assume the best of people), or something else is in the works here, like...



But there is a significant difference between a +2 and a +3, though not at first level. By game math you need an 18 in your prime eventually. I like to say by 8th level when you get an ASI because level 9 is a proficiency increase. What was one behind becomes two behind at level 5 and eventually three behind if you don't increase it. However, increasing it means you don't get a feat or two. You're not The Suck for not having an 18 in your prime by 8th level, but you'll notice it in gameplay and players are not being "entitled" for not wanting that. If that's all it was then the players in question wouldn't have minded not using Tasha and play the game as they've been doing. From what I gather the players had out of game reasons for wanting to use the book and were offended when denied. A player wanting that +3 has nothing to do with it and still not wrong for wanting it.

[EdenIndustries]

But there is a significant difference between a +2 and a +3, though not at first level. By game math you need an 18 in your prime eventually. I like to say by 8th level when you get an ASI because level 9 is a proficiency increase.

Perfect! You can already get an 18 even if you start with 14 in a stat. So I guess we agree? Oh wait...


What was one behind becomes two behind at level 5 and eventually three behind if you don't increase it. However, increasing it means you don't get a feat or two.

Ok but this is just an extreme exaggeration. Three ASI's behind and two feats behind? Go ahead and make your point, but you don't need to exaggerate it beyond the *one* ASI you'd be behind when comparing two players going for the exact same ASI/feats and one starting at 14 and the other 16.


You're not The Suck for not having an 18 in your prime by 8th level, but you'll notice it in gameplay and players are not being "entitled" for not wanting that. If that's all it was then the players in question wouldn't have minded not using Tasha and play the game as they've been doing. From what I gather the players had out of game reasons for wanting to use the book and were offended when denied. A player wanting that +3 has nothing to do with it and still not wrong for wanting it.

You know what else you'll notice in gameplay by that same logic? Not having a 20 in a stat by level 8. Better let players get that too or else their fun will suffer. While we're at it, you know what else would improve their fun? Toss in a few free feats. Instead of being three ASIs behind and one or two feats behind, let players have 'em so they'll be three ASIs *ahead* of where they'd otherwise be and two free feats ahead!

If you want to play in a superpowered game, by all means! But since you can already get an 18 by level 8, which is your own metric for being good, what on earth is the big deal? The bottom line is just that giving out free power boosts is fun?

[PhoenixPhyre]

But there is a significant difference between a +2 and a +3, though not at first level. By game math you need an 18 in your prime eventually.

Yes. But it's totally fine with you getting there in mid tier 3.

There's a huge difference between the Game Math (as written) and the optimization games people play (with their attendant consequences on monster selection, encounter structure, etc.) Sure, in an optimization-heavy party, being a modifier behind is (more of) a problem. But in a default one? Nah. Not really.

[Ertwin]

So for the people who dislike the new rules, do you feel that you have to use them if they are available?

In my most recent game, the new rules were available, I still made my mountain dwarf warlock with STR and CON bonuses (STR is at 12 so I was wasn't going for a STR build either.)


It's quite possible to play with the new rules available, and choose not to use them.

[Tanarii]

But there is a significant difference between a +2 and a +3, though not at first level. By game math you need an 18 in your prime eventually. I like to say by 8th level when you get an ASI because level 9 is a proficiency increase. What was one behind becomes two behind at level 5 and eventually three behind if you don't increase it. However, increasing it means you don't get a feat or two. You're not The Suck for not having an 18 in your prime by 8th level, but you'll notice it in gameplay and players are not being "entitled" for not wanting that. If that's all it was then the players in question wouldn't have minded not using Tasha and play the game as they've been doing. From what I gather the players had out of game reasons for wanting to use the book and were offended when denied. A player wanting that +3 has nothing to do with it and still not wrong for wanting it.
Game math assumes a 16 until around 8-12, and a 18 after, with 20 optional for facing Tier 4 CR 21+ BBEGs. So starting with a 14 means 1 ASI at 4th, and 1 by 12th. That still leaves room for a feat or off-stat ASI (usually Con IMX) at 8th, unless you're playing a 2-stat class.

Starting with a 16 is really only an issue if you really want a feat at 4th instead of 8th, or want 2 feats/off-stats before 16th, and you don't want to play a Variant human for the feat. (And to be clear, despite my dislike of Tasha's floating stats, that's totally a valid issue to run in to.)

[Thunderous Mojo]

But there is a significant difference between a +2 and a +3, though not at first level..
My experience is the exact opposite of this. The 1 point difference is more noticeable at low levels, and easily remedied at higher levels.

Actual Gameplay, often deviates wildly from the expected result, maths lead us to believe is the norm. My cleric in a rolled stats game started with a 17 Wisdom score. Despite this, my first 50 attempts to successfully use Toll the Dead were resisted.

The DM was using the Starter/Essential set. Goblins, zombies, and bugbears all have poor Wisdom saves.

Starting with an 18 in Wisdom, might have made a small difference, but the particular results of any particular die roll, may always vary from expected probability. Actual gameplay, likely is not reaching the sheer volume of dice rolls needed, to invoke the Law of Large Numbers.


You're not The Suck for not having an 18 in your prime by 8th level, but you'll notice it in gameplay and players are not being "entitled" for not wanting that.
I, of course highlighted a part of the quote. Some people might notice the difference. Personal taste is subjective.

Socially determined signifiers of status and worth are powerful motivators.
This explains why, in some MMOs, acquiring a "Prestige Piece" of equipment is often viewed as necessary, even when other comparable pieces of equipment or entirely different builds are available.

A player wanting that +3 has nothing to do with it and still not wrong for wanting it.
To quote The Rolling Stones:
"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"

The teachings of Siddhartha Gautama postulate that "wanting" is playing a game that heavily favors the Casino. The Casino, will always win, because even if fulfill your "want", you will always just want more.

As an ex-smoker, there have been plenty of times that I wanted a cigarette, but I am thankful for the times were my efforts to fulfill my desire was stymied.

[Waterdeep Merch]

So for the people who dislike the new rules, do you feel that you have to use them if they are available?

In my most recent game, the new rules were available, I still made my mountain dwarf warlock with STR and CON bonuses (STR is at 12 so I was wasn't going for a STR build either.)


It's quite possible to play with the new rules available, and choose not to use them.
I'm working backwards from the idea that this half step doesn't go far enough. Right now I'm thinking of making an a la carte system:

Everyone gets five points. One point can get you natural weapons, special movement outside of flight, powerful build, fey ancestry + trance, one skill, four weapon/armor proficiencies, or two tool proficiencies. Two points gets you one rechargeable power off of a race, a damage resistance, water breathing, or darkvision. Three gets you a feat. Four can get you flight. You can be any size between tiny and large and whatever limb arrangement you want, go nuts. I hope to have every racial option accounted for here eventually. Figure out whatever you look like for yourself, but try to make it fit the setting. Get creative; if your elf flies, how? If your goblin has powerful build, why?

Finally, regardless of what you're doing, you get three +1's that can be put on whatever stats you want, either post-roll or post-point buy (I allow the option, including a buyer's remorse standard array).

You can instead pick a race as-is, but you must take it as-written. They're packages that might get an edge on 'value' at the expense of customization.

That's my rough draft. I won't be proposing it for at least half a year from now, plenty of time to iron out the details and theorycraft it a little better. It suits my annoyance with how Tasha's lets you nuke weapon/armor proficiencies for tools (a problem because I allow for expanded tool use that makes this way too powerful) and the terrible laziness that is the "custom lineage". Variant human except it gets darkvision wasn't worth the ink it took to print.

[Witty Username]

I only banned one book in 3.5(savage species) for about a month every build idea I was shown used it. Then people got bored and played along or saw my point.
As for Tasha's, I have no fault with it but none of my players are using it. If backlash is against you, the best shot is be clear in your reasoning and to remind players that supplemental material is entirely optional and you are under no obligation to use it.

As for rules quality, my take is that rolled stats reduce the effects on ability bonuses and so makes Tasha's rules irrelevant.

[OldTrees1]

So for the people who dislike the new rules, do you feel that you have to use them if they are available?

It's quite possible to play with the new rules available, and choose not to use them.

I dislike the new rules because, if they are in effect that campaign, the world uses them, even if none of the PCs and none of the NPCs do. So verisimilitude of having difference species is decreased (and 5E already suffers in that area*). However you can see why I am prone to diminishing the significance of my annoyance in the face of the issues the others are seeing/feeling.

Which is why I recommend the OP include the new rules.


*Where are the PC options for
The Large Ogre species?
The Ghoul species?
The Troll species?
The Tiny Fairy species?
The Dragon species?
The Illithid species?
We don't all want to play humans with different hats.

[Segev]

For me, the "flexibility" rules toss out significant portions of the designed-in pressure that makes off-focus choices interesting. If the rules are in effect, I will exploit them, because I don't deliberately pick weak mechanics "for concept." I will take weak mechanics if they're part of the package, and I will even appreciate the restrictions they place on me, but voluntarily tying one hand behind my back isn't forcing creativity the same way that having that tied-behind-my-back hand be part of a package of other things I want would.

I think halfling barbarians are a lot less interesting of a choice when they can decide their racial +2 dex is actually a racial +2 strength.

I also think the rules could have done away with stat modifiers being tied to race...but it would take building races from the ground up with the notion that their stats are all uniform.

It also bugs me because it's so very arbitrary. PC races now are constrained to identical ranges, while non-PC races can actually have variety. It makes it much harder to make balanced monster races that aren't really lame rubber suits over basic humanoid packages. A PC frost giant can have strength as low as 8 and no higher than 18, and can't have unusually high racial bonuses to it. 5e already has a problem with this: it is not well-designed for monster PCs. This only makes it worse.

All of that said, the backlash over it is... well, I agree that attacking a DM for including or not including optional rules is uncalled-for. Play the game or do not, but insulting people because they won't use the rules you want does not strike me as behavior I want from people I'm playing a game with.

[Pex]

Perfect! You can already get an 18 even if you start with 14 in a stat. So I guess we agree? Oh wait...



Ok but this is just an extreme exaggeration. Three ASI's behind and two feats behind? Go ahead and make your point, but you don't need to exaggerate it beyond the *one* ASI you'd be behind when comparing two players going for the exact same ASI/feats and one starting at 14 and the other 16.



You know what else you'll notice in gameplay by that same logic? Not having a 20 in a stat by level 8. Better let players get that too or else their fun will suffer. While we're at it, you know what else would improve their fun? Toss in a few free feats. Instead of being three ASIs behind and one or two feats behind, let players have 'em so they'll be three ASIs *ahead* of where they'd otherwise be and two free feats ahead!

If you want to play in a superpowered game, by all means! But since you can already get an 18 by level 8, which is your own metric for being good, what on earth is the big deal? The bottom line is just that giving out free power boosts is fun?

I know you can get an 18 at 8th level with a 14 at first, but you won't have feats to get it. Not counting Variant Human starting with a 16 in your prime means you can have a feat and the 18 at 8th level, your choice if you want the feat first or 18 first. Variant Human can have two feats, but the idea is to play a non-human. If you play with feats and want them for your character this matters. A 20 is also nice, possible by level 8 starting with a 16, but then you have no feats. Some people are willing to make that trade. Some class features, not just DCs, are dependent on your prime. The modifier is a bonus number to something or provides uses per rest, long or short. 5 times per rest is significant over 4 times per rest, worth the cost of not having a feat. However. some people are fine with +4 to something/4 times per rest and a feat. Player choice.

That 20 choice is denied by pre-Tasha rules using Point Buy for particular race/class combinations. Again, though, that's not the problem of this thread. Those who want to optimize may still do so as they've always done. The thread problem is players got offended Tasha wasn't used for out of game reasons. That might not have been clear in the original post but was later clarified.

Regardless, for those players who do like the 16 at first level and either be 18 and feat at 8th level or 20 at 8th level, there is absolutely nothing wrong about that. Those players are not acting "entitled". They're playing the game, and it makes absolutely no difference if they're using the Tasha book or not.
It is fine with me a DM somewhere won't use the Tasha book. It still has no bearing on players who like to start with a 16 are not being entitled.


.
My experience is the exact opposite of this. The 1 point difference is more noticeable at low levels, and easily remedied at higher levels.

Actual Gameplay, often deviates wildly from the expected result, maths lead us to believe is the norm. My cleric in a rolled stats game started with a 17 Wisdom score. Despite this, my first 50 attempts to successfully use Toll the Dead were resisted.

The DM was using the Starter/Essential set. Goblins, zombies, and bugbears all have poor Wisdom saves.

Starting with an 18 in Wisdom, might have made a small difference, but the particular results of any particular die roll, may always vary from expected probability. Actual gameplay, likely is not reaching the sheer volume of dice rolls needed, to invoke the Law of Large Numbers.


I, of course highlighted a part of the quote. Some people might notice the difference. Personal taste is subjective.

Socially determined signifiers of status and worth are powerful motivators.
This explains why, in some MMOs, acquiring a "Prestige Piece" of equipment is often viewed as necessary, even when other comparable pieces of equipment or entirely different builds are available.

To quote The Rolling Stones:
"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"

The teachings of Siddhartha Gautama postulate that "wanting" is playing a game that heavily favors the Casino. The Casino, will always win, because even if fulfill your "want", you will always just want more.

As an ex-smoker, there have been plenty of times that I wanted a cigarette, but I am thankful for the times were my efforts to fulfill my desire was stymied.

I have mixed results. I did use to think the difference between 14 and 16 at low level mattered a lot, but when I started to DM 5E and was able to see monster statistics myself I saw that the common low level monsters did not have great stats themselves. You can easily pick the saving throw they suck at, and the DC for their powers were also low. As a player I paid more attention to the 14 CH bard and 15 ST fighter. They were not failing too often, but I still cringed when it's a fail by 1. In the higher level games where a PC was still only at 14 or 15 at 7th level, 8th level, 9th level, that's where it remained significant.Regardless, I can never forgive a player with only a 10 CO, especially on a fighter or paladin, but that's another topic.

[Segev]

Regardless, for those players who do like the 16 at first level and either be 18 and feat at 8th level or 20 at 8th level, there is absolutely nothing wrong about that. Those players are not acting "entitled". They're playing the game, and it makes absolutely no difference if they're using the Tasha book or not.
It is fine with me a DM somewhere won't use the Tasha book. It still has no bearing on players who like to start with a 16 are not being entitled.

Here's the thing: if it's so reasonable to want a 16 rather than a 14 or 15 in a stat of your choice at level 1, no matter what race you choose, why is it not equally reasonable to want pack fighting even if you picked a half-orc instead of a kobold, or flight even if you picked a Triton rather than an Aaracockra?

Is it any less reasonable?

What if I find it extremely important to my concept that my wood elf have training in the mountain dwarf weapons and armor options? Why is that less reasonable than my wood elf getting +2 Strength?

Maybe I prefer my Kenku have light blindness rather than an inability to speak in his own words.

I shouldn't have to have my human raised by Kenku use minor illusion to emulate their mimicry; he should just have the racial feature. Just like I shouldn't have to spend an ASI to get +2 strength on a halfling, but should get it from chargen.

It's not about people being entitled or unreasonable; it's about where the line is drawn throwing balance and a subtle, almost objectively meaningless pressure on player choices out the window. The pressure is real, though, because the subjective feeling IS strong: people DO want that 16, even though it isn't actually that big of a deal (5% difference in odds).

[LudicSavant]

because the subjective feeling IS strong: people DO want that 16, even though it isn't actually that big of a deal (5% difference in odds).

+2 to your primary stat is a bigger deal than one might think.

For example, vs AC 15:

+4 to hit / 1d8+2: 3.475 DPR
+5 to hit / 1d8+3: 4.35 DPR

Here it is on Anydice (https://anydice.com/program/1f8dc). You can also do it on the DPR calculator in my sig.

That's a slightly over 25% increase in damage output. If a whole party gets a 25% damage output, that's practically like having a whole extra character on the team, damage-wise.

What's more is that the impact of a higher primary stat tends to affect a lot of things, and they tend to compound to be greater than the sum of their parts. The total mathematical advantage is rather significant.

Even if you ignore the bonus to damage, class abilities, and all the other factors, it should be understood that a +5% to hit isn't actually just a 5% difference in overall output. To try to make this principle more intuitive via a simple example, if you go from a 5% chance to hit to a 10% chance to hit, you double the number of hits you land. In short, hit/miss chances don't have linear returns.

If that sounds unintuitive... well, human intuitions are notoriously awful at probability math. But take it from the math nerd... it's not "just a psychological thing." That primary stat really does matter.

[Telesphoros]

Every time a new book comes out and makes changes or adds things or whatever there is going to be backlash. Everyone has different views to varying degrees on what experience they want from their games. They key is to be able to express those views in a civil manner and understand where everyone is coming from as far as your expectations and theirs. Different degrees of backlash to be sure, but I think it's always there.

I personally like playing different campaigns, editions and whatnot and things like Tasha's options don't really bother me as a player for what the DM includes or does not. I know other players though that want every option that's considered official (and sometimes unofficial) to be on the table for them to choose when making their characters. And some of those players have walked away from games I was involved in. It happens. And probably should be expected. There's only one time in my memory though that the entire campaign came to an end over something like that though. Not too bad for 40 years of gaming.

As a DM I currently have 3 campaigns in the works, but only one will have the option for almost any race and the majority of Tasha's options. One campaign will only allow races without darkvision, and the last is pretty human centric (humans, genasi, tieflings, aasimar, gith, yuan-ti, and two new races so far, shadowlings and kin'ofey, humans touched by the Shadowfell or Feywild respectively), not to mention not all the classes will be available at the outset. Yet to be determined which campaign my tables will prefer of course, but we'll see how it goes and if there's room for compromise we all can game with.

[Dark.Revenant]

I don't think discouraging optimizers is a good reason to reject the optional racial ability-swapping rules. Optimizers are going to optimize anyway; these rules just enable them to pick new and exciting ideas they they might have otherwise left on the drawing board.

Since it's just ability scores that get swapped, while the vast majority of racial features remain the same, Tasha-swapped races are probably not going to outperform the established meta kings (like variant human). Justifying the choice to ignore the Tasha's optional racial rules by claiming you're curbing optimization or teaching optimizers an important life lesson—to me—just seems spiteful.

[Warder]

I think what bothers me most about this thread (and similar threads) is that there's a lot of "this is how you should play" going around. People play for different reasons and value different aspects of the game, and D&D has never been - and likely never will be - a one-size-fits-all kind of game.

For example, my group has decided a couple years ago that we think it's important for immersion to emphasize the differences between all these fantasy species, so we homebrewed in greater variety in the ability modifiers, including adding negative modifiers to several of the core races. It didn't work out exactly the way we hoped when we mathed it out because 5e stats are a bit weird, but we thought it was worth a shot. For a group like ours, the Tasha rules are completely contrary to our enjoyment of D&D, so it's very odd to me to see people claim they're the only right way to play the game.

[JackPhoenix]

5e already has a problem with this: it is not well-designed for monster PCs. This only makes it worse.

That would only be a problem if the game was supposed to have monster PCs and just failed at that goal. It's also not well-designed for having space battles, for the same reason: you're no more supposed to have monster PCs than you're supposed to run space battles in 5e. You can't play giant or a dragon in the WFRP either, and I doubt anyone complains about that. If you want to play a game where monster PCs (or space battles) are normal, play a different game, just like you should pick something different than any of the World of Darkness games when you want to run high-fantasy, dungeoncrawl RPG.

[Tanarii]

Regardless, for those players who do like the 16 at first level and either be 18 and feat at 8th level or 20 at 8th level, there is absolutely nothing wrong about that. Those players are not acting "entitled". They're playing the game, and it makes absolutely no difference if they're using the Tasha book or not.
It is fine with me a DM somewhere won't use the Tasha book. It still has no bearing on players who like to start with a 16 are not being entitled.
Is your argument about the game math expectations, or the expectations players who desire to optimize to be better than the game math expects?

Because 18 and a feat at 8th is slightly ahead of math expectations with a feat thrown in on top, and 20 at 8th is either beyond any expectations for a character even at level 20, or far before tier 4 (depending on how you analyze the math). Those are expectations of folks who want to optimize to be better than the expected math.

[Segev]

+2 to your primary stat is a bigger deal than one might think.

For example, vs AC 15:

+4 to hit / 1d8+2: 3.475 DPR
+5 to hit / 1d8+3: 4.35 DPR

Here it is on Anydice (https://anydice.com/program/1f8dc). You can also do it on the DPR calculator in my sig.

That's a slightly over 25% increase in damage output. If a whole party gets a 25% damage output, that's practically like having a whole extra character on the team, damage-wise.

What's more is that the impact of a higher primary stat tends to affect a lot of things, and they tend to compound to be greater than the sum of their parts. The total mathematical advantage is rather significant.

Even if you ignore the bonus to damage, class abilities, and all the other factors, it should be understood that a +5% to hit isn't actually just a 5% difference in overall output. To try to make this principle more intuitive via a simple example, if you go from a 5% chance to hit to a 10% chance to hit, you double the number of hits you land. In short, hit/miss chances don't have linear returns.

If that sounds unintuitive... well, human intuitions are notoriously awful at probability math. But take it from the math nerd... it's not "just a psychological thing." That primary stat really does matter.

I didn't say it didn't matter. I said it's over-valued. Perhaps I under-value it when I say "it's just 5%," but it's still hardly the make-or-break for a character.

Yes, being 2 down is a bigger deal than being 1 down. And it slides fast. That doesn't mean that it's suddenly unplayable, or even going to be crippling, to have a +2 instead of a +3. (If it is, then it's also crippling not to have a +5, and point-buy is totally unfair and should never, ever be used since it cripples players by never permitting them to start with a 20.)



I don't think discouraging optimizers is a good reason to reject the optional racial ability-swapping rules. Optimizers are going to optimize anyway; these rules just enable them to pick new and exciting ideas they they might have otherwise left on the drawing board.

Since it's just ability scores that get swapped, while the vast majority of racial features remain the same, Tasha-swapped races are probably not going to outperform the established meta kings (like variant human). Justifying the choice to ignore the Tasha's optional racial rules by claiming you're curbing optimization or teaching optimizers an important life lesson—to me—just seems spiteful.

I reject the notion that the concept they're playing is "new and exciting" if it hinges on a +1 difference. If the stat bonus kept them away from the concept, then they're not really playing something new and exciting; they're playing the same-old-thing with a different skin. "But they have other racial abilities!" you might argue, and you're right. However, those other racial abilities obviously don't matter enough to make the concept interesting and exciting.

I am not a fan of informed traits. And when you alter something so that it is just the same as other things, and then say, "it's new and exciting because these just don't happen very often!" I roll my eyes. Why don't thy happen very often? Because ... uh ... somebody said so. Never mind that they'll either happen just as much or more than the things said to happen frequently, depending on how optimal their other traits are for this "unusual" use, in practice, now that any reason why they wouldn't happen is gone.

Optimizers absolutely will optimize. If they want to play something "new and exciting," they'll find a way to optimize it; they don't need it to be pumped up to be more powerful.

And if you claim the stat is all that kept them from it, how long until the argument is that, say, "my concept really needs Darkvision at 120 feet to work, so I should be able to make my halfling have that as a racial trait; why are you so against me making new and exciting builds?" becomes as much an argument as "my halfling really needs +2 Wisdom!" does?

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, in this particular game, 2 of 4 players were raging because I didn't want to use the book at all, and were ready to quit just on that premise alone. Player threatens to quit? DM points to the door and says "OK, you are not enjoying this game. We'll see you for movie night (board game night, cards night, whatever) next week" - that's all you need to do. When push comes to shove, push back and see what the response is.
They apparently aren't your friend. That would seem to be the case.

{snip} Play out the campaign. Quitting over this is dumb.

If a new campaign is to start and the DM declines Tasha in Game Session 0, it's perfectly fine for a potential player to decline the campaign. Good post, sadly the two players to need to get this message are not receiving that message well.
I say that half in jest, but to me Tasha's is way less interesting than Xanathar's, for example. It could have used another scrub, for my money.

There are probably 10 players for every person willing to DM. Drop the player in question on the grounds that making personal attacks over a game is either way out of line or your world views are completely irreconcilable and find a new one. Yeah. Or, ask them to start DMing the campaign - next session. You've got a character you'd like to try.

This makes sense. There is probably a communication error or something that I overlooked {snip} I am going to give it a good think before moving forward. Good idea. Let us know how it worked out.
Good riddance. Wash. Your. Hands. Not a bad idea if the next conversation isn't better than the last one.
What I disagree with are claims that I intended XYZ and am therefore PDQ. That because I wrote about something in a particular way that I must believe <other thing> and am thus a <good person|bad person|whatever>. Because that tells nothing about the work and everything about the reader. Aye.

[Telesphoros]

As far as racial modifiers go, our group goes with the homebrew that's worked the best for us over the years:


Every character gets a total of +3 including Half-Elves and Mountain Dwarves. Normal Humans get the normal +1 to each score while Variant Humans use starting class and background rules below for their 2 +1s.

+1 for their race based on what 5e considers their "primary" racial ability scores including subrace, if any, i.e. a Wood Elf could choose a +1 in Dexterity or a +1 in Wisdom.

+1 for their starting class based on their "primary" ability scores for multiclassing prerequisite(s) PHB pg. 163, i.e. a Paladin could choose a +1 in Strength or a +1 in Charisma.

+1 based off their Background proficiencies or a +1 to Constitution, i.e. an Entertainer could choose a +1 in Dexterity (Acrobatics) or a +1 in Charisma (Performance) or a +1 in Constitution.

Yup, a character could start with a +3 in an ability score if everything lines up.



I personally think that D&D has been concentrating on racial ability modifiers too closely and not other areas that would make sense for creating a character. Race should only be part of the equation and Tasha's option of swapping around the +2s and the +1s really doesn't work as well as it could if they implemented a better heritage/lineage system in my opinion. YMMV

[stoutstien]

I think d&d is at the crossroads where they need to take a serious look at the abilities scores and how they interact with the game and decide the direction they want them to go.

[micahaphone]

As far as racial modifiers go, our group goes with the homebrew that's worked the best for us over the years:


Every character gets a total of +3 including Half-Elves and Mountain Dwarves. Normal Humans get the normal +1 to each score while Variant Humans use starting class and background rules below for their 2 +1s.

+1 for their race based on what 5e considers their "primary" racial ability scores including subrace, if any, i.e. a Wood Elf could choose a +1 in Dexterity or a +1 in Wisdom.

+1 for their starting class based on their "primary" ability scores for multiclassing prerequisite(s) PHB pg. 163, i.e. a Paladin could choose a +1 in Strength or a +1 in Charisma.

+1 based off their Background proficiencies or a +1 to Constitution, i.e. an Entertainer could choose a +1 in Dexterity (Acrobatics) or a +1 in Charisma (Performance) or a +1 in Constitution.

Yup, a character could start with a +3 in an ability score if everything lines up.



I personally think that D&D has been concentrating on racial ability modifiers too closely and not other areas that would make sense for creating a character. Race should only be part of the equation and Tasha's option of swapping around the +2s and the +1s really doesn't work as well as it could if they implemented a better heritage/lineage system in my opinion. YMMV

Your stat generating system looks quite good, I might steal that! Definitely agreed about race / biology being a bit overstated in dnd, probably a legacy thing.


I usually roll my eyes when people bring up pathfinder 2E but their step by step stat allocation does a similar thing to your homebrew and I really appreciate systems like that, where the whole of your character's life leading up to being an adventurer influences your starting abilities.

[diplomancer]

As far as racial modifiers go, our group goes with the homebrew that's worked the best for us over the years:


Every character gets a total of +3 including Half-Elves and Mountain Dwarves. Normal Humans get the normal +1 to each score while Variant Humans use starting class and background rules below for their 2 +1s.

+1 for their race based on what 5e considers their "primary" racial ability scores including subrace, if any, i.e. a Wood Elf could choose a +1 in Dexterity or a +1 in Wisdom.

+1 for their starting class based on their "primary" ability scores for multiclassing prerequisite(s) PHB pg. 163, i.e. a Paladin could choose a +1 in Strength or a +1 in Charisma.

+1 based off their Background proficiencies or a +1 to Constitution, i.e. an Entertainer could choose a +1 in Dexterity (Acrobatics) or a +1 in Charisma (Performance) or a +1 in Constitution.

Yup, a character could start with a +3 in an ability score if everything lines up.



I personally think that D&D has been concentrating on racial ability modifiers too closely and not other areas that would make sense for creating a character. Race should only be part of the equation and Tasha's option of swapping around the +2s and the +1s really doesn't work as well as it could if they implemented a better heritage/lineage system in my opinion. YMMV

I like this system, but it's a nerf to the Half-Elf, isn't it? (at least if the only stat that's associated with their race is Cha. If they get to choose ANY ability, it's still a nerf, though a smaller one)

Another suggestion I'd make is to let people choose, for their class, any of the scores suggested as important in the "quick build" section, instead of focusing on the multiclass restrictions. It will be more flexible that way.

Another interesting option would be to have two relatively "tied" increases, say, by race and class, and one entirely free increase. Might work better, as I'm not sure it's a good idea to give such a mechanically important impact to backgrounds.

[TyGuy]

[
Definitely agreed about race / biology being a bit overstated in dnd, probably a legacy thing.


They're more species than races. My guess is that the term race is more fantasy aligned than species.

There's some great "race" background and lore that has been watered down over the years. That's kind of what lead to today where everything is treated like watered down mild variations of humanoids. Because things are getting so similar, it's easy to go the extra step and just treat the "races" as different reskins of humans.


I think what bothers me most about this thread (and similar threads) is that there's a lot of "this is how you should play" going around. People play for different reasons and value different aspects of the game, and D&D has never been - and likely never will be - a one-size-fits-all kind of game.

For example, my group has decided a couple years ago that we think it's important for immersion to emphasize the differences between all these fantasy species, so we homebrewed in greater variety in the ability modifiers, including adding negative modifiers to several of the core races. It didn't work out exactly the way we hoped when we mathed it out because 5e stats are a bit weird, but we thought it was worth a shot. For a group like ours, the Tasha rules are completely contrary to our enjoyment of D&D, so it's very odd to me to see people claim they're the only right way to play the game.
Hear hear! As I said, there's great distinction between the species in the old cannon. Rather than waste all that, I encourage people to buck the trend and go in the opposite direction. Double down on the things that make the different creatures unique.

Why adapt orcs to be humans with tusks when you can restore them to truly exotic and alien creatures? I mean, I get it that people want a fresh take on things. But for me, going back to the original content is fresh, because I wasn't around for that OG content.

This is what I'm talking about.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TFdv-aGlxCc&t=1s

[MaxWilson]

+2 to your primary stat is a bigger deal than one might think.

For example, vs AC 15:

+4 to hit / 1d8+2: 3.475 DPR
+5 to hit / 1d8+3: 4.35 DPR

Here it is on Anydice (https://anydice.com/program/1f8dc). You can also do it on the DPR calculator in my sig.

That's a slightly over 25% increase in damage output. If a whole party gets a 25% damage output, that's practically like having a whole extra character on the team, damage-wise.

However, not everybody on the team will be getting this +25% damage bump, so the party won't get a 25% damage bump overall. Someone with Sharpshooter and Archery style would go from Dex 14/6.00 DPR against AC 15 to Dex 16/7.22, only a 20% boost; most spellcasters don't even get to add ability mod to damage at all (going from +4 for d8 to +5 for d8 is only 9% damage boost); plenty of spells don't care about your spellcasting ability in the slightest (Conjure Animals) and spellcasters with lower scores will prefer those spells.

Too many Internet theorycrafters make the mistake of assuming that low-stats characters will make the same decisions as higher-stats characters, so they underestimate the effectiveness of lower-stats PCs and overestimate the impact of high stats.

It depends.


They're more species than races. My guess is that the term race is more fantasy aligned than species.

There's some great "race" background and lore that has been watered down over the years. That's kind of what lead to today where everything is treated like watered down mild variations of humanoids. Because things are getting so similar, it's easy to go the extra step and just treat the "races" as different reskins of humans.


species
n. A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The species is the fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus. Species names are represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.
n. A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.
n. A set of atoms, molecules, ions, or other chemical entities that possess the same distinct characteristics with respect to a chemical process or measurement.


race
n. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.
n. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.
n. A genealogical line; a lineage.

My guess would be that it's because "race" is more people-aligned and "species" is more animal-aligned. Calling Vulcans and Frost Giants and Carmpan "races" is perhaps more explicitly respectful of their personhood than calling them "species", or was originally anyway.

You could refer to the Vanir race in a fantasy game, but you couldn't refer to the the Great Dane race, because Great Danes are dogs, not people. That's a breed, not a race.

[MrStabby]

Those who dislike point buy and prefer rolling, I predict, are likely to dislike Tasha's variant as well because it's basically the same thing: putting concept first instead of deriving concept from rolls/stats.

Those who like point buy might still dislike Tasha's for other reasons.

Not me. Quite the opposite. Not a fan of rolling. Not really a fan of Tasha's (though it's not really the hill I would chose to die on).


I don't think discouraging optimizers is a good reason to reject the optional racial ability-swapping rules. Optimizers are going to optimize anyway; these rules just enable them to pick new and exciting ideas they they might have otherwise left on the drawing board.

Since it's just ability scores that get swapped, while the vast majority of racial features remain the same, Tasha-swapped races are probably not going to outperform the established meta kings (like variant human). Justifying the choice to ignore the Tasha's optional racial rules by claiming you're curbing optimization or teaching optimizers an important life lesson—to me—just seems spiteful.

I dont think it's about discouraging optimisers - at least not for me. I think part of it is keeping the optimisation ceiling a bit lower so the most optimised characters can still have a fun game at the same table as a player who has just followed the quick build guide in the PHB, picked spells that sound cool and their favourite race based on the culture.

There are enough different factors that mean that some players are less well suited to playing with others that I am really keen to not add a gulf in optimisation level to that.

Then there is diversity... both as a DM and a player it gets a bit wearing to see identikit race/class/theme characters again and again. Same spells as well.

The greater distinction between characters that you see when different races bring something different just makes for more variety and brings me more fun. Starting first game after Tasha and seeing most players bringing mountain dwarf wizards was just depressing. I don't think it's good for the game.



I think what bothers me most about this thread (and similar threads) is that there's a lot of "this is how you should play" going around. People play for different reasons and value different aspects of the game, and D&D has never been - and likely never will be - a one-size-fits-all kind of game.

For example, my group has decided a couple years ago that we think it's important for immersion to emphasize the differences between all these fantasy species, so we homebrewed in greater variety in the ability modifiers, including adding negative modifiers to several of the core races. It didn't work out exactly the way we hoped when we mathed it out because 5e stats are a bit weird, but we thought it was worth a shot. For a group like ours, the Tasha rules are completely contrary to our enjoyment of D&D, so it's very odd to me to see people claim they're the only right way to play the game.

I think there parts that are yes and parts that are no to this. I think with respect to the OP people are saying "yes, the game should be played this way and your table is doing it wrong", where "this way" means with respect for the DM and not turning decisions on which content to use into fuel for either personal or political attacks. So yes, some are saying that the OP is at a table playing it wrong and that the game should be played more respectfully.

Then there is the other content. People are more talking about their desires and their experiences. Not so much "you should play like I do" but more "I like X, Y, Z and playstyle Q gives me that. If you like X, Y and Z then you should consider Q as well. Its maybe a suggestion on what people might like or maybe at most a demand that any table they play at plays in a particular way (not in an offensive way, but just in the sense of what it will take to consider joining a game).

[diplomancer]

The greater distinction between characters that you see when different races bring something different just makes for more variety and brings me more fun. Starting first game after Tasha and seeing most players bringing mountain dwarf wizards was just depressing. I don't think it's good for the game.

Impossible! So many people said that would never happen with the racial changes...

[Willie the Duck]

Impossible! So many people said that would never happen with the racial changes...

I don't think a lot of people said that. Now, I think a lot of people said, 'We expect a bunch of people to try this, and DMs to nix it quickly, because the game is not played by robots.'

[diplomancer]

I don't think a lot of people said that. Now, I think a lot of people said, 'We expect a bunch of people to try this, and DMs to nix it quickly, because the game is not played by robots.'

For $100, what is the oberoni fallacy?

[MaxWilson]

Those who dislike point buy and prefer rolling, I predict, are likely to dislike Tasha's variant as well because it's basically the same thing: putting concept first instead of deriving concept from rolls/stats.

Those who like point buy might still dislike Tasha's for other reasons.


Not me. Quite the opposite. Not a fan of rolling. Not really a fan of Tasha's (though it's not really the hill I would chose to die on).

That doesn't look like "the opposite" to me. If you don't like rolling, presumably you like point buy (or its degenerate cousin, standard array). You mildly dislike Tasha's for other reasons. How is that the opposite?


For $100, what is the oberoni fallacy?

Typically it's a label applied to a straw man.

[Telesphoros]

Your stat generating system looks quite good, I might steal that! Definitely agreed about race / biology being a bit overstated in dnd, probably a legacy thing.


I usually roll my eyes when people bring up pathfinder 2E but their step by step stat allocation does a similar thing to your homebrew and I really appreciate systems like that, where the whole of your character's life leading up to being an adventurer influences your starting abilities.

Thanks, it works for our tables, but to be honest we have a lot of homebrew rules for 5e that blend together pretty well that might not be right for everyone. It works for us, so we keep using it until something better comes up or it needs a tweak. I think 2017 shortly before Xanathar's came out we started implementing stat rules. And then tweak, tweak, tweak.





I like this system, but it's a nerf to the Half-Elf, isn't it? (at least if the only stat that's associated with their race is Cha. If they get to choose ANY ability, it's still a nerf, though a smaller one)

Since Half-Elves get two +1s to anywhere, yes, they get to choose where their +1 goes for race.

I should mention though for most of my own campaigns I don't use Half-Elves as I've introduced another race based on the Feywild. The Kino'fey or Fey'rikin as they're called basically replaced Half Elves. In my worlds Humans can give birth to Genasi, Tieflings, Aasimar, Kino'fey/Fey'rikin, Shadowlings, and even Mongrelmen (Far Realms touched) if they've had an event that might warrant it or have been "plane touched" etc. After Tasha's I might just start calling them Fey Touched or Shadow Touched. We'll see I guess.

Furthermore, I don't use Half-Orcs in my worlds either. Prior to the Volo's errata "update" for Orcs I'd simply use the Half-Orc stats/abilities as the guide for my Orcs, which come in a variety of shapes and sizes so to speak just like humans, elves, or what have you.




Another suggestion I'd make is to let people choose, for their class, any of the scores suggested as important in the "quick build" section, instead of focusing on the multiclass restrictions. It will be more flexible that way.

In the past we've used the listed saving throw proficiencies for each class as well, but your suggestion sounds like a fine, reasonable choice as well. Thanks! I'll offer it up as a choice for my new campaigns.



Another interesting option would be to have two relatively "tied" increases, say, by race and class, and one entirely free increase. Might work better, as I'm not sure it's a good idea to give such a mechanically important impact to backgrounds.

We actually did it that way starting out, but most of us wanted a little more meaning for our choices. In all honesty though, we use a lot of custom backgrounds and allow the replacement of a background proficiency if we've already gained it from our class or race, so depending on your proficiency selection or choosing Constitution, that background associated +1 really is pretty wide open. Obviously the other way worked out perfectly fine too. I also doubt any of my tables would say "no" if someone wanted put a +1 to an ability that wasn't tied to a background proficiency. I know I wouldn't. Cheers to gaming options.

[LudicSavant]

It depends.

Of course it depends, and of course some builds depend more on stats than others.

The point being made was that it's not really just a 5% difference in outcomes. The impact can be quite significant in many cases.

[Willie the Duck]

For $100, what is the oberoni fallacy?

Not really. Oberoni refers to whether a critique of the game is valid or not based on what DMs will do, but I really didn't see many people saying that this was good game design. It isn't. Whether it was a sky-is-falling situation, however, is a matter of opinion, and 'but the DM will nix it' is a perfectly reasonable part of that equation. Yeah, we got it-DM's can fix it doesn't defend the theoretical goodness of a given game system, but if DM's will fix it, that impacts how relevant it will be at actual tables. My overall point was mostly that the statement 'So many people said that would never happen with the racial changes' isn't really true (in my opinion). Everyone darn well knew it was there, and pretty much everyone agreed that it is an overpoweredhigh power option.

Look, everyone gets it -- this is not how one would build a racial benefits system if designing a game from the ground up. It is an after-the-fact kludge that is really hampered by previous decisions*, and WotC's unwillingness to make major changes to the existing library of rules. Even the people who thoroughly applauded the racial modification rules seemed to be well aware of what that meant for mountain dwarves, Yuan ti, and half elves; they just think it is an awkward kludge that is worth the benefits.
*to be clear, the idea that certain races' benefits were not balanced with dis-synergistic attribute bonuses is something that WotC is saying that convinces virtually no one.

What I'm really contesting is the idea that no one saw it coming that people would show up on day one with a bunch of mountain dwarf wizards -- everyone* saw it coming. Same as Hexblade dips and Coffeelocks after XGtE came out and cleric1/wizard X-1s when 5e was initially released.
*obvious hyperbole.

[mistajames]

If the issues in Tasha's come down to the racial stat/proficiency swaps on page 7 of the book and maybe the Twilight cleric subclass, I don't think that it's fair to say that the whole book is problematic. Even then, this only really causes issues with stuff like Githyanki/Mountain Dwarf/Yuan-Ti Pureblood, where swapping stats is particularly relevant and where getting proficiency in thieves' tools or some sort of crafting tools (really, the only tool proficiencies that ever matters) is kind of important. Most of the time, the difference is marginal.

If the issue is keeping the optimization ceiling down, that's something that should be stated in Session 0. Either everyone helps the PCs who are new or underperforming to perform mechanically per their expectations, you tell your optimizers to keep their builds in check (i.e. - ask your optimizers to keep their damage numbers etc. in check to share the spotlight), or you improve your underperforming PCs mechanically by giving them stuff in-game (like NPC retainers and hirelings, potent magic items, special abilities and features, etc.).

[LudicSavant]

I think what bothers me most about this thread (and similar threads) is that there's a lot of "this is how you should play" going around. For sure.


For example, my group has decided a couple years ago that we think it's important for immersion to emphasize the differences between all these fantasy species, so we homebrewed in greater variety in the ability modifiers, including adding negative modifiers to several of the core races. It didn't work out exactly the way we hoped when we mathed it out because 5e stats are a bit weird, but we thought it was worth a shot.

I think one of the main problems with racial attribute modifiers, specifically as they are implemented in 5th edition, is that they don't really do what a lot of people expect them to (namely, create meaningful in-world fluff differences between the races).

I cannot make a uniquely strong half-orc via 5e racial attribute modifiers. The strongest half-orc and the strongest gnome have the same Strength: 20.

The difference between the 20 strength half-orc and the 20 strength gnome character isn't that one has any more muscle than the other, it's that the 20 Str gnome character is going to be down an ASI in some completely different category. The 20 Strength half-orc gets to pick up, I dunno, Fey-Touched or something with their extra resources.

Now, the reflexive explanation is to say something like 'well, that gnome would be rarer among their kind than the half-orc, so it costs more.' But if we stop to think about it, that's a little weird, isn't it? In pretty much every other context, we don't measure how many character building resources a feature should cost by how rare it is. We measure it by how powerful it is.

[GorogIrongut]

I think one of the main problems with racial attribute modifiers, specifically as they are implemented in 5th edition, is that they don't really do what a lot of people expect them to (namely, create meaningful in-world fluff differences between the races).

I cannot make a uniquely strong half-orc via 5e racial attribute modifiers. The strongest half-orc and the strongest gnome have the same Strength: 20.

Normally I avoid threads similar to this like the plague. But your comment got me thinking. Would both sides be happy if:
a. The racial modifiers increased the 20 stat cap.
and
b. You were allowed to choose where to put your modifiers.

For example, you can be a Forest Gnome and you would get a Max Stat increase of 2 for Intelligence and 1 for Dexterity. But you were free to choose where you wanted to put that +2 and +1.

I know it doesn't resolve the Mountain Dwarf. But it goes along way to opening up play style while recognizing the inherent racial differences.

[Stangler]

The power of the DM?
Do you mean the fact that the DM is allowed to choose optional rules to put into a game setting? Anything from homebrew to core books. And that adding a whole new book mid campain isnt a gimme ?
Like I said, don’t let the power go to your head. I am not denying the power a dm has.

It is also not homebrew so don’t act like official content is comparable.

Plenty of dms let their own prejudices blind them to the group and become dictators while thinking everything they decide is justified because the rules say that they can decide.

Bad dm

[PhoenixPhyre]

Like I said, don’t let the power go to your head. I am not denying the power a dm has.

It is also not homebrew so don’t act like official content is comparable.

Plenty of dms let their own prejudices blind them to the group and become dictators while thinking everything they decide is justified because the rules say that they can decide.

Bad dm

Homebrew and optional content, in the context of a game are no different from each other. Either one only exists within the game if the table[1] decides it does. And once you're actually playing, rules are rules no matter where they came from. A homebrew rule is just as meaningful as an official PHB one is just as meaningful as something from an optional source. There should be no stigma. No second-class rules.

[1] The default in D&D is that the table delegates that choice-of-accepted-content entirely to the DM. That's the assumption made by the DMG at least, so if you're changing that you're homebrewing. Which isn't bad, just ironic in context.

[Dark.Revenant]

I reject the notion that the concept they're playing is "new and exciting" if it hinges on a +1 difference. If the stat bonus kept them away from the concept, then they're not really playing something new and exciting; they're playing the same-old-thing with a different skin. "But they have other racial abilities!" you might argue, and you're right. However, those other racial abilities obviously don't matter enough to make the concept interesting and exciting.

I am not a fan of informed traits. And when you alter something so that it is just the same as other things, and then say, "it's new and exciting because these just don't happen very often!" I roll my eyes. Why don't thy happen very often? Because ... uh ... somebody said so. Never mind that they'll either happen just as much or more than the things said to happen frequently, depending on how optimal their other traits are for this "unusual" use, in practice, now that any reason why they wouldn't happen is gone.

Optimizers absolutely will optimize. If they want to play something "new and exciting," they'll find a way to optimize it; they don't need it to be pumped up to be more powerful.

And if you claim the stat is all that kept them from it, how long until the argument is that, say, "my concept really needs Darkvision at 120 feet to work, so I should be able to make my halfling have that as a racial trait; why are you so against me making new and exciting builds?" becomes as much an argument as "my halfling really needs +2 Wisdom!" does?

You seem to be arguing the point of "optimization preference isn't sufficient reason to allow this optional rule", which is subtly distinct from my point of "disliking optimization isn't sufficient reason to disallow this optional rule". I think we can agree that the decision should be based on tone, setting, verisimilitude, etc. rather than the—let's face it—relatively minor gameplay ramifications.

FWIW, the "Custom Lineage" option that just lets you choose your own features is the more elegant solution, to my eyes. I would encourage DMs to allow that option even if ability score (and/or proficiency) swaps aren't allowed.

[Segev]

Now, the reflexive explanation is to say something like 'well, that gnome would be rarer among their kind than the half-orc, so it costs more.' But if we stop to think about it, that's a little weird, isn't it? In pretty much every other context, we don't measure how many character building resources a feature should cost by how rare it is. We measure it by how powerful it is.

Rarity isn’t about balance, but setting fiction. The 20-strength gnome is supposed to be more rare. Gnomes are not supposed to be just as strong as half-orcs on the average, any more than they are supposed to be as strong as storm giants on the average.

There’s nothing wrong with having it be possible for a gnome to be as strong as the strongest half-orc, but such is supposed to be much more noteworthy for its rarity. This is only the case if it takes more investment - even only as little as one more ASI - to achieve it.

Otherwise, there’s nothing special about the 20-strength gnome vs. any other 20-strength character. And it’s no more or less rare, so anything in setting claiming it is is just making claims that are not supported by the mechanics.

[TyGuy]

Normally I avoid threads similar to this like the plague. But your comment got me thinking. Would both sides be happy if:
a. The racial modifiers increased the 20 stat cap.
and
b. You were allowed to choose where to put your modifiers.

For example, you can be a Forest Gnome and you would get a Max Stat increase of 2 for Intelligence and 1 for Dexterity. But you were free to choose where you wanted to put that +2 and +1.

I know it doesn't resolve the Mountain Dwarf. But it goes along way to opening up play style while recognizing the inherent racial differences.
Too much overhead for my table but I like this. Maybe even design races to have lower maximums to drive home certain elements. With bounded accuracy maybe keep the ranges from being wide, but something like small races normally max 18 strength while the powerful build races max at 22.

[KaussH]

Like I said, don’t let the power go to your head. I am not denying the power a dm has.

It is also not homebrew so don’t act like official content is comparable.

Plenty of dms let their own prejudices blind them to the group and become dictators while thinking everything they decide is justified because the rules say that they can decide.

Bad dm

Homebrew is just optional that comes from a 3ed party :)

As long as the group buys in, everything is optional. I could remove elves, rename dwarves to "flatmen " tell people that fighters are not allowed in the setting. It's not even being a dictator, it may just be "so I have this idea for a campaign " (much like a player can have an idea for a character)

It's not even prejudice, it might be for gm ease, player ease, ect.

Heck in a lot of games I run, I do a large amount of culture work, so I cap the races way down. So I can focus on the 6,7,8,9,ect number of races the pcs can be.

The gm has always been allowed to remove or adjust the rules. Be it weapon vs armor type rules that never seem to work, or encumbrance rules made smoother, or even big things like "these spells dont exist "
It's all homebrew and optional.

[LudicSavant]

Rarity isn’t about balance, but setting fiction. The 20-strength gnome is supposed to be more rare.

I think you might have missed the point. We already agree that the gnome is supposed to be more rare.

[huttj509]

I dislike the new rules because, if they are in effect that campaign, the world uses them, even if none of the PCs and none of the NPCs do. So verisimilitude of having difference species is decreased (and 5E already suffers in that area*). However you can see why I am prone to diminishing the significance of my annoyance in the face of the issues the others are seeing/feeling.

Which is why I recommend the OP include the new rules.


Explicitly in Tashas the new optional rule only applies to PCs, not NPCs. Because PCs are special. Sometimes they go adventuring *because* they're special. If you want to play a PC who's not special, great, lean into that.

[OldTrees1]

Explicitly in Tashas the new optional rule only applies to PCs, not NPCs. Because PCs are special. Sometimes they go adventuring *because* they're special. If you want to play a PC who's not special, great, lean into that.

That is public knowledge but obviously does nothing to address my concern. Tashas new optional rule, if in effect, applies to the species, even if no PC or NPC uses it.

Just like it is public knowledge that the rest of my post was more relevant to the thread. We really don't need to rehash the prior threads.

[LudicSavant]

such is supposed to be much more noteworthy for its rarity. This is only the case if it takes more investment - even only as little as one more ASI - to achieve it.

Not only is extra investment of metagame character building resources not the only way to achieve it... it's not even the usual way to achieve it. No seriously, rarity is usually not conflated with cost in character building resources, like, at all.

For example, one generally would not argue that a half-feat should instead cost a full feat on the basis of it being 'rare.' For another example, one would generally not argue that Humans should be a more powerful race than Dragonmarked Humans because Dragonmarked Humans are less common than regular ones in the world of Eberron.

Generally the question asked when assigning metagame costs to features isn't "how rare is it," it's "how powerful is it?"

[MaxWilson]

Explicitly in Tashas the new optional rule only applies to PCs, not NPCs. Because PCs are special. Sometimes they go adventuring *because* they're special. If you want to play a PC who's not special, great, lean into that.

I dunno, Tasha's frames it as if ability modifiers have been PC only all along because PCs are special, but we know that that's incorrect because the DMG even has various racial ability modifiers for MM NPC templates like Goblin Acolytes vs. Dwarven Acolytes. I think whoever wrote the Tasha's blurb just doesn't know what they're talking about, assuming they weren't just lying for corporate/political reasons.


Now, the reflexive explanation is to say something like 'well, that gnome would be rarer among their kind than the half-orc, so it costs more.' But if we stop to think about it, that's a little weird, isn't it? In pretty much every other context, we don't measure how many character building resources a feature should cost by how rare it is. We measure it by how powerful it is.

Sovereign Glue and Universal Solvent would like to have a word with you. Legendary rarity, but weak power. And yet they are still incredibly expensive to create because they are rated as being extremely rare. (Also, scrolls of Weird/Storm of Vengeance.)

Also, MAD classes. It's rare to roll stats good enough to play a good warlock/monk or paladin/monk, but those classes aren't overpowered even when you do roll multiple 17s/18s. They are rare though.

[LudicSavant]

Sovereign Glue and Universal Solvent would like to have a word with you

You're talking about a completely different thing. Sovereign Glue and Universal Solvent are items, not features possessed by characters. Gold piece costs are an actual in-world currency, not a metagame character building currency.

Items, naturally enough, have their prices affected by scarcity, just as in the real world. A rare gemstone may have no mechanical effect at all but have a very high gold piece cost, for instance.

Character features gained with purely metagame currencies, on the other hand, usually are not costed by scarcity, but by power. It would be rather unusual, for instance, if a rare eye color with no notable mechanical effects had a high metagame currency cost.

[Pex]

Here's the thing: if it's so reasonable to want a 16 rather than a 14 or 15 in a stat of your choice at level 1, no matter what race you choose, why is it not equally reasonable to want pack fighting even if you picked a half-orc instead of a kobold, or flight even if you picked a Triton rather than an Aaracockra?

Is it any less reasonable?

What if I find it extremely important to my concept that my wood elf have training in the mountain dwarf weapons and armor options? Why is that less reasonable than my wood elf getting +2 Strength?

Maybe I prefer my Kenku have light blindness rather than an inability to speak in his own words.

I shouldn't have to have my human raised by Kenku use minor illusion to emulate their mimicry; he should just have the racial feature. Just like I shouldn't have to spend an ASI to get +2 strength on a halfling, but should get it from chargen.

It's not about people being entitled or unreasonable; it's about where the line is drawn throwing balance and a subtle, almost objectively meaningless pressure on player choices out the window. The pressure is real, though, because the subjective feeling IS strong: people DO want that 16, even though it isn't actually that big of a deal (5% difference in odds).

It's a matter of degree. It may even be arbitrary. The difference between a 14 and 16 is one of math, easily quantified and judged. The difference between having flight and no flight, pack tactics and no pack tactics, is a matter of power or ability. How strong can depend on the campaign. Since it's not so easily quantified and judged such things are not easily swapped.

[MaxWilson]

Character features gained with purely metagame currencies, on the other hand, usually are not costed by scarcity, but by power. It would be rather unusual, for instance, if a rare eye color with no notable mechanical effects had a high metagame currency cost.

You conveniently snipped an example of exactly that: MAD character combos are rarer, but not more powerful, than SAD ones. Rolling four 18s to make a paladin/monk does not make you more powerful than someone who rolls one 18 and a 14 and makes a Hexvoker, but the monklock is much rarer.

And BTW I disagree that magic items are a completely separate thing. I think you're missing the point: gameworld rarity matters to some of us.

[Pex]

Is your argument about the game math expectations, or the expectations players who desire to optimize to be better than the game math expects?

Because 18 and a feat at 8th is slightly ahead of math expectations with a feat thrown in on top, and 20 at 8th is either beyond any expectations for a character even at level 20, or far before tier 4 (depending on how you analyze the math). Those are expectations of folks who want to optimize to be better than the expected math.

It's more that players who want the 18 and feat at 8th level, or even just a 16 in their prime at first, are not being "entitled".

[LudicSavant]

You conveniently snipped an example of exactly that: MAD character combos are rarer, but not more powerful, than SAD ones. Rolling four 18s to make a paladin/monk does not make you more powerful than someone who rolls one 18 and a 14 and makes a Hexvoker, but the monklock is much rarer.

I am skeptical of the premise that MAD character concepts are categorically rarer in-world than SAD ones, let alone that this was a result of a conscious choice by the devs to make Monklocks more expensive than Hexvokers on the basis of in-world rarity.

Even if I were to accept said premise for the sake of argument, you will recall that I said that "character features gained with purely metagame currencies, on the other hand, usually are not costed by scarcity, but by power."

For example, if the developers sit down to design a new feat, for instance, I doubt there's going to be a lot of statements like "I think Telekinetic should be weaker than usual for a feat because psionics is rare."


gameworld rarity matters to some of us.

Implying that you think it doesn't matter to me?

Because you'd be wrong about that. Saying that rarity is generally not represented by a particular method doesn't mean that I think it's unimportant.

[MaxWilson]

Implying that you think it doesn't matter to me?

No. Implying that I have partial information about some people, not total information about everybody.

[Tanarii]

It's more that players who want the 18 and feat at 8th level, or even just a 16 in their prime at first, are not being "entitled".
Agreed. There's ways to do that in the PHB, so clearly it's not an entitlement. What those players have ifs Tashas race options are in play are less hard choices, but more options, to meet their goal.

[holbita]

Honestly, I believe we are getting away from the main topic.

Is WotC being overly political and absurd with this new optional rule for races and forcing us, because we know how optional is treated in 5e, just see feats, to deal with a rule that has no internal consistency with how racial modifiers work and disregarding the fact that their argument about orcs can be intelligent too has nothing to do with these modifiers and all with point buy/rolling stats? Yes, no point discussing it, it's plainly obvious.

Is the rule going to promove diversity? Between casuals and roleplaying focused players I don't believe it's going to affect much, they will keep playing what the feel for playing. 5e does not have a optimization ceiling high or low enough for that to matter, and that affects min-maxers as well, is it going to be relevant at the end of the day that only dwarves go on adventures? Not really, it will be more boring, but 5e is already D&D the easy mode so it will not change anything at the end of the day.

Personally, having different races in a group means little to me when it comes to in-game diversity, a bigger issue is that classes in 5e have not much when it comes to personalization and different ways to play it, for example playing rogue means booming blade/green-flame blade + rapier or ranged weapon, even when you are going two weapons at the end of the day it plays the same and subclasses don't really change that. In my experience most groups have a rogue and they are all the same rogue, and it's pretty much the same for the rest of the classes. Maybe it's because I am used to playing 3.5 but there (even if you are only taking into account the first 5 books printed) just saying there is a rogue in the group meant little, I needed to be told what that person was going for with their build.

Now that I have ranted enough about this I can go back to the actual main topic.

Was the OP unreasonable to ban it? Yes.
Does it matter? No.

The job of the DM is not being reasonable, and it's also not to make everyone happy. The job of a DM is to run an entertaining game and that will make the players happy, everything else is secondary. I have run games that where pure railroad and because it was entertaining the players were happy and I have run other games where I made 0 preparation before the game and I was coming with ideas on the fly based on what they were doing in it was entertaining as hell and so everyone was happy. Super politically correct world run in a entertaining way? all in. Humans are king and all other races their sex slaves? Is it an entertaining game? go for it.

If it's not entertaining and players leave then they leave and if they don't want to leave kick them out and find new ones. A game with people that don't want to be there is not entertaining, a game with people that bring out-of-game stuff to the table is not entertaining either. If at the end of the day you realize that no one is there on the table then perhaps your games was not entertaining and as such not worth playing.

Railroad? Player choice? Politics and sensibilities? Those are just styles of gaming and mean nothing if the game is not entertaining. You want to allow or disallow a rule? Who cares?

You asked in the beginning if you were a good DM? It's your game entertaining? there is your answer. If you have players that think the same stick with them and kick out the rest, no point in having someone that doesn't want to be there you aro doing everyone in the table a favor by doing so, get new blood. You already went through the process of talking with them about it, what else is there for you to do?

[Tanarii]

[B]Was the OP unreasonable to ban it? Yes.[B]
In a post full of detailed explanations for your strong opinions, you completely failed to address this one.

[holbita]

Hum, fair enough. Allow me:

All DM decisions are unreasonable in the fact that they do not need reason to be there, you can give it one if you want and many times we will do so both inside and outside roleplaying. Do we need a reason to have an NPC appear in a specific location? not really, if I find it more entertaining for it to be a reason I will give it one, otherwise it was there and that's the end of the story.

Same with banning things, as a DM you don't need reasons to ban things, you just do it, who cares why? this is the game you are running wether is still entertaining after you ban things is what matters.

That's why I say he was unreasonable, he did not discuss with his players before or after about changing his mind, he did not "listen to reason" and he shouldn't. It's HIS game trying to justify his decissions is a fool's errand. If you want to do it, feel free to do so but only if that is something you enjoy.

I played a game where horses did not exist due to a meteorite falling and killing all horses (zebras existed though, don't ask me why) just because the DM was tired of player playing mounted builds. It's not our place to argue against it or try to have him change his mind, he is on his right to be unreasonable as much as he wants, if we find that at the end of the day his table is not entertaining we can just leave and join another or start one by ourselves.

Yes, you can go and talk things with your players first, that's called being civic and is a welcomed thing, who knows? maybe they even make you change ideas, but it doesn't change the fact that you are the DM, if you don't like something in your game ban it and be done with it.

[Tanarii]

Oh okay. So if I'm understanding correctly, you meant not based on reasons, because reasoning with the players doesn't enter into it?

I'll point out that the OP did reason with their players. Or rather per their version of events, their players forced their reasoning on the OP, personally and politically attacking them in the process. Before they'd even had a chance to purchase and properly peruse the rules.

So I find it hard to view the OP as being unreasonable. They had a reason, and one of the players was being very unreasonable when they tried to reason with them.

Conversely, that player was definitely not entertained.

[holbita]

I see your point. but based on that wether you see it as unreasonable or not depends on which side of the political spectrum you are, you agree with him on the reason why he bans it you will find it reasonable you don't then is unreasonable, there is not going to be an agreement until they decide to talk about politics and come to an agreement there. The OP even clarifies that his reasons for the banning are not politically inclined (that I suspect is what the other person has problems with) but lack of experience with the material.

In this case you can either agree with OP and see his point as reasonable and the player as unreasonable or agree with player and see OP as unreasonable.

I decide to see both of them as unreasonable, and I take it farther and see all DM decisions as unreasonable in nature.

Why on earth would I do this? Because if you want to play a game you need the DM to run it, it's going to be his game and you are there for the ride, the game may allow you more or less freedom on where to take the ride but the ride belongs to the DM, if we see both sides as reasonable we end up with arguments for both sides and conversations and conversations that need to happen for every little thing and it's a waste of time, if I as DM don't want spellcasters for my game I am on my right to say so, and if that's not the game you want leave, that's the one I am offering right now, it may change later or not, it doesn't matter.

Having said that, I understand that my point of view may be a little too extrange compared to whay I have seen in the posts that preceeded it, and believe me I enjoyed the conversation as I enjoy such things. I don't know if my way of thinking will help OP but at this point since he gave such an entertaining discussion I thought the least I could do was give him my opinion as alien as it may be to him. I hope it helps him though.

Don't take unreasonable as a bad word, it is not in this case.

[carrdrivesyou]

So...the situation more or less resolved itself without getting any more political or negative. I mentioned that since my decision to ban some of the content, that Player One has missed several sessions. They have since quit the game, as of the most recent session, although they stated this was for reasons unrelated to this particular decision. Player Two is still a bit miffed about it, but is happily moving along with the flow of the campaign.


Conversely, that player was definitely not entertained.
They really weren't. Perhaps I should have brought in Maximus to fix this :P


I see your point. but based on that wether you see it as unreasonable or not depends on which side of the political spectrum you are, you agree with him on the reason why he bans it you will find it reasonable you don't then is unreasonable, there is not going to be an agreement until they decide to talk about politics and come to an agreement there. The OP even clarifies that his reasons for the banning are not politically inclined (that I suspect is what the other person has problems with) but lack of experience with the material.

In this case you can either agree with OP and see his point as reasonable and the player as unreasonable or agree with player and see OP as unreasonable.

I decide to see both of them as unreasonable, and I take it farther and see all DM decisions as unreasonable in nature.

Why on earth would I do this? Because if you want to play a game you need the DM to run it, it's going to be his game and you are there for the ride, the game may allow you more or less freedom on where to take the ride but the ride belongs to the DM, if we see both sides as reasonable we end up with arguments for both sides and conversations and conversations that need to happen for every little thing and it's a waste of time, if I as DM don't want spellcasters for my game I am on my right to say so, and if that's not the game you want leave, that's the one I am offering right now, it may change later or not, it doesn't matter.

Having said that, I understand that my point of view may be a little too extrange compared to whay I have seen in the posts that preceeded it, and believe me I enjoyed the conversation as I enjoy such things. I don't know if my way of thinking will help OP but at this point since he gave such an entertaining discussion I thought the least I could do was give him my opinion as alien as it may be to him. I hope it helps him though.

Don't take unreasonable as a bad word, it is not in this case.
This is an interesting take on how to think about things from the DM chair. While certainly falling along the lines of "unconventional" thinking, it does explain things with bias both ignored and considered. I rather admire your ability to look at things from outside the box. This is really the kind of outside opinion I was looking for.




Overall, the situation has resolved. The PC that left MIGHT come up briefly in the future, but I doubt it. Moving forward, my decisions will stand. I really do not like a lot of what I have read in Tasha's, and it's enough to put the rest of it in a bad light. I will allow certain items in the future on a case by case basis only. Some things, like BB and GFB no longer working with Shadow Blade are just dumb IMO, and will not be used. The idea of trying to implement rules from a book I do not possess is obnoxious for obvious reasons, and anyone who tries to argue that will likely be asked to leave. The conditional clause here being that case by case allowances will be made so long as the player requesting it provides the material. All things considered, I see no reason for me to go and purchases Tasha's. All it has done is disappoint me, with rare exceptions. I will be implementing a house rule for new PCs, allowing for custom racial adjustments as follows: at character creation, you get either: (a) a +2 and a +1, or (b) three +1s to allocate to your stats as desired; you may substitute one +2 or two +1s in exchange for a non-stat boosting feat of player choice. This way, people are not locked into Vuman for early feat access, and they can allocate their stats as desired without crippling their mechanics. Feats are good for character flavor, but will also have the caveat of having to be explained via backstory why someone has such a powerful skill (i.e. raw talent vs specialized training).

I think that this is more than a fair compromise.

[GooeyChewie]

Sorry for pulling something from a few pages back, but I was just catching up on the thread.


So for the people who dislike the new rules, do you feel that you have to use them if they are available?

I dislike the new rules. If a DM indicates that the rules are available, it will impact my character building process. That impact most likely takes the form of avoiding class/race combos which would benefit from the new rules, rather than actually using the new rules. I would tolerate it, but it might keep me from playing the character I really wanted to play.

Side note: If everybody else at the table is playing the "create your own" race to start with an 18 at level 1, I feel like I would have to do the same to keep up.

The reason I do not like the new rules is that they do not accomplish the goal of opening up race/class combinations. They merely move the determining factor for race/class combinations from attribute bonuses to racial abilities. Some races have generic racial abilities usable regardless of class, and these races came out the winners in the new rules. Some races have racial abilities which would be redundant with certain class abilities, often for classes which their attributes supported. These races are now ideal for different classes than they were before, but not for all classes. And then there are races which have racial abilities tied to the score they also increase, which means the new rules really didn't change anything for them.

I would have been on board for altering the point buy rules to allow players to purchase a 16, with a hard cap of 17 (after racial bonuses) at character creation. That way races would still work best within their archetype, but players could play something off-archetype without sacrificing that +3 modifier.

[TyGuy]

The reason I do not like the new rules is that they do not accomplish the goal of opening up race/class combinations. They merely move the determining factor for race/class combinations from attribute bonuses to racial abilities...

I would have been on board for altering the point buy rules to allow players to purchase a 16, with a hard cap of 17 (after racial bonuses) at character creation. That way races would still work best within their archetype, but players could play something off-archetype without sacrificing that +3 modifier.

How do you feel about a swinging +1? It can come from either racial ASI, can shift to stack with another, but can't exceed +2.

For example: a dragonborn can shift a +1 from strength to charisma for a +1 STR +2 CHA. Or the charisma to constitution for +2 STR +1 CON. But not charisma to strength for a +3 STR.

I've been using this before TCoE and I like that it showcases variety within the races while maintaining distinction between the races.

[GooeyChewie]

How do you feel about a swinging +1? It can come from either racial ASI, can shift to stack with another, but can't exceed +2.

For example: a dragonborn can shift a +1 from strength to charisma for a +1 STR +2 CHA. Or the charisma to constitution for +2 STR +1 CON. But not charisma to strength for a +3 STR.

I've been using this before TCoE and I like that it showcases variety within the races while maintaining distinction between the races.

That rule would have been a lot better than what we got in TCoE, and while I have not implemented such rules in my own games I would certainly play with them without feeling confined the way I do with TCoE rules.

I feel like the floating +1 works best as a house rule, because you can adjudicate races with unusual ability score improvements on the spot. I feel like the ability to purchase a 16 would work best as a book rule, because it can apply regardless of unusual racial ability score improvements and you wouldn't have to figure out what a 16 should cost (I think it would be 13 points?).

[P. G. Macer]

Holbita brings up an interesting point regarding Tasha’s as a whole that I’m not sure gets enough discussion, and may be partly responsible for the backlash OP got.

Holbita mentioned that while all of Tasha’s is optional, they pointed out that feats are also technically optional, and that got me thinking about the common retort to various points on both sides of the argument.

A common point of defense of the racial customization rules was that they were optional, and therefore, if one didn’t like them, one simply shouldn’t use them. However, there are several different definitions of “optional” when it comes to 5e.

There is optional in the sense that, “everything is optional” and anything can be house-ruled, even the most fundamental parts of the core rules.

Then there is 'optional', in the sense that feats and multiclassing are optional, but you pose the risk of odd looks at best and losing players at worst if you don’t allow either or both of them.

There is then “splatbook–optional” in the sense that content from outside the core rulebooks requires DM permission/allowance.

Then there is Variant-optional. Things in the DMG like Lingering Injuries, slow natural recovery, and rest length variants fall under here, in that most casual players (and some DMs) aren’t aware they even exist.

The crux of the issue, and likely part of the issue of the rift between OP and their player that has since quit is that while OP saw Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything as splatbook-optional, Player 1 saw the book, and likely (judging from the intensity of their response) the racial customization rules as “optional” in the sense that multiclassing and feats are optional, and thus a lack of it a good enough reason to quit the game.

I think the use of a single word, ”optional”, to describe these various levels of optionality obfuscates what people mean, and is also the source of some other issues surrounding Tasha’s on this forum.

[Mr Adventurer]

No. Implying that I have partial information about some people, not total information about everybody.

You actually don't get to pick and choose what your text implies.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Holbita brings up an interesting point regarding Tasha’s as a whole that I’m not sure gets enough discussion, and may be partly responsible for the backlash OP got.

Holbita mentioned that while all of Tasha’s is optional, they pointed out that feats are also technically optional, and that got me thinking about the common retort to various points on both sides of the argument.

A common point of defense of the racial customization rules was that they were optional, and therefore, if one didn’t like them, one simply shouldn’t use them. However, there are several different definitions of “optional” when it comes to 5e.

There is optional in the sense that, “everything is optional” and anything can be house-ruled, even the most fundamental parts of the core rules.

Then there is 'optional', in the sense that feats and multiclassing are optional, but you pose the risk of odd looks at best and losing players at worst if you don’t allow either or both of them.

There is then “splatbook–optional” in the sense that content from outside the core rulebooks requires DM permission/allowance.

Then there is Variant-optional. Things in the DMG like Lingering Injuries, slow natural recovery, and rest length variants fall under here, in that most casual players (and some DMs) aren’t aware they even exist.

The crux of the issue, and likely part of the issue of the rift between OP and their player that has since quit is that while OP saw Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything as splatbook-optional, Player 1 saw the book, and likely (judging from the intensity of their response) the racial customization rules as “optional” in the sense that multiclassing and feats are optional, and thus a lack of it a good enough reason to quit the game.

I think the use of a single word, ”optional”, to describe these various levels of optionality obfuscates what people mean, and is also the source of some other issues surrounding Tasha’s on this forum.

I find this whole thing (needing to disambiguate "optional") completely sad. It's certainly not how it's designed--the design intent (according to Word of Devs) was that everything outside the PHB, and even lots of stuff in the PHB were true-optional. That no content (as opposed to resolution mechanics/general rules) outside the PHB should be assumed by anyone, and much of the stuff inside the PHB is subject to change/retraction and should not be considered an entitlement. This includes all "core" races, classes, and spells.

Optional should mean just that. Not included unless explicitly ok'd. Doesn't matter if it's homebrew, 3rd party, or 1st party. DEFAULT DENY is the basic policy here. I believe that you (collectively) should agree on what's allowed at the beginning of the campaign. And no one has any right to complain once that's been done--you all agreed. Complaining later and setting expectations is asking to renegotiate the deal half-way through. And while people may humor you, it's not a right. Everyone reserves the right to walk away at any time, but that's it.

[holbita]

This is an interesting take on how to think about things from the DM chair. While certainly falling along the lines of "unconventional" thinking, it does explain things with bias both ignored and considered. I rather admire your ability to look at things from outside the box. This is really the kind of outside opinion I was looking for.

I smiled while reading this, I am glad it could be of help.


Optional should mean just that. Not included unless explicitly ok'd. Doesn't matter if it's homebrew, 3rd party, or 1st party. DEFAULT DENY is the basic policy here. I believe that you (collectively) should agree on what's allowed at the beginning of the campaign. And no one has any right to complain once that's been done--you all agreed. Complaining later and setting expectations is asking to renegotiate the deal half-way through. And while people may humor you, it's not a right. Everyone reserves the right to walk away at any time, but that's it.

That's what session zero is for, and there is a reason it should be done in one way or another, I tend to DM very specific games and when I do I ban and approve all kind of content, I will not let my players begin creating character until they know what is allowed, I have had trouble with people who had a premade character and wanted to play that one or had a concept that did not fit my idea for the game, I told them to save that one for another game and make a new one or to not play this game in particular. What usually happens later is that I have different kind of game that I want to run where that character they wanted to play fits completely, in those cases I go directly to them and ask if they still are interested in playing that character.

This way of doing things works quite well in my group of friends, and even though I find some resistance from people that comes from other tables where they have experience with a different set of values and rules regarding these things once they start playing and get absorved in following the story and roleplaying they just stop complaining. If the game is entertaining who cares about the rest? You will come back for more no matter the obstacles the DM may put you through for you to fit in his world.

[Pex]

Hum, fair enough. Allow me:

All DM decisions are unreasonable in the fact that they do not need reason to be there, you can give it one if you want and many times we will do so both inside and outside roleplaying. Do we need a reason to have an NPC appear in a specific location? not really, if I find it more entertaining for it to be a reason I will give it one, otherwise it was there and that's the end of the story.

Same with banning things, as a DM you don't need reasons to ban things, you just do it, who cares why? this is the game you are running wether is still entertaining after you ban things is what matters.

That's why I say he was unreasonable, he did not discuss with his players before or after about changing his mind, he did not "listen to reason" and he shouldn't. It's HIS game trying to justify his decissions is a fool's errand. If you want to do it, feel free to do so but only if that is something you enjoy.

I played a game where horses did not exist due to a meteorite falling and killing all horses (zebras existed though, don't ask me why) just because the DM was tired of player playing mounted builds. It's not our place to argue against it or try to have him change his mind, he is on his right to be unreasonable as much as he wants, if we find that at the end of the day his table is not entertaining we can just leave and join another or start one by ourselves.

Yes, you can go and talk things with your players first, that's called being civic and is a welcomed thing, who knows? maybe they even make you change ideas, but it doesn't change the fact that you are the DM, if you don't like something in your game ban it and be done with it.

I care why something is banned. It makes all the difference. The why determines what type of game to expect. The why tells me if I'm dealing with an adversarial DM or not, an apathetic DM or not, a "tyrannical" DM or not. I'm done with such DMs. One instance of banning something does not give the whole picture, but it can be part of a pattern. I'm not against banning something even if I wouldn't. If I find the why reasonable I go with it. Of course it's subjective, and it's supposed to be if I'm to enjoy playing that DM's campaign. The DM can't make me play, so I have to approve his banning. If I do disagree with the banning that doesn't automatically mean I don't play. If it's not part of a pattern I can get over it. An important factor in determination if I play or not is how the DM reacts when I disagree with the banning. If I change his mind, great, but I don't really need to. The reaction is the key. If he's respectful and empathetic I can play with the ban easily. If he's hostile, accuses me of "rollplaying" or whining, tells me to take it or leave it etc., I leave it and we both can be happy we're not playing together.

This is how I learned to accept Gritty Realism rest rules and advocate my one rest per two game session ratio. I used to hate it but joined a game where the DM used a variant where a long rest is three days. I expressed my dislike and we talked about it. He understood my concerns and explained more fully how this would work. The rest rules were for in game time versimilitude, but metagame we'd be getting a long rest at the end of every game session though sometimes we'd end on a cliffhanger so no long rest until next game session. He helped me figure out my issue wasn't the rules themselves but the ratio of long rest per game session. I played the campaign and had a wonderful time, no anxiety at all about a long rest being three days. Had the DM been adversarial and dismissed me as whining I wouldn't have played and be hating Gritty Realism rules still.

[EdenIndustries]

You actually don't get to pick and choose what your text implies.

In this case, Ludic asked him what he implied, so I should say that he certainly can clarify it.

Moreover, to imply something is to express something indirectly (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply) so it seems like MaxWilson can choose what he's implying no matter what.

Perhaps you're thinking of 'interpretation' instead of 'implication'. MaxWilson cannot tell Ludic how to interpret his words, but he can very well say what the implication of them (that is, the indirect expression intended by them) is.

[MaxWilson]

In this case, Ludic asked him what he implied, so I should say that he certainly can clarify it.

Moreover, to imply something is to express something indirectly (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply) so it seems like MaxWilson can choose what he's implying no matter what.

Perhaps you're thinking of 'interpretation' instead of 'implication'. MaxWilson cannot tell Ludic how to interpret his words, but he can very well say what the implication of them (that is, the indirect expression intended by them) is.

Yes, exactly. Thank you.

[holbita]

I care why something is banned. It makes all the difference. The why determines what type of game to expect. The why tells me if I'm dealing with an adversarial DM or not, an apathetic DM or not, a "tyrannical" DM or not. I'm done with such DMs. One instance of banning something does not give the whole picture, but it can be part of a pattern. I'm not against banning something even if I wouldn't. If I find the why reasonable I go with it. Of course it's subjective, and it's supposed to be if I'm to enjoy playing that DM's campaign. The DM can't make me play, so I have to approve his banning. If I do disagree with the banning that doesn't automatically mean I don't play. If it's not part of a pattern I can get over it. An important factor in determination if I play or not is how the DM reacts when I disagree with the banning. If I change his mind, great, but I don't really need to. The reaction is the key. If he's respectful and empathetic I can play with the ban easily. If he's hostile, accuses me of "rollplaying" or whining, tells me to take it or leave it etc., I leave it and we both can be happy we're not playing together.

I see your point but I believe you are not using the appropiate word here, it's not why but how. It does not matter what their reason is for doing the banning per se, as you very well say, but how they inform you of these decisions. And believe I agree wholeheartedly with you, I don't share tables with pricks, rude people and such, just having to put up with them takes away from my entertainment, and I don't know if it's a matter of biases against this kind of people but even if I were to take their personality out of the question I find them lesser companions when it comes to roleplaying the world and their characters... I don't know if it is fair of me to say so but I will stand by it with little chance of me changing my mind as I avoid tables with such individuals.

To summarize, I find that the point you are bringing Pex is a different one from the one regarding banning content. It is true that there is usually correlation between them and I will not even try to imply otherwise so I completely understand why you are bringing it up in the conversation but I don't find necessary to do so.

Pricks are pricks and I don't want them near me in any setting, be it Eberron or going to buy milk at the supermarket. We can discuss it, but I believe we will just end up dissing on them... rightfully so.

[Mr Adventurer]

In this case, Ludic asked him what he implied, so I should say that he certainly can clarify it.

Moreover, to imply something is to express something indirectly (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply) so it seems like MaxWilson can choose what he's implying no matter what.

Perhaps you're thinking of 'interpretation' instead of 'implication'. MaxWilson cannot tell Ludic how to interpret his words, but he can very well say what the implication of them (that is, the indirect expression intended by them) is.

Nope - it's very easy to express, or imply, something unintended. Do you... not think you can accidentally express something you didn't mean?

I mean... nothing in the definition you were so quick to post actually refers to intentionality, either.

[EdenIndustries]

Nope - it's very easy to express, or imply, something unintended. Do you... not think you can accidentally express something you didn't mean?

I mean... nothing in the definition you were so quick to post actually refers to intentionality, either.

At the risk of getting far afield of the topic, no I do not believe you can express something you didn't mean. Someone can *interpret* your words to mean something you didn't intend, hence why I chose that word in my post.

And you're right, nothing in the definition refers to intentionality. However, if you look up the definition of other intentional things you can do, you won't find 'intentionally' used for them because it's assumed that our actions are intentional. What you will find, however, is if you look up the definitions of words that do imply *unintentionality*, that does seem to be referenced (see, for example, the definition of accident: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident)

Thus I would conclude that the omission of 'intentionally' from the definition of 'imply' is itself intentional since the inclusion would be unnecessary for a proper understanding of the meaning of the word.

You are, of course, free to disagree. However, I won't post any more about this here out of respect for not derailing the topic any further.

[KorvinStarmast]

Which is why the Tasha's debate is just point buy vs rolling debate in disguise.I'll guess you are 90% right about this. The other 10% I'm not interested in.
Those who dislike point buy and prefer rolling, I predict, are likely to dislike Tasha's variant as well because it's basically the same thing: putting concept first instead of deriving concept from rolls/stats.

Those who like point buy might still dislike Tasha's for other reasons. Both are useful observations.

Sure, in an optimization-heavy party, being a modifier behind is (more of) a problem. But in a default one? Nah. Not really. I know a certain party ... :smallcool:
So for the people who dislike the new rules, do you feel that you have to use them if they are available? No. That's one of those things about "people talking to each other and arriving at a consensus" that session 0's are all about.
.
My experience is the exact opposite of this. The 1 point difference is more noticeable at low levels, and easily remedied at higher levels. This, particularly in a party of new players, or players who don't delve into tactical expertise by mastering the chapter 9 rules.

. Despite this, my first 50 attempts to successfully use Toll the Dead were resisted. My long litany of frustrations regarding Sacred Flame ran into a similar death by die roll scenario.


To quote The Rolling Stones:
"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"
Thank you. They are a favorite. :smallsmile:

The teachings of Siddhartha Gautama postulate that "wanting" is playing a game that heavily favors the Casino. The Casino, will always win, because even if fulfill your "want", you will always just want more.

As an ex-smoker, there have been plenty of times that I wanted a cigarette, but I am thankful for the times were my efforts to fulfill my desire was stymied. Yeah, I still miss them cigarettes, but I've put them behind me.
I think d&d is at the crossroads where they need to take a serious look at the abilities scores and how they interact with the game and decide the direction they want them to go. I disagree. They perform their intended function just fine.


Look, everyone gets it -- this is not how one would build a racial benefits system if designing a game from the ground up. It is an after-the-fact kludge that is really hampered by previous decisions* We have a winner. :smallcool:


So...the situation more or less resolved itself without getting any more political or negative. I mentioned that since my decision to ban some of the content, that Player One has missed several sessions. They have since quit the game, as of the most recent session, although they stated this was for reasons unrelated to this particular decision. Player Two is still a bit miffed about it, but is happily moving along with the flow of the campaign.
They really weren't. Perhaps I should have brought in Maximus to fix this :P Glad to hear it. :smallsmile:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Playing as a cleric once, I managed to miss (or rather they passed their DEX saves) 5x in a row against mushrooms with sacred flame. And I had either a 16 or an 18 in wisdom. Just saying.

[LordShade]

Normally I avoid threads similar to this like the plague. But your comment got me thinking. Would both sides be happy if:
a. The racial modifiers increased the 20 stat cap.
and
b. You were allowed to choose where to put your modifiers.

For example, you can be a Forest Gnome and you would get a Max Stat increase of 2 for Intelligence and 1 for Dexterity. But you were free to choose where you wanted to put that +2 and +1.

I know it doesn't resolve the Mountain Dwarf. But it goes along way to opening up play style while recognizing the inherent racial differences.

I like this idea, as to me it would preserve the distinction between different races. But mechanically, it wouldn't "help" the situation--if you couldn't get to a 20 (or 22) in your class's main stat, it would automatically be a subpar option from an optimization perspective. But maybe we could be fine with that.

It also wouldn't address the "woke" complaints, and the whole "dark-skinned elves can never be as intelligent as the fair-skinned elves" issue. If anything it might make it worse.

[Sigreid]

I think maybe you're defining "political" differently than others here? Because you say your game isn't political but then state a bunch of decisions you made in world-building that reflect a specific (and IMHO good) political view of the world: antiracist, egalitarian, etc.

I think D&D has always been very intentionally "political" in the sense that it's very interested in exploring race, culture, the nature of good and evil, etc. Historically a lot of the people writing official D&D stuff have also been straight middle-class white American men, so even well-intentioned explorations of these topics sometimes come off a bit "problematic" from a contemporary perspective. I think it's a good thing that politics evolve, and that (for example) people like you are changing up some of those old tropes to create a world that speaks better to your players. I don't just mean "thank goodness they're finally getting rid of that old problematic stuff about dumb orcs" - I think it's actually beneficial to everyone to keep having those conversations and exploring their biases and assumptions, figuring out what should be preserved and what should be adapted - because we're making those same decisions about culture at large.

The people at WOTC are also trying, in a haphazard and clunky way, to make sure the game rules keep up with that ongoing cultural conversation. When 5e came out they made sure that there were no racial penalties, basically to ensure half-orcs weren't always dumber and uglier than everyone else; now, a half decade down the road, they're taking that a bit further by trying to ensure that unusual race/class combos don't always feel inferior. That of course doesn't mean you have to use these rules - maybe they hurt more than they help in your game! But I think that's the intent.

Late to the party, but I think you and I view the game differently. You come across to me as seeing the game as largely allegory for the real world. And that's fine if that's what you and your group want to do. Heck, it's perfectly reasonable for some people to want a game where the goal of the players is building a "better" version of the world. Go nuts.

To me, the game is a relaxing hobby with puzzles and opponents to overcome. I've been playing the game nearly since when 1e came out. I've never seen any of the races (species is a better term) as equating to anything in the real world. Frankly, not even the humans. I kind of liked the old idea that the always evil races weren't really people, but were monsters. An objective threat to the peace and stability of the realm. Again, even though I don't always run the campaign that way; I've never ever equated any of the races to any person, group or society. Since I do sometimes still like the old and simple I'm currently slowly building a campaign world where orcs are literally the physical manifestation of their god's rage and hate at a world, hordes springing up out of the ground when his rage becomes uncontainable. In the same world I intend to have no half breeds of any kind and at least initially limit the players to humans that are just starting out to explore a strange and dangerous world.

[Sorinth]

I've never seen any of the races (species is a better term) as equating to anything in the real world.

{Scrubbed} And I don't mean that in a bad way, it's perfectly normal to be ignorant of a lot of that stuff if it was outside your personal experience. But the fact remains that whether intentional or not there was a lot of racism inherent to how D&D handled/described the races.


But yes I agree with you that the game doesn't have to be an allegory or have any kind of political message but it's something that isn't solely based on the DMs intent because they can be ignorant of how something is seen.

[Sigreid]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} And I don't mean that in a bad way, it's perfectly normal to be ignorant of a lot of that stuff if it was outside your personal experience. But the fact remains that whether intentional or not there was a lot of racism inherent to how D&D handled/described the races.




Disagree. Not everyone spends every waking moment thinking about race/class/religion.

[Sorinth]

Disagree. Not everyone spends every waking moment thinking about race/class/religion.

That's my point it's perfectly normal that people wouldn't be aware of some of that stuff, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

[Mongobear]

I started out with a questionable opinion of TCoE, however after a talk with my group, I have found a decent middle ground with them.

1) I am fine with any/all of the Class material. nothing wrong with new Archetypes, Artificers, or fixed Rangers. It's a breath of fresh air for some classes.

2) New Feats are fine. As with the new class/archetype material, its a breath of fresh air.

3) New rules for Races. Initially, this was the biggest part that I was scratching my head on, but finally came to a consensus for everyone. Instead of allowing the Custom Lineage and customizable Racial Stats for pre-existing Races, All normal Races have to keep their default Racial ASI's and Custom Lineage/V. Human isn't allowed, however I am giving all of my PCs a Feat at 1st level (prerequisites required).

I feel this is likely the best middle ground, as I am not a fan of the racial changes they introduced, but I don't want my PCs to feel gimped by not having access to a Feat at level 1.

4) The rest. Group Patrons, Magic Items, Spells, etc We will see, for the most part, none of them seem out of balance, but nobody has really shown much interest in them. Best I can say is they're fine, assuming anyone ever takes them.

[Sigreid]

That's my point it's perfectly normal that people wouldn't be aware of some of that stuff, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

What I meant is that the authors/creators don't/didn't necessarily see the world through that prism either. I think that when you assume that it was there, you should at least consider that you may be projecting your expectations into something rather than seeing what is there. D&D, at it's core has always been kind of the home invasion robbery game. The humanoid races, as distinct from the human and demi human races existed solely to be the opposition to the party. They were always evil so players didn't have to be concerned with the morality of killing them for their loot. They were more or less human size and shape simply so that they would have and use loot that the players would desire for their characters. The premise initially wasn't deep or complex. You had good, and evil (law and chaos in the older basic version) and kind of off to the side an active neutral that believed that everything would be really messed up if good or evil got too much of an upper hand. Add to this that in its earlier forms, all of the non-human races were actual manifestations of that struggle, and largely depended on Tolkien's books where near as I can tell orcs, for example, could only be created through a deliberate act of corrupting evil. It was very black and white because it was a game and not a social commentary or analysis tool.

I also disagree with someone's statement earlier in the thread that all art is political. Art can be political, emotional or just an expression of beauty.

Edited: It was late and I left some important words out of a sentance.

[holbita]

{Scrubbed} And I don't mean that in a bad way, it's perfectly normal to be ignorant of a lot of that stuff if it was outside your personal experience. But the fact remains that whether intentional or not there was a lot of racism inherent to how D&D handled/described the races.

I will have to agree Sorinth here, D&D is a racist game, the fact that you hide when you see a drow or try to kill them before even hearing them out is intentionally racist. The first thing that comes to mind when you think drow may be a certain scimitar wielding one but that is definitely not what your character has in mind when he sees one. Same with orcs, goblins, illithid, etc.

And can you blame them? This is well employed racism if I've ever seen one, a character that tries to check if a beholder is good natured or not so he goes next to him and greets him before the fight starts... even a lawful "good" paladin has it's limits.

D&D is a racist game, it was designed like that, draws and elves are racist with each other and that's part of it's charm. Monsters are there to be hated and killed, the game is designed that way, and we like it that way. I would not play otherwise, a politically correct game where I cannot do anything except check my priviledge and make sure that everyones feelings are not hurt? Yeah, that sounds awful, I am not playing that and I doubt you are going to have too many people interested in doing so.

Problem starts when people starts to draw parallelisms with real life. Personally if you are comparing monsters to people I would say that you are the one who needs to rethink how you look at people.

[TyGuy]

What I meant is that the authors/creators don't/didn't necessarily see the world through that prism either. I think that when you assume that it was there, you should at least consider that you may be projecting your expectations into something rather than seeing what is there. D&D, at it's core has always been kind of the home invasion robbery game. The humanoid races, as distinct from the human and demi human races existed solely to be the opposition to the party. They were always evil so players didn't have to be concerned with the morality of killing them for their loot. They were more or less human size and shape simply so that they would have and use loot that the players would desire for their characters. The premise initially wasn't deep or complex. You had good, and evil (law and chaos in the older basic version) and kind of off to the side an active neutral that believed that everything would be really messed up if good or evil got too much of an upper hand. Add to this that in its earlier forms, all of the non-human races were actual manifestations of that struggle, and largely depended on Tolkien's books where near as I can tell orcs, for example, could only be created through a deliberate act of corrupting evil. It was very black and white because it was a game and not a social commentary or analysis tool.

I also disagree with someone's statement earlier in the thread that all art is political. Art can be political, emotional or just an expression of beauty.

Edited: It was late and I left some important words out of a sentance.


I will have to agree Sorinth here, D&D is a racist game, the fact that you hide when you see a drow or try to kill them before even hearing them out is intentionally racist. The first thing that comes to mind when you think drow may be a certain scimitar wielding one but that is definitely not what your character has in mind when he sees one. Same with orcs, goblins, illithid, etc.

And can you blame them? This is well employed racism if I've ever seen one, a character that tries to check if a beholder is good natured or not so he goes next to him and greets him before the fight starts... even a lawful "good" paladin has it's limits.

D&D is a racist game, it was designed like that, draws and elves are racist with each other and that's part of it's charm. Monsters are there to be hated and killed, the game is designed that way, and we like it that way. I would not play otherwise, a politically correct game where I cannot do anything except check my priviledge and make sure that everyones feelings are not hurt? Yeah, that sounds awful, I am not playing that and I doubt you are going to have too many people interested in doing so.

Problem starts when people starts to draw parallelisms with real life. Personally if you are comparing monsters to people I would say that you are the one who needs to rethink how you look at people.
At least a couple salient points could be made before this totally derailed thread is closed for good.

Here's something that's been getting me lately. If the forum is for D&D 5e discussion. And the forum rules prohibit real world politics. And the IP owners and content creators of 5e material openly inject politics into the product. Should we still be barred from talking about the components of 5e that have been deliberately politicized in their political context?

[Willie the Duck]

At least a couple salient points could be made before this totally derailed thread is closed for good.

Here's something that's been getting me lately. If the forum is for D&D 5e discussion. And the forum rules prohibit real world politics. And the IP owners and content creators of 5e material openly inject politics into the product. Should we still be barred from talking about the components of 5e that have been deliberately politicized in their political context?

I don't think 'should' is part of the mix. What the IP owners do are irrelevant, The Giant is not affiliated with them. The rules seem to be aimed at not turning the board into a burning warzone. Politics is the dry tinder to that. The end.

[P. G. Macer]

At least a couple salient points could be made before this totally derailed thread is closed for good.

Here's something that's been getting me lately. If the forum is for D&D 5e discussion. And the forum rules prohibit real world politics. And the IP owners and content creators of 5e material openly inject politics into the product. Should we still be barred from talking about the components of 5e that have been deliberately politicized in their political context?

Building on Willie the Duck’s point, the forum rules also specifically state that discussing the intersection of politics and TTRPGs is still verboten.

I also think that the word “allegory” is slightly too strong of a word for describing how certain people (such as myself) analyze the media we consume. The amount of people who think there was deliberate and conscious intent (which the word allegory implies) in parallels to the real world is miniscule. What some people here more likely do believe is that such parallels can be accidentally or (should you subscribe to that field of psychology) subconsciously constructed, which while in their (our) eyes does not entirely absolve said creators of blame, is a mitigating factor.

And that’s not even getting that much into the can of worms that is Death of the Author.

[Sigreid]

Building on Willie the Duck’s point, the forum rules also specifically state that discussing the intersection of politics and TTRPGs is still verboten.

I also think that the word “allegory” is slightly too strong of a word for describing how certain people (such as myself) analyze the media we consume. The amount of people who think there was deliberate and conscious intent (which the word allegory implies) in parallels to the real world is miniscule. What some people here more likely do believe is that such parallels can be accidentally or (should you subscribe to that field of psychology) subconsciously constructed, which while in their (our) eyes does not entirely absolve said creators of blame, is a mitigating factor.

And that’s not even getting that much into the can of worms that is Death of the Author.

So you're guilty if you do something deliberately and you're passively guilty if someone else decides you just didn't know you were subconsciously doing something. No such thing as an innocent state you're guilty solely because other people decide you must have been. That's convenient...

[Mr Adventurer]

Building on Willie the Duck’s point, the forum rules also specifically state that discussing the intersection of politics and TTRPGs is still verboten.

Thank you for this reminder. I went and reread the rules so I would understand better.


* * *

They do indeed list politics and "political reactions to gaming"* as topics any discussion whatsoever of which, including in any intersection with tabletop roleplaying, are worthy of a major infraction.

I am not clear from the rules whether this is supposed to apply to explicit party politics (and if so which countries' parties "count") or to the small-'p' politics which are part and parcel of everyday life. Even so, in some places political parties have endlessly and ruthlessly politicised any and every issue in order to court votes or wedge issues, so the line cannot be that clear, or, at least isn't clear to me.

On reflection, this is extremely disappointing. It means there's no possibility of growth in threads' discourse away from traditionally biased narratives, and the rule actively silences minority voices, since agitating or educating for change is political.


* * *

I would love to continue to have discussion in this thread, especially to support other voices who are pointing out better than I can some of the hazards of the inherited narratives we all play with. But instead I think I have to leave the forums altogether, possibly before that's no longer optional for me, if I can't navigate that rule. I say this only since I won't be replying to any other posts in this thread. Thank you for your time.

* I genuinely have no idea what that is supposed to mean

[micahaphone]

I'm certainly not going to claim that what you do or do not include in your campaign makes you a good or bad person, or that only bad people use stark black-and-white, good-and-evil plots.

But it'd be silly to say that the author/artist of a creative work doesn't bring in an influence from their personal history and thoughts to their work. Like, I'm trying to imagine an rpg story with zero politics to it. "you are in a dungeon that has always existed. There is a thing you need at the other end. The party is person with sword, person with bow, person who checks for traps, person with magic and person with other magic that buffs and heals with no reference or suggestion to a religion. All enemies are nondescript illusions of vaguely creatures".

[harrydo]

Thank you for this reminder. I went and reread the rules so I would understand better.


* * *

They do indeed list politics and "political reactions to gaming"* as topics any discussion whatsoever of which, including in any intersection with tabletop roleplaying, are worthy of a major infraction.

I am not clear from the rules whether this is supposed to apply to explicit party politics (and if so which countries' parties "count") or to the small-'p' politics which are part and parcel of everyday life. Even so, in some places political parties have endlessly and ruthlessly politicised any and every issue in order to court votes or wedge issues, so the line cannot be that clear, or, at least isn't clear to me.

On reflection, this is extremely disappointing. It means there's no possibility of growth in threads' discourse away from traditionally biased narratives, and the rule actively silences minority voices, since agitating or educating for change is political.


* * *

I would love to continue to have discussion in this thread, especially to support other voices who are pointing out better than I can some of the hazards of the inherited narratives we all play with. But instead I think I have to leave the forums altogether, possibly before that's no longer optional for me, if I can't navigate that rule. I say this only since I won't be replying to any other posts in this thread. Thank you for your time.

* I genuinely have no idea what that is supposed to mean

As someone with a doctorate in political science, I have to say that I am also a bit confused at where politics begins and ends with regards to this specific discussion. Is there any clarification on what constitutes the boundaries of the concept of "politics" as intended? Is discussion of the concept of race, particularly in regards to how it is construed in the game, "politics"? I know this is getting off the topic of the thread, but this conversation seems important and interesting to me, and I want to know to what it extent it can continue within the rules of the forum.

[MaxWilson]

I started out with a questionable opinion of TCoE, however after a talk with my group, I have found a decent middle ground with them.

1) I am fine with any/all of the Class material. nothing wrong with new Archetypes, Artificers, or fixed Rangers. It's a breath of fresh air for some classes.

2) New Feats are fine. As with the new class/archetype material, its a breath of fresh air.

3) New rules for Races. Initially, this was the biggest part that I was scratching my head on, but finally came to a consensus for everyone. Instead of allowing the Custom Lineage and customizable Racial Stats for pre-existing Races, All normal Races have to keep their default Racial ASI's and Custom Lineage/V. Human isn't allowed, however I am giving all of my PCs a Feat at 1st level (prerequisites required).

I feel this is likely the best middle ground, as I am not a fan of the racial changes they introduced, but I don't want my PCs to feel gimped by not having access to a Feat at level 1.

4) The rest. Group Patrons, Magic Items, Spells, etc We will see, for the most part, none of them seem out of balance, but nobody has really shown much interest in them. Best I can say is they're fine, assuming anyone ever takes them.

Personally my biggest objection to Tasha's is that with a handful of exceptions (clockwork souls, aberrant minds, genielocks) the whole book just feels so... superfluous. Do I really need Oath of the Watchers Paladins in my campaign? Eloquence bards instead of Lore Bards? Wildfire druids? The Piercer feat? Eight or so different magical spellbooks for wizards with different subsets of wizard spells built in? If I pay the complexity cost of adding this book to my campaign, what benefit do I reap?

I feel like Xanathar's has a good answer to this question, and I feel there are a handful of things in Tasha's that I like (Ki-Fueled Strikes for monks being at the top of the list, and domain spells for all sorcerers including PHB ones is another by implication), but other than that I am inclined to treat this whole book the same way the PHB says I should treat Dragonborns and Gnomes: as something which doesn't necessarily exist in every gameworld. If a player wants to play a specific thing from Tasha's, talk to me and maybe we can make an exception (and you'll probably be a special snowflake, e.g. the only Eloquence Bard in the world due to some unique circumstance that you invent, or the only one in the world with the Crusher feat). But the default answer is "No, Tasha's rules aren't officially part of this gameworld."

[Sol0botmate]

I don't understand OP issue or what is he looking for here on forum.

RPG is a Group Game. Every single person involved builds the game, makes the game and shares their free time to play together.

So It's a matter of some sort of consensus among you. DM is not a God of the table and everyone else are not his vassals. You can't just "I don't like it, we won't use it" and expect everyone to just "ow, ok, I had my own opinion but you are the Master". Players will leave and what you won as DM? Satisfaction? Congratulation then. No game, table divined, game halted.

On the other hand if player is like "I want to play with this, this and this or else I quit" - then it's the other side that is irrational. Other people around table, players and DM may have something to say about it first.

Not saying that it's how you played it out OP - I am just saying that if you can't get to consensus - maybe you should not play together?

Becaus it's all about getting some middle ground.

Let's say player X who you have problem with wants to use A,B,C and D from Tasha new book. You don't like Tasha - ok, but he likes it- also ok.

So maybe let him use A and C and ask him if he could give up B and D and for that you could maybe propose him a Z.

RPG is about consensus, not about DM slamming hand on one end of the table "No, we do as I said" and player on other side "No, I don't like how you do it" and they just occupy their trenches and nobody is willing to discuss.

All it's a matter of findind a solution that will satisfy both sides. If that's impossible - it's time to part ways.

[Pex]

I see your point but I believe you are not using the appropiate word here, it's not why but how. It does not matter what their reason is for doing the banning per se, as you very well say, but how they inform you of these decisions. And believe I agree wholeheartedly with you, I don't share tables with pricks, rude people and such, just having to put up with them takes away from my entertainment, and I don't know if it's a matter of biases against this kind of people but even if I were to take their personality out of the question I find them lesser companions when it comes to roleplaying the world and their characters... I don't know if it is fair of me to say so but I will stand by it with little chance of me changing my mind as I avoid tables with such individuals.

To summarize, I find that the point you are bringing Pex is a different one from the one regarding banning content. It is true that there is usually correlation between them and I will not even try to imply otherwise so I completely understand why you are bringing it up in the conversation but I don't find necessary to do so.

Pricks are pricks and I don't want them near me in any setting, be it Eberron or going to buy milk at the supermarket. We can discuss it, but I believe we will just end up dissing on them... rightfully so.

The how is by the DM reacting to my disagreement. The why still matters. A DM who bans Hexblade, Great Weapon Master, and Sharpshooter because "only munchkins play it" will get an eyebrow raise from me. That alone doesn't tell me everything nor means I won't play, but it is a warning flag of "windstorming" which I hate. If he bans long rest healing am I dealing with a Killer DM or always wants PCs to suffer? That alone doesn't say, but I pay attention. A pattern can emerge in the house rules, and I choose not to play without ever having to discuss my disagreement with the DM.

[Segev]

Ultimately, the DM is the one who decides what will be legal in the game. "It's a cooperative game" is a true statement, but misleading when it's used to justify an attitude that players should have more than a chance to plead their case for a rule they want. The DM is the one who is the judge and jury on things. Players can and should choose not to play if the DM is unreasonable (even if only in their minds), but the notion that players should have some sort of authority to enforce rules changes on the DM is silly. If they want to have a game with those rules, they can advocate for it...but if they want to guarantee it, they need to be the ones running the game.

The moment personal attacks enter into this, the people making them are probably the ones in the wrong. (I imagine there could be exceptions, which is why I hedge with "probably," but it is rarely safe to assume you're the exception to this, and generally always best to avoid personal attacks over what are supposed to be pretendy funtimes. If you can't enjoy them, politely tell the DM that the game is not for you, and bow out.)

[Warpiglet-7]

So you're guilty if you do something deliberately and you're passively guilty if someone else decides you just didn't know you were subconsciously doing something. No such thing as an innocent state you're guilty solely because other people decide you must have been. That's convenient...

So sad it’s funny....amazing how some people can read minds, discern motive but not have blind spots themselves. Convenient indeed!

[OldTrees1]

I don't understand OP issue or what is he looking for here on forum.

The OP was surprised at the magnitude of the backlash when they said they will not include the material until they have had time to review it.

They wondered if magnitude was due to 5E, or if Tasha's itself was the X-factor that caused the larger than normal backlash.

Turns out it was the political aspect of Tasha's that was the X-factor.

Then several people got distracted in a couple forum rule breaking side threads.

During which time the OP got their answer, had another conversation with their players, and reached a resolution. /thread

[Sindeloke]

So you're guilty if you do something deliberately and you're passively guilty if someone else decides you just didn't know you were subconsciously doing something. No such thing as an innocent state you're guilty solely because other people decide you must have been. That's convenient...

Your mistake here is in presuming "guilt."

If you step on someone's foot while you're dancing with them, are you "guilty"? Are you a bad person? Does everyone hate you now for being a foot-stompong sadist? Is the mere act of pointing out to you that you did step on someone's foot an attack on your character?

What if you naturally have big feet, or you were taught to dance in a strange way through no fault of your own, and someone points that out and suggests you are likely stepping on many feet without realizing it, and it would be good if you took some new dancing lessons or at least watched your feet more in order to reduce the effect of your past? Is that a condemnation of you? Are you "guilty" of something?

I suggest the guilt comes in at the point where you're told you're repeatedly stepping on feet and, now possessing that knowledge, refuse to admit to it, blame your dance partners, and insist you need learn nothing and pay attention to nothing. If you are still at a point where someone is suggesting that your feet might be bigger than you realize, there is no need to feel attacked or become defensive. Everyone's feet are big about something, after all. We have all learned our own weird dances that trample other people from time to time. What matters in assessing our character is how we react to that knowledge.

[Pirate ninja]

Thank you for this reminder. I went and reread the rules so I would understand better.


* * *

They do indeed list politics and "political reactions to gaming"* as topics any discussion whatsoever of which, including in any intersection with tabletop roleplaying, are worthy of a major infraction.

I am not clear from the rules whether this is supposed to apply to explicit party politics (and if so which countries' parties "count") or to the small-'p' politics which are part and parcel of everyday life. Even so, in some places political parties have endlessly and ruthlessly politicised any and every issue in order to court votes or wedge issues, so the line cannot be that clear, or, at least isn't clear to me.

On reflection, this is extremely disappointing. It means there's no possibility of growth in threads' discourse away from traditionally biased narratives, and the rule actively silences minority voices, since agitating or educating for change is political.


* * *

I would love to continue to have discussion in this thread, especially to support other voices who are pointing out better than I can some of the hazards of the inherited narratives we all play with. But instead I think I have to leave the forums altogether, possibly before that's no longer optional for me, if I can't navigate that rule. I say this only since I won't be replying to any other posts in this thread. Thank you for your time.

* I genuinely have no idea what that is supposed to mean


As someone with a doctorate in political science, I have to say that I am also a bit confused at where politics begins and ends with regards to this specific discussion. Is there any clarification on what constitutes the boundaries of the concept of "politics" as intended? Is discussion of the concept of race, particularly in regards to how it is construed in the game, "politics"? I know this is getting off the topic of the thread, but this conversation seems important and interesting to me, and I want to know to what it extent it can continue within the rules of the forum.

Please do leave discussion about interpretation of our forum rules out of this thread (and other discussion threads). You can raise any questions you have about the rules by beginning a thread in the Board/Site issues subforum, although I wouldn't hold out much hope of getting the degree of specificity you are after. Where you feel that the scope of the rules is unclear, we suggest you interpret them widely and steer well clear of the prohibited topic.

[Sol0botmate]

Ultimately, the DM is the one who decides what will be legal in the game. "It's a cooperative game" is a true statement, but misleading when it's used to justify an attitude that players should have more than a chance to plead their case for a rule they want. The DM is the one who is the judge and jury on things. Players can and should choose not to play if the DM is unreasonable (even if only in their minds), but the notion that players should have some sort of authority to enforce rules changes on the DM is silly. If they want to have a game with those rules, they can advocate for it...but if they want to guarantee it, they need to be the ones running the game.

That is not true. DM may have the last word but as long as none side is toxic (which is true for both DMs and players alike) it's a cooperative game, which means even in the name - cooperation. Both sides should always be able to compromise to find middle ground IF THERE IS A PROBLEM. A group of adults won't have problem in first place as rules etc. should always be discusses BEFORE starting playing together. Bad DMs think they are Gods who decide everything and everyone should just obey, which often cost them campaings in the middle, players (if friends/couples/siblings are playing - one leaves and drag another one who was a friend of another player and group is finished) and games which means you failed as DM in first place. Bad players are drama-queens who think that they deserve what they want because they are the centre and DM is only here to serve their character on their journey to god-hood and he is just a narrator to let him be as awesome as possible. Often at cost of other players too.

Both examples are bad people and bad gamers.

It's a group game where everyone at table want to have fun and sacrifice their private free time for that. Nobody want to sit there not having fun or feel like he wasted time. If there is a dispute it should be resolved in a civilized discussion.

There were many times in my life when I showed players the doors (I host 90% games in my apartment) for toxic attitude like cursing, personal insults or "I will spoil game cause I didn't get what I wanted", but there were also cases where I showed DMs the door because of their toxic attitude "everything will be as I want and you must obey".

In both cases those are not people I want to waste my free time for.

[JackPhoenix]

Your mistake here is in presuming "guilt."

If you step on someone's foot while you're dancing with them, are you "guilty"? Are you a bad person? Does everyone hate you now for being a foot-stompong sadist? Is the mere act of pointing out to you that you did step on someone's foot an attack on your character?

What if you naturally have big feet, or you were taught to dance in a strange way through no fault of your own, and someone points that out and suggests you are likely stepping on many feet without realizing it, and it would be good if you took some new dancing lessons or at least watched your feet more in order to reduce the effect of your past? Is that a condemnation of you? Are you "guilty" of something?

I suggest the guilt comes in at the point where you're told you're repeatedly stepping on feet and, now possessing that knowledge, refuse to admit to it, blame your dance partners, and insist you need learn nothing and pay attention to nothing. If you are still at a point where someone is suggesting that your feet might be bigger than you realize, there is no need to feel attacked or become defensive. Everyone's feet are big about something, after all. We have all learned our own weird dances that trample other people from time to time. What matters in assessing our character is how we react to that knowledge.

Problem with this analogy is that people will find an excuse to be offended by anything. It's not that you get called out if you step on someone's toes: you also get called out if you don't, because then you deny the toe-steppers the representation they "deserve". Or because you haven't stepped on the toes of people they don't like, which must mean you support them. {Scrubbed}

[Segev]

Not only is extra investment of metagame character building resources not the only way to achieve it... it's not even the usual way to achieve it. No seriously, rarity is usually not conflated with cost in character building resources, like, at all.

For example, one generally would not argue that a half-feat should instead cost a full feat on the basis of it being 'rare.' For another example, one would generally not argue that Humans should be a more powerful race than Dragonmarked Humans because Dragonmarked Humans are less common than regular ones in the world of Eberron.

Generally the question asked when assigning metagame costs to features isn't "how rare is it," it's "how powerful is it?"
The rarity of dragon marked humans comes from having to expend a feat or other resource to get the dragon mark. The rarity of a 20 strength gnome (compared to the 20-strength half-orc) comes from having to spend the (extra) ASI (compared to the half-orc) to get to 20 strength.

[Tanarii]

I suggest the guilt comes in at the point where you're told you're repeatedly stepping on feet and, now possessing that knowledge, refuse to admit to it, blame your dance partners, and insist you need learn nothing and pay attention to nothing. If you are still at a point where someone is suggesting that your feet might be bigger than you realize, there is no need to feel attacked or become defensive. Everyone's feet are big about something, after all. We have all learned our own weird dances that trample other people from time to time. What matters in assessing our character is how we react to that knowledge.


Problem with this analogy is that people will find an excuse to be offended by anything. It's not that you get called out if you step on someone's toes: you also get called out if you don't, because then you deny the toe-steppers the representation they "deserve". Or because you haven't stepped on the toes of people they don't like, which must mean you support them. {Scrubbed}
The other problem is when it is an assumption actual toe stepping is happening, because they understand this dance, it makes the big footed kind the other person clearly is step on toes. Just participating in the dance leads to toe stepping from big footed people, and this other persons feet look kinda big from where I'm standing, and anyone can see it's a toe stepping dance ...

Not to say there aren't people that step on feet. But I do wish people would leave their politics out of fantasy D&D, instead of injecting it. There's no toe stepping dance by default here.

[P. G. Macer]

Okay, so since I last checked the thread one of my comments about intent and “unintent” vis-à-vis potential unconscious bias caused some friction. In hindsight, I may have chosen a few words of mine poorly, so hopefully I can clarify what I meant without causing any more issues.

Everyone (including me!) has unconscious biases, which sometimes affect our creative outputs. Even without politics, this can be a minefield, both in determining if something is going on and just what that something is.

I’m not going to delve into whether that happened with D&D race design, though I recognize I certainly implied that in one of my previous posts.

I do, however, want to highlight a word I used in my micro-tinderbox: accidentally. Just because you didn’t mean to do something doesn’t mean you didn’t do it. If I am reaching for the salt shaker at dinner and knock over someone else’s drink, I still knocked over the drink even if I didn’t mean to. Granted, this becomes murkier when talking about emotions and other intangible things, but at the least a portion of the principle remains.

The question of intent is also interesting, in that numerous philosophical and legal debates and conundrums have been posed and argued surrounding if intent can mitigate, and if so by how much, with the most general answer being that it depends on the context and just what exactly happened.

I’m going to try to bow out of this aspect of the discussion at this point, because I think OldTrees1 hit the nail on the head with OP’s primary concern:


The OP was surprised at the magnitude of the backlash when they said they will not include the material until they have had time to review it.

They wondered if magnitude was due to 5E, or if Tasha's itself was the X-factor that caused the larger than normal backlash.

Turns out it was the political aspect of Tasha's that was the X-factor.

Then several people got distracted in a couple forum rule breaking side threads.

During which time the OP got their answer, had another conversation with their players, and reached a resolution. /thread

[Sigreid]

Okay, so since I last checked the thread one of my comments about intent and “unintent” vis-à-vis potential unconscious bias caused some friction. In hindsight, I may have chosen a few words of mine poorly, so hopefully I can clarify what I meant without causing any more issues.

Everyone (including me!) has unconscious biases, which sometimes affect our creative outputs. Even without politics, this can be a minefield, both in determining if something is going on and just what that something is.

I’m not going to delve into whether that happened with D&D race design, though I recognize I certainly implied that in one of my previous posts.

I do, however, want to highlight a word I used in my micro-tinderbox: accidentally. Just because you didn’t mean to do something doesn’t mean you didn’t do it. If I am reaching for the salt shaker at dinner and knock over someone else’s drink, I still knocked over the drink even if I didn’t mean to. Granted, this becomes murkier when talking about emotions and other intangible things, but at the least a portion of the principle remains.

The question of intent is also interesting, in that numerous philosophical and legal debates and conundrums have been posed and argued surrounding if intent can mitigate, and if so by how much, with the most general answer being that it depends on the context and just what exactly happened.

I’m going to try to bow out of this aspect of the discussion at this point, because I think OldTrees1 hit the nail on the head with OP’s primary concern:

Fair enough. The problem comes in when total strangers make assumptions about what your unconscious or conscious biases are. That's the problem I see.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

But I do wish people would leave their politics out of fantasy D&D, instead of injecting it. There's no toe stepping dance by default here.

What many people are trying to tell you is that no one is "injecting" it, politics in DnD existed upon it's creation, as with almost everything else. You can choose to try very hard to be ignorant of them or pretend these politics do not exist, but that does not actually mean they are not there and not problematic for a whole host of reasons.

In 1st edition, female characters were literally not allowed to be as strong as male characters. If you think there is nothing political about that, I don't know what else to say.

[MaxWilson]

In 1st edition, female characters were literally not allowed to be as strong as male characters. If you think there is nothing political about that, I don't know what else to say.

Biological yes (sexual dimorphism), political no.

It's not even unrealistic. AD&D human women are still allowed to be ridiculously strong (18/75), just not as ridiculously strong (without magic) as the most absolutely ridiculously strong human men (18/00). It only matters at the extreme ends of the bell curve.

Surely you must have noticed at some point in your life that human men are generally bigger and taller than human women? This isn't a political observation.

[Pex]

Okay, so since I last checked the thread one of my comments about intent and “unintent” vis-à-vis potential unconscious bias caused some friction. In hindsight, I may have chosen a few words of mine poorly, so hopefully I can clarify what I meant without causing any more issues.

Everyone (including me!) has unconscious biases, which sometimes affect our creative outputs. Even without politics, this can be a minefield, both in determining if something is going on and just what that something is.

I’m not going to delve into whether that happened with D&D race design, though I recognize I certainly implied that in one of my previous posts.

I do, however, want to highlight a word I used in my micro-tinderbox: accidentally. Just because you didn’t mean to do something doesn’t mean you didn’t do it. If I am reaching for the salt shaker at dinner and knock over someone else’s drink, I still knocked over the drink even if I didn’t mean to. Granted, this becomes murkier when talking about emotions and other intangible things, but at the least a portion of the principle remains.

The question of intent is also interesting, in that numerous philosophical and legal debates and conundrums have been posed and argued surrounding if intent can mitigate, and if so by how much, with the most general answer being that it depends on the context and just what exactly happened.

I’m going to try to bow out of this aspect of the discussion at this point, because I think OldTrees1 hit the nail on the head with OP’s primary concern:

Yes, you still spilled the drink but why you spilled it matters. Being an honest accident doesn't absolve you from cleaning up and offer to get another drink for the victim, but it does absolve you from social dynamic dissonance. Your punishment is one joke at your expense later that evening or as a reminiscing in a future conversation, then it's over. If the victim overreacts in hostility then he gets the social dissonance. He doesn't have to laugh off the spilled drink, though he's gracious if he does, but having a temper tantrum or clock you one would be uncalled for and the peanut gallery would side with the drink spiller.

[Warpiglet-7]

What many people are trying to tell you is that no one is "injecting" it, politics in DnD existed upon it's creation, as with almost everything else. You can choose to try very hard to be ignorant of them or pretend these politics do not exist, but that does not actually mean they are not there and not problematic for a whole host of reasons.

In 1st edition, female characters were literally not allowed to be as strong as male characters. If you think there is nothing political about that, I don't know what else to say.

{Scrubbed}female college athletes only compete against other women?

I don’t particularly want limitations based on sex. But come on. Denying reality is also political.

What exactly does making bigger characters stronger than small ones advocate for? WhT political change does this push for?

It’s fantasy. So if someone wants a strong female character it’s cool with me. But if someone does not what exactly are they supposed to be advocating?

[Rakaydos]

My 2c...

If half the party is "I just bought this book with my own money, and I am fired up with creativity and new character ideas and want to play them," being told what amounts to "shut up and play the campaign you signed up for, I dont care about your fresh new ideas or wasted money" is an issue.

If you want test games first? Sure! You can always put the ongoing campaign on hold for a few one-shots. Perhaps the cool ideas will burn out, or perhaps they'll have some legs, at which point there's more experience when it comes to adding them to the main campaign.

And consider- if the campaign is flexible enough to handle the abrupt removal of a viewpoint character from the player storming off, is it really that much harder to add the player's new or modified character in?

[Segev]

My 2c...

If half the party is "I just bought this book with my own money, and I am fired up with creativity and new character ideas and want to play them," being told what amounts to "shut up and play the campaign you signed up for, I dont care about your fresh new ideas or wasted money" is an issue.

If you want test games first? Sure! You can always put the ongoing campaign on hold for a few one-shots. Perhaps the cool ideas will burn out, or perhaps they'll have some legs, at which point there's more experience when it comes to adding them to the main campaign.

And consider- if the campaign is flexible enough to handle the abrupt removal of a viewpoint character from the player storming off, is it really that much harder to add the player's new or modified character in?

Strongly disagree. "I spent money so you have to let me bring in this stuff that you don't feel comfortable with in the game," is a terrible argument.

If that's not your argument, I invite you to explain what you meant, because it sounds that way to me.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Biological yes (sexual dimorphism), political no.

It's not even unrealistic. AD&D human women are still allowed to be ridiculously strong (18/75), just not as ridiculously strong (without magic) as the most absolutely ridiculously strong human men (18/00). It only matters at the extreme ends of the bell curve.

Surely you must have noticed at some point in your life that human men are generally bigger and taller than human women? This isn't a political observation.

:smalleek:

I..don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this. That's all I'll say on that.