I would go into the game assuming that changes were made. I would not assume that they would be minor or major, but only that changes are made. I would then find out what changes were made.
So you go in with an absolute certainty that something was changed, but no idea what or how much it was changed.
To contrast, most people go in expecting the majority of the game to be unchanged. They figure most class abilities are the same, most races are the same, most equipment is the same, most rules are the same, most Feats are the same, ect.
In fact, I generally hear the question as "Are there any houserules?" instead of "What changes did you make?" because most people don't have the expectation that there were changes made.
Okay fine. You got me. I assume that there's a possibility that elves might not be there.
Wasn't out to "get you" unless you want to define that as "get you to agree to the definition of the word". At least we can go back to normal language now.
Bladesinger is no longer tied to elves. Anyone can be one, and I don't need to do anything about the rest but change a name. Boots of Walking Quietly and Cloaks of You Can't See Me, Neener Neener will most likely still be present in a setting.
All you have to do is ignore the fluff on monsters. And I already said it would be a lot of work to remove a race like Elves from an existing setting.
Bladesinger says "developed from the elves" in the lore write up, so it is still tied to them. You will need to explain how an elven art developed in a world with no elves.
And sure, change the names, ignore the fluff, rewrite it. All of that is... work. Additional work for the DM. If that Elven Demon didn't create the Ghouls, how did they come about? You if you want to establish a world without elves, you need answers to these questions, you need to rework these items. It isn't as simple as just not having elves.
Because sometimes I need to say no, and I have the authority to do so. If you notices, I was also arguing from a RAW standpoint. RAW gives the DM absolute authority.
Yeah, but no one seems to care a whit about RAW. After all, the DM might have changed anything. Maybe they even changed the rules about DMs having ultimate authority.
And, even if they did care about RAW, your position in this debate seems to be "I fully agree with the proposal of my opponent, but I want to make it very clear that by the strictest reading of the test, they are wrong and I can do whatever I want, I won't and don't think that is proper. But I could and I want you to acknowledge I could and that it is perfectly okay, even thought I would never do it. But I could."
Seems... pointless?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the contradiction, I can see how you could read it like that. But, I also said DM's compromise. I said nothing about the race of the northern tribes player, so not sure where that is coming from. I said they "stole from frost giants." In this case the player wanted to create a rogue. (Again, never mentioned a race.) If the player wanted it to be a goliath, and the DM has already stated there were no goliaths, why would the player do this? It seems rude.
Now here is the compromise: If they want the mechanical effects of a goliath, I feel certain that the DM can work with them. I haven't really met a DM that wouldn't. It's just that they would need to choose a race that is on the list. See how that is compromise? The player chooses what is on the list, asks for specific request, and sits down with the DM to discuss how to achieve said request while staying in the list.
What if instead of the mechanics they want the lore? Or the Aesthetic?
Sure, compromising by reskinning is an option, and it is a great option for some situations. But it doesn't cover all situations, obviously.
Back to the contradiction, part of the point was that you didn't specify the race. You said they could and should do something, and then went back and added a stipulation where if they did that thing in a specific manner, it is rude and wrong. It seems odd, since if it was such an important restriction, wouldn't it have been part of the point to begin with?
And, we keep coming back to specific situations that are assuming that the player has full knowledge of a hard restriction that cannot be compromised, and brings it back up repeatedly. But how often is repeatedly? When did the player learn of the restriction?
What if we had a player who was handed a document, skimmed the lore section and saw an awesome hook. They go to the DM with a cool idea to take advantage of this hook, using a specific race. (1) The DM then tells them no, that race was banned, didn't they read the document? The player admits they hadn't gotten to that part yet, but they thought this was a really cool idea, can they work something out? (2) The DM tells them absolutely not, trust them, that race would ruin everything. Player says that seems a bit like an exaggeration, and they'd not want to ruin the campaign, but this seems like a wasted opportunity. (3)
At what point was the player being rude? Ask #1? #2? #3? Are they only rude if they wait a bit and then ask again later? A lot of people seem to have ironclad ideas about where the player is overstepping their limits, where are they?
D&D has always been about having hundreds of gods. Yet, do you not want to play when the DM tells you in his timeline of FR there are only six gods left? Do you leave the game if the DM details in advance that if you play a character that is reliant on religion, you should pick from these six?
Depends.
Why are all the other gods gone? Is it impossible to be a worshipper of one of the dead gods, many concepts still work even if the God is dead? Which gods are left? What was the reason for killing off most of the gods? Are they working in lore of various beings who would have been released by the death of certain gods?
You go to a specialty place that has a fixed menu. They serve a hamburger. They make it the same every time. They know their ingredients very well. They have perfected the craft of making their burger.
Both are fine. Both can be tasty. It's just one has a chance of being terrible because of too many ingredients to taste right or too many ingredients to keep track of and therefore poor quality. It also has a chance of delivering an epic creation that is outstanding. The other will always be good, even great, as long as the patron knows what to expect.
A lot of places claim that they have perfected the craft of making
their burger. That doesn't make it a good burger, or even a decent one. It could be crap. I know the High School has perfected the craft of making "their" burger. Boiling their frozen patties in water, putting them on mediocre buns and that's it.
This idea that a limited setting is always at least good, if not superior in quality, has got to stop. It has no legs to stand on.
) could easily play a role. What if the setting was more like Water World,. Or the setting's world had no forests, just vast arrays of plainlands, seas, and deserts. Or, the first half of the campaign there were no forests, until the players unlock the fey. Then the player learns they have elven blood and the rush of connectivity to the fey floods the character with elven abilities, but not until 10th level - until they "unlock" the fey.
Hey, let's play a pirate, swash buckling Saltmarsh campaign- 5 characters with nothing to do with ships, no interest in sailing, and none of them from the setting.
