Poets edit constantly, as do players.
Editing =/= "this sentence doesn't work for me, can you write a different one that still rhymes but uses zero of the same words?" Editing, as far as I'm concerned, IS this process of trying to find a slightly different take that still accomplishes the desired goal. And yes, sometimes a specific word or phrase really is absolutely vital to a poetic idea. E.g. I have a poem I quite like where the first line is, "Sun-fire burns down into the West," and no I can't just decide to use East or to just not refer to directions at all, even if my editor doesn't like it being as it is, because it won't have the same meaning if I don't do that. I'll lose a beautiful bit of symbolism (ironically, in part a reference to Tolkien!) that cannot,
even in principle, be recovered by any other phrasing...not without completely rewriting half the poem to get there. Which I'm not doing. I don't care if it's "just about a sunset" as my creative writing professor condescendingly asked. The poem can't be and do what it is and does--and certainly won't bring me joy--if I abandon that part of it, even though I am quite open to changing things IN GENERAL. I welcome creative input, but not flat and unhelpful instructions to write an entirely different opening to my poem.
But please just consider this:
Because you feel that way prior to session zero, does not mean you will feel that way after session one. <snip>
My point is - time changes passion.
I have never experienced anything remotely like this, and yes, I
have tried to struggle under a character I wasn't actually enthusiastic to play. It got worse and worse until I started avoiding the game entirely, then feeling guilty about it. I wasn't kidding when I said it would negatively affect my ability to roleplay.
Also? Please keep my response in context. You initially asked me why I would ever "have" to do something not-greenlit, and I told you. For me--and I was very clear that I cannot speak for anyone else--SOMETIMES inspiration just doesn't work that way. Sometimes there is a particular word in the poem I'm not willing to budge on, even if I'm willing to budge on everything else, because that one word in its place is just too important. Hence, "I just need a good deity who values wealth. It's what brings the character together. Making it an evil deity or not a deity at all or not about wealth makes it not do that anymore." Or, "my concept really only works for a Paladin. I know you could maybe achieve something similar with a warlock, but laying on hands really is a big deal for me." (I LOVE the mechanics for 4e's LoH, incidentally; it is "I give of myself to replenish you, for a little while." No other 4e class can do that and yes, it COULD be a keystone element of a character.)
I honestly don't care if you don't grok it. I told you the experience I've had. If my actual, lived experience (with both poems and roleplay) fails to meet your criteria of belief, that's not my problem. You didn't ask for diamond absolutes. You asked how a thing could ever happen, and I told you how it HAS happened for me and me alone.
He is saying that the polite player that asks is not what is being argued against by the people promoting the DM's. Yet, that is what Chaosmancer keeps going back to - basically saying the DM is bad because polite players asking for something are just told no. Yet, every DM here has said they would try to work with that player. That is the strawman.
Okay wait so, let me get this straight.
Us pro-variety folks aren't allowed to talk about any DM that acts in bad faith, because that's rude and mischaracterizing your position.
Further, us pro-variety folks aren't allowed to talk about players acting in good faith, because if the player is doing so, no DM here would have a problem with them.
In other words, y'all are telling us the ONLY conversation we're allowed to have is one where the DM is by definition
never in the wrong, and the player is by definition
always in the wrong, as anything else is insulting or irrelevant.
1. Why are we still having a conversation, if you're going to fix so many terms of it that there's nothing left to discuss?
2. I hope you can see the bitter irony here, of folks demanding that only one set of options be allowed, and the people not okay with those demands being confused, frustrated, and openly considering bouncing out.
3. Maybe try turning those ideas around and seeing how that makes us feel? Making it so the only players worthy of discussion are those presumed to have bad faith isn't exactly friendly to the people who mostly play the game as players, and it certainly mischaracterizes our position. Further, presuming it is impossible for the DM to act in bad faith is deeply frustrating for exactly the same reason that it would be to presume it is impossible for a player to act in bad faith: it insulates DM behavior from any form of criticism whatsoever, making them (as I have repeatedly said in the thread now) a beleaguered victim and thus unquestionable and untouchable.
It must be because you instantly try to use the ones they tell you not to use.
Hey now. That's getting pretty personal again, and definitely sounds acrimonious.
I am, at least, glad we agree on this part. I have Strong Opinions™ about this subject. The players need to have confidence that what they are able to learn is really
learned, not ever-mutable beneath their feet without even the possibility they could find out about such change. Otherwise, they're just wandering through a quantum railroad, where the rails are invisible and intangible but no less binding. Like when the holodeck uses tricks of motion and light to keep people thinking they're walking through an unconstrained space while never actually sending them beyond the limits of the room.
