(Chunk post, I'm still about six pages behind)
What does that mean? Is this 'elf' physically a flesh and blood elf, do they have elf parents, do they come from an elf culture? Besides mechanics, what similarity they have to an elf from say, Forgotten Realms?
Depends on how the story goes. They aren't flesh and blood, because they are Anvilwrought. But perhaps the God forged a whole community, attempting an art piece, maybe it was a singular work for a purpose, there are dozen's of potentials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you're ignoring that this conversation for 100+ pages has been about both sides. Got it.
No Max, you are ignoring what I said in favor of what you want me to say.
Why should my enjoyment as a DM override the enjoyment of my players? you responding about why I as a player should get to ruin the fun of my DM answers no part of that question, because I specifically said I was asking as a DM. Making me the player in that scenario ignores the question.
But. whatever, you can't answer that question so you'd rather paint me in a negative light.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I think the fact that I very much have to ask means that I'm the one paying close attention here. You're making a lot of very telling assumptions.
You mean assumptions about the scenario I explicitly laid out at the beginning of my hypothetical?
If you need them repeated to you, doesn't that seem to indicate that you weren't paying full attention the last time?
I never mentioned anything about one campaign ending and another beginning.
You are right! I did. As part of my hypothetical. The scenario I was laying out to express my point.
So, I mentioned it, expecting you to follow along.
Or that our Chaotic 15th level magic-user in question was necessarily an NPC under the DM's control. He could have been (since, in a sandbox game, it's incumbent upon the DM to keep track of all the high-level NPCs' plots, comings, and goings, precisely because the PCs aren't privileged over the NPCs—this campaign style largely treats them equally), but then again, he could just as easily have been a player character operating at the same time as Sir Bob the 10th level fighter. Maybe a former party member of Bob's before Bob moved on from dungeon-delving and switched to domain-building; maybe a former member of an entirely different party operating in the same campaign. (Are you working under the assumption here that "a campaign" means that the action only follows one party of tight-knit player characters, all staunch allies and bosom friends, and that only one mostly-stable PC party can be at work in the setting at a time?)
An NPC or a PC... huh, that sounds like exactly what I asked you. You then asked why it would matter. I then laid out exactly why it would matter.
So... what is the point of this?
So there's another set of assumptions here (and in the previous paragraph), that the destruction of Bob's castle must somehow involve villainy on either one side or the other, and that said villainy must have been orchestrated by the DM. And that the DM is "setting" the players' goals. (That one is very odd to me.) And that the DM's goal in doing this is restoring the world's status quo, which is just… telling, again, but not accurate regardless. Because the initial status quo was empty wilderness. If Player #1 builds a barony there, that's the new status quo. And then, if Player #2 (or NPC #743) comes along and destroys that castle, now there's a smoking magical crater there, which is hardly the original status quo. (If the barony had peasants and citizens, it's also an open question as to whether they're all dead now, or conquered by the interloping magic-user, or whatever else. We're getting further and further away from that pristine wilderness!)
You mean the assumptions I very clearly laid out? I'm glad you at least noticed them this time.
And, you are assuming it was pristine wilderness there before. Maybe the barony was a ruin, and the PCs rebuilt it.
Oh, and the "setting player goals" is actually not that hard. Most players tend to either follow breadcrumbs or fight back when they are attacked. All it takes is the Barony being engaged in some evil venture, or to want something the party has, and then they are set as antagonists.
I mean, DMs do create antagonists for the party all the time.
You're bringing the reset button to this example. (And notably ignoring the other example I gave, of a PC cleric who literally overthrows a DM-created kingdom.) It's all you. It's another curious assumption you're making about this hypothetical DM's motivations.
You mean the entire point of my hypothetical example? Why, I am shocked, utterly shocked, that in an example of a DM doing something to reset their game while giving the players the illusion of choice, that I reset the status quo and assumed the DMs motivations.
It is almost as if, those things were the potential I wanted my hypothetical to point out. Strange that. Makes it sound like I had a point.
All you, buddy. You can posit a DM reset button all you like, and you can draw whatever speculations and accusations from it that you like, but at that point you're just talking to yourself.
I gave some fairly straightforward examples of PC actions that could alter the face of a campaign setting. You're inexplicably fixated on the notion that something a PC does can also be undone (quite possibly by another PC).
Yes, exactly, that was my point.
During the campaign the DM might let the players do things. But if they then go back and undo all those things, especially via NPC fiat... then were they really willing to let the PCs affect their game?
Yes, I'm bringing in the assumption that the DM does that. Because if they don't do that then they aren't doing that.
Your entire problem with my hypothetical is like someone starting out with the effects of chopping down trees and their opponent coming in and saying "Isn't it strange you are assuming they will chop down trees?"
No, because the entire hypothetical is built upon asking the question of what the action means, assuming the action is key to that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. Things like how long can they hold their breath? How much more food and water does it take per day for a centaur? But, according to some in the thread, since that info isn't in a WOTC book, it's cheating to even think about it.
They can hold their breath for 1 + con mod number of minutes, followed by a number of rounds equal to their con mod. As per the rules of suffocation.
They need 1 lb of food per day, and can go 3 + con mod days without food without suffering exhaustion. As per the rules for starvation.
There is no rule that says a medium creature that is larger than normal changes these rules.
Now, granted, you aren't "cheating" as the DM by changing these rules, but I think a player could be rightfully upset that you change them solely to debuff their character, without any recompense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The game rules don't really define gravity, but falling, flight and more imply gravity. We're almost agreeing, but not quite.
You can extrapolate some gravity from the fact that every single object that falls, falls a maximum of 500 ft per 6 seconds. Per Xanathar's rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I can go dig back through this mess or you can just say, "Oh yea. There were a lot of arguments and debate about those other reasons."
For forty pages now, I have been attempting to find the crux of this argument. On the last page, after asking specifically which of these reasons are we debating, you say the one I bolded. The DM banning races because they don't like it. So that is what we are debating. Ok. Even though it is obvious that this thread tried to debate a lot more. Ok. I am good. I agree with you.
No. I said it was the question I had been asking in this chain of debate. That's why I keep saying you keep missing the point.
I asked you a question, and you refused to answer it, instead trying to focus on every other part of the debate except that question I asked you.
Until you change the argument.
I never changed the question I asked you.
I answered what, six different scenarios from you, yet you can't possibly answer one from me without it being the only argument I can ever make with no exceptions, and moving from that single question I asked you that you refused to answer again and again and again is changing my argument?
Now, suddenly, these other reasons are only okay if you think they are okay. Only if you can get behind them. Many of them are "silly" or "poor." So I guess it's not just a DM's likes/dislikes that you do not agree with. It's really just anything that you don't agree with the DM should bend. Why don't you just use that as your thesis statement, instead of slipping and sliding and dodging and derailing. If that is your belief, and there are layers to that belief (like you might accept a few physiological reasons and not most), why not just state this? Why make me play twenty questions and then argue about the semantics of conflict and resolution?
I asked you one question. Then I had to rip and pull and twist just to get a sort of answer out of you. When I had answered your questions multiple times.
As a DM, yes, I find many of those reasons you posted poor. Throw me in a gallows for it I guess. I never changed my position, as a DM, it has always been the same.
But, shockingly, I recognize that other people aren't me. I recognize that other people have other reasons. And sometimes I won't agree with them. But, I also think that we can find common ground. That is why I keep trying to find common ground. What can everyone agree on is bad behavior? What can everyone agree on are the possibilities of the situation.
However, you seem only interested in interrogating me, locking me into a single position, so you can just be done with all this.
I, and many others, have stated our position clearly many times:
- Tables are individual. What works for some doesn't work for others. There is no right or wrong.
- DMs create the world. Players interact with the world and help create a small portion of the world in the beginning through background.
- The DM should have clear expectations going into session 0.
- The players should listen to the DM's expectations and try to work inside those parameters.
- If they can't, they should discuss it with the DM. The DM should listen and help the player achieve their vision, while not rewriting their world.
And the IMHO:
- FR is a kitchen sink. Anything goes because it is already a mess.
This seems fair to me. What works for you, works for you.
You say this is "fair" but immediately I see something that frustrates me. "In your honest opinion" FR is a kitchen sink, and therefore a mess.
But, didn't you say in your first point that there is no right and wrong for individual tables? Yet, one style is a mess. Messes aren't good. So, your honest opinion is that there is a better way. Your way. Because the other way is a mess.
So, in one part you present yourself as the reasonable party who doesn't judge the other side... and then you judge us. And I know it is just your opinion, I know it is just your preference, but maybe you could try to stop judging us while at the same time you say you aren't judging us?
I know you don't think it is fair. That is why I have been asking you specific questions. Because I believe, deep down, you think the DM should change, not the player. You believe the player's vision can trump the DM's. And that is fair. Like I said, if I was running anything but my curated realm, like an AP, I agree. I would just add in whatever race the player wanted. Even one that isn't in the books. If they wanted to make up a religion too. Go for it. Want to write in that your uncle is the mayor of the town in trouble. Thumbs-up.
But, as I have stated many times, I completely disagree with you regarding a DM bending when they have put in the work to make their world/realm/area cohesive and logical. And if a player asks twice it is wrong. If they demand it is dead wrong. And if they insist it is absolutely wrong.
That is the point you keep trying to sway me on, and it is wrong to tell another DM how to DM for their own world. If you want them to experiment, buy them Tasha's as a gift. Ask them to run an AP that has tabaxi. Ask them to join your game as a player and show them how much fun it is. But to tell them it is wrong to not bend... boo!
Not sure why you think this is "deep down" when I have flat said that as a DM I try to accommodate my players. Do you think you are revealing some secret to me about my own preferences?
But, on top of that, I've been asking another question no one seems willing to answer. '
As a DM, why is it wrong of me to bend? Just because I put in a lot of work, work I did not need to put in?
I mean, if I didn't want to build my world.... I wouldn't. There are worlds that exist, or I could run in "Generica". I've got tons of options. But, because I put in unnecessary work for my own sake I need to suddenly become inflexible? That I need to know make my players "wrong" for even asking to change the things I built, which I build solely for my own sake?
I don't get it
I think all our minds went to the American's with Disabilities Act; a federal law that forced building codes to change. Btw, many still haven't. I would imagine that in a fantasy realm it might go even slower, especially without the financial incentive.
But I was thinking like a tin roof, no walls, but attached to the bar. Basically, like one of those bars you see at the beach: big open window, direct access to the barkeep, sand area, maybe with a few stumps and fire pit. If it rains, everyone stays close to the bar under the tin roof. Th centaurs hang out at the bar there, eating (man, how many calories can a centaur eat?) the thickest calorie-dense stew available. And of course, drinking a fine gnomish mead, because they have a sweet-tooth.
Sure, slower, but again, that doesn't mean impossible.
