Also, for folks on the "everything is always on the table" side, what's your red line? What's the point at which a player's idea is so out-of-bounds that "due consideration" and "adult conversations" and "willingness to compromise" become replaced by a simple veto? Sentient sword? Astromech droid? Mecha pilot? Saiyan? Hutt? Decepticon? What if player B (who, of course, just wants to have a conversation) doesn't like player A's idea?
Everything isn't on the table, so you aren't really talking to me. But since you specifically asked for me to answer separately, I will.
Sentient sword could be an interesting character. Astromech droid...I could maybe make it work. There are no mecha around, so a mecha pilot would be rather pointless--I'll need to know why they're interested. Saiyans are just monkey-people with funny powers, so I could mock something up (they are, after all, basically just a whole race inspired by the Monkey King, and I
do have a wuxia-inspired faraway land in my setting). Hutts don't really adventure, so I'd need to know more. A Decepticon is just a fancy type of warforged.
And the thing with all of these is that I'd do exactly what I did with the "we drank demon blood"->"we drank the GOOD Jinnistani wine" example: drill down to what the player
values about the thing, and find a solution that gives them that. Astromech droid and Decepticon could potentially make sense as warforged, just with different capabilities, and golems are absolutely a thing in the literature I'm drawing on for this setting. "Mecha pilot" implies mecha which...aren't a thing, so I'd need to know what the player wants to see before I could really do anything with it. Saiyans, as noted, are just Sun Wukong and I could mock up a race for that (though the player would, as is the case for all players, have to grow into their power, not start with it--because starting with the full Monkey King power suite would be abusive and, as noted, I don't permit that). Hutts are sessile jerk merchants, so I'd need to know what about "sessile jerk merchant" is actually valuable to the player; I'll be honest, I don't see much myself, but I am open to talk about it.
If player B is bothered by something player A wants, then we talk it out together. I very much value my players feeling like they are safe and comfortable, as that will help them roleplay more (and better). I'd want to find out what concerns player B. Let's take the Decepticon example. An outright, flying, missile-shooting, evil space robot is out--but the idea of an artificial sapient being who can change their form isn't, and if that's what player A
actually wants, we can work something out. Now let's say player B is uncomfortable with this because, I dunno, they had a traumatizing event happen while watching a Transformers movie or something. That's going to mean that we keep any actual references to Transformers proper out of play. Perhaps the "Decepticon" character is a warforged druid (a concept I've always found delightful), so transformation is natural to them, but we'll avoid the obvious "robots in disguise"/"more than meets the eye" jokes.
If player A simply insists on playing a Decepticon exactly as that term is used in the Transformers fandom, well, they're going to be asked to leave. Likewise, if player B simply says, "ugh, really, you're going to play a transforming robot character? That's so stupid, no, I veto that," then I'm going to ask
them to leave. We have to respect each other if we're going to have a healthy game. I did, actually, have to have a Serious Business conversation with a player who was
not being respectful of the game (thankfully, it worked, and things got much better). It's okay if my players have only semi-serious characters (it's not like we're serious 100% of the time while we play, I mean for God's sake we have a group of camels called Timothy, Timothy-Too, and Timothree), but I expect them to have a certain minimal amount of seriousness in play overall. Part of taking things seriously is accepting that you won't always get what you originally set out for, but if you work for it, you usually can get most of the things you want (though it might have costs or obligations!)
I will not guarantee that every player will get exactly what they ask for--because, much of the time, they won't. Instead, I guarantee that I will always listen to every genuine, non-abusive, non-coercive request, and give each idea and suggestion a fair shake. My players are clever people (they've made me sweat more than once, worried I was making too-predictable a story), but they're also kind, and I do my best to reciprocate that. Whenever possible, I will work to find the things the player actually values about the proposals they make, and work those values into the game. They may take unexpected forms, or require perspective adjustment, or be re-articulated. But if there's
any way I can implement those valued things without me needing to give up the things I value that I've brought to the table, I will pursue it.
And since it seems to be a particular bugaboo for you: Yes, I consider "constantly trying to re-negotiate until they get everything they asked for and nothing else" a form of coercive request. It's coercive by way of bad-faith argument,
pretending to accept compromise while actually manipulating people, and that's not okay. I really will enforce this "non-abusive, non-coercive" standard, and really have put my foot down when a player moved in that direction. 99% of the time, I don't have to do that though, because (as noted) my players are both clever and kind, so I don't need to tell them not to be abusive or coercive, they just...don't choose to make requests of that nature.
C.S. Lewis said it best. "Every good writer knows that the more unusual the scenes and events of his story are, the slighter, more ordinary, the more typical his persons should be. Hence Gulliver is a commonplace little man and Alice is a commonplace little girl. If they had been more remarkable they would have wrecked their books. The Ancient Mariner himself is a very ordinary man. To tell how odd things struck odd people is to have an oddity too much; he who is to see strange sights must not himself be strange."
Though I respect Lewis a great deal--I quote him damn near daily to friends--I respectfully must disagree with him on this issue. He is taking a good argument too far. Sometimes, an odd person in an odd situation is exactly what is needed, because they're different
kinds of oddity, and the clash (or consonance!) of the two may be vital to the message.
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is a distinctly odd tale about a distinctly odd man and his distinctly odd friends (or the lies, but who can really be sure?), and yet I LOVE it to death, it's one of my favorite films. The
Journey to the West is a distinctly odd situation with no clearly "slight" or "ordinary" protagonist; even Tripitaka is far from an ordinary dude, being an exceptional monk, someone of a special bloodline, AND a true master of the texts from which he gets his byname (the Tripitaka being the core Buddhist scriptures). Superman and Batman are absolutely "odd" characters in "odd" situations, but I find them both very compelling when the author knows how to write them well. (Consider
Superman: Red Son or
Batman: the Animated Series).
Some tales, the whole point is the uncommon situation. Some, the whole point is an uncommon person. And some, an uncommon person in an uncommon situation is what makes it work.
No one should ask a player to justify their decision on a PC, so long as it fits within the allowed parameters, right? Should players be forced to justify all of their decisions to the DM and the rest of the table to see if they are "good enough"
Uh, well, not exactly? If it's an option presented in the rules to begin with, you need little to no justification. But if it isn't, if we're having to (re)invent something, then no, I
am going to ask you to justify things to me. See my stuff about the Hutt example above; I legit don't see what the motive even
might be, whereas I can at least see
some motive for most of the others. I need to know what the motive is, what things the player values about the idea, before I can do the work on my end. If the player refuses to articulate that, or refuses to accept any possibility other than "no I
have to play an ACTUAL Hutt from ACTUAL Nar Shadda, and they have to ACTUALLY have a spice-mining cartel," then I'm not going to give them the time of day--they haven't justified their character to me.
The diplomacy, compromise, discussion--it all swings both ways.
I already responded to the other point you quoted,
@Jack Daniels so I hope that qualifies. Briefly, " 'compromise is necessary' =/= 'compromise will be reached,' because it's about being open to changing your mind, not about definitely always changing it."
