Perhaps you wouldn't need to make such long posts if you didn't think that other people were the "opposition" and called them the "pro-restriction" folks?
We are just discussing preferences for running our unicorns and fireballs games, after all.
I have been consistently told I'm among those casting aspersions, despite both efforts like the actual text you quoted (where I defended those whom I disagree with from what I saw as an unfair argument), and my consistent agreement that there are irresolvable problems and that not all DM/player pairings work out. It's not hard to feel like there are battle lines drawn here. I invented terms, ones that seemed reasonably fair to both sides (e.g. "pro-restriction" instead of "dictatorial," even though the use of dictatorial power has been explicitly described by multiple people of that position), so that I wouldn't have to keep using longer and unwieldy phrases like "those who favor highly restrictive settings that cannot accommodate any amount of adjustment to the playable options" or "those who, like me, favor an open-ended and at times player-driven approach to what playable options are permitted."
My posts are long because I try to respond to everyone I think is relevant in a single post (quoting 10+ posts at once inherently makes long posts), because this thread has frequently moved at lightning speed so there's tons of things to respond to, and because my natural diction is overwrought, verbose, excessively focused on parallelism, and nit-pickingly precise about details that may not be required to get my point. I'm quite well aware of my faults as a writer and I work on them. Lack of concision is absolutely a weakness of mine.
I take most discussions seriously. I see this as being respectful of the positions of those I talk with. Just because the topic is leisure-time activity doesn't mean I shouldn't critique others, listen seriously to their own critiques, and challenge anything dubious whether said by those whom I agree with or those I disagree with.
There was earlier discussion about how the GM must 'explain their decisions' and whilst discussing things is good, there is certain limits how much 'explaining reasoning' will accomplish, like this aquatic races example demonstrates. GM can explain their reasoning and the player can think that the explanation is stupid. Now what?
These are ultimately very much preference issues, and no amount of explanation will bridge certain gaps. Like to be honest, I just kinda think that centaurs and nagas look rather stupid and anatomically implausible and thus I tend not to include them into my settings. It's just how it is. Other people are perfectly free to like them, but that's not gonna affect my opinion.
Serious question:
How would you feel as DM if a player (prospective or current) told you "ugh,
satyrs [or whatever]? They're so stupid, just humans with furry legs who drink a lot. I don't even know why anyone would include them." I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you would find such behavior disrespectful. You included them for a reason, I'm sure, and having a player just crap on your work for no reason other than highly arbitrary dislike would not be welcome.
But respect is a two-way street, is it not? Even if a person is in a justified, legitimate position of authority, we expect that authority to be used with decorum. So why is it totally 100% okay for the DM to crap on player preferences and ideas?
Respect and trust require reciprocity. I see an awful lot of calls for both being given to DMs for basically nothing more than "because I'm the one with the power." I dunno about anyone else, but if a person with even mere potential power over me says I should just trust and respect them purely because they did the work to earn that position and now intend to exercise that power, it
does not at all increase my trust in or respect for them--quite the opposite, in fact.
You say there are limits to such discussion and explanation. I don't see how I have ever denied or disagreed. I have said dozens of times that some conflicts are irresolvable, and thus that prospective player should move on (or that prospective DM should pitch something else, because nobody's biting). But I fail to see the problem with not accepting a flat "no" or something like Zardnaar's "I didn't really think about it much, but forge gods aren't common [so no you can't play one]."
It should not be a crime to advocate for your interests, if that advocacy is polite and positive. It should not be disrespectful or exceeding the "limits" of reasonable discussion to try to find solutions that respect the DM's work and interests without completely abandoning one's own work and interests. If it IS disrespectful to advocate for one's interests until a solution is reached or it becomes clear no solution can exist, we have exactly what I have been pushing back against this entire time, the Viking Hat DM who needs her absolute authority kowtowed to or else she'll show you the door. And yes, I recognize that this is a deeply contextual, judgment-call-based, social-contract-based situation. There will not
and should not be a universal line that says before this point 100% of discussion is always reasonable and after it 0% is reasonable (which runs both ways, mind). It will
and should vary from game to game, and even within a game between different askers and different requests. That's how respect and decorum work.
Well, I can't imagine why it would matter all that much. Race is just one small part of who my PC is at creation.
That it matters little to you is not very relevant as far as I'm concerned. It matters to me, and to many others as well. Hell, the thread topic is literally asking WHY it matters to people like me!
That's a negative "and," right? As in, "I can't imagine building a world with neither player input nor room to add stuff as character concepts emerge/develop"? Because I think it's possible to build a world (or at least lay the foundations/scribe the boundaries) without explicit player input, and still have blank spaces on the map (on many levels, including metaphorical) for players/characters to add or change stuff. I mean, that pretty much describes the world I've worked out for my campaigns.
It has certainly come across as this "negative and" form from (ahem)
those advocating for the strongest restrictions on player options discussed here and for highly detailed world-building work that precludes any form of player participation or negotiation about those options. (I hope this satisfies as a term to replace "the pro-restriction side.")
This is the extent of my player contribution to the "world" of that adventure path....a small jungle village and a new power source.
If someone finds that minute, generic amount of world building too much and impermissible because I'm just a player, then those are the DMs that I find are so unreasonable that I don't think I could play in their game.
Completely agreed. Numerous posters here have absolutely sounded like even this minimal level of player participation in world-building would be unwelcome or even offensive.
I just prefer games where I don't have to constantly play mother-may-I with the DM to do normal D&D stuff, but hey, if you like being in a game where that much DM intrusion happens all the time, more power to you.
(See how this is a blatant misstatement of your position, and how it's kind of annoying?)
This, Oofta, is a good example of what I was saying earlier. I have gone up to bat for those I disagree with, calling out people "on my side" who intentionally mischaracterized curated or focused campaigns as control freak behavior. If you are going to ask people not to crap on others' preferences (that is, your own), it behooves you not to give the most hyperbolic and derogatory summary of others' preferences (that is, frex, mine) that you can come up with.
With all due sincerity, yes! I've never claimed otherwise.
With all due sincerity: I am surprised to hear that. I had gotten rather the opposite impression.
