From my perspective as a player - it would seem much more fun to talk with the DM about the game and go back and forth to see what I can play. "Ok so the Tribe of the Elk is a big part of this setting - maybe I can be an exiled member of the Tribe of the Elk. Hmmm there all human though, I don't really want to be human - are there any elves around? Maybe I can be half-elf - perhaps that could be part of why they've exiled me." Now I fit the setting and I've got a good role-playing hook - I'm bitter about the tribe of the elk, but also would really like them to accept me - and it's not meaningless background because I'm likely to actually encounter them in the course of the game.
This seems to me the first step of collaboration. It's a game we play together - it just seems very odd to me for players to come to a game and what to fit in a character they're pumped to play for reasons completely independent of the specific game they're going to play. I mean even if it's an adventure path - if you said "We're playing Curse of Strahd" I'd be starting to think about based on what I knew already what would be a fun character for this type of game - I certainly wouldn't be thinking "Great, I made this character a while ago who is an orphaned Tabaxi monk from a south-east Asian culture. Now is the chance to play it". Not that it couldn't work - but it wouldn't seem the most fitting showcase for that character - and it's really not hard to come up with new character ideas.
I also don't think I would get very far with a game if the GM just said, "play what you like, it doesn't matter" and there not being a conversation about what would fit the game and what wouldn't. To me this would be an indication that characters are basically just interchangeable tokens.
This is a paradox I've seen before. A player wants to jam a very specific character they've created into a game where the concept is not particularly meaningful- and then if they succeed they are visibily disatisfied because their character's story is not meaningfully engaged. The background they wrote for their exiled Tabaxi son of a far away sultantate who longs to return home and defeat the Rakshasha who have taken it over, doesn't amount to anything in Icewind Dale.
See, but you just did the exact same thing that "we" have been told not to do. The Tribe of the Elk is all humans, but you made a member who is a half-elf. In the words of some of the other posters "How dare you you."
And this is the thing I keep trying to point out. The "player side" isn't all, "I want my Wuxia Tabaxi in your gothic horror", sometimes we want our Simic Hybrid frankenstien monster in your Gothic Horror. Sometimes we want to pull deep lore about a race that resonates with something the DM said or laid out. Something the DM was unaware of when they built their world.
Sometimes we want something that fits, but that the DM did not include.
And that, sometimes, seems to be completely wrong of us. Completely selfish of us. Completely inappropriate and spitting in the face of our DM who put so much love and care into their setting. After all, how could we mere players have a concept that can match the hours upon hours of work the DM put into their world? It isn't like players can do research, or have passionate interest in the game.
Oh wait, if they do, they are supposed to run their own games.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, in your terms, the DM
bending. Bending was good remember?
But, it is exactly as I keep insisting it is - which is why I keep asking questions instead of trying to give examples. Because the reality is: The DM is wrong if they don't concede to the player. That is your take. Every question I have given, you, Chaos and others have simply refused to answer or... answered and then changed your answer. Call it varying levels of degrees or whatever. But, the perspective from the DM side is - no matter how we bend, we are not bending enough unless we concede to the player. And, in many cases, when we are not conceding the following words have been used to describe us:
"Unimaginative"
"Control Freaks"
"Edgelords"
"Diluted" (As in our worlds)
"Silly and Poor Reasoning"
"Using Arbitrary Nonsense"
And the list goes on.
If I am wrong about this concession, then I will admit it. But, after being asked twenty times about why a DM should ban something - and giving reasons upon reasons - only to see the reasons just not be quite good enough. Then the reasons are not valid for one some people on one side. I just simply wish they would come out and say it. Oofta, Max, myself and others have stated our thesis a hundred times. Ours differ. But we have stated them. For some reason, the player side, without throwing in a bunch of clauses and partially acceptable phrases, can't do this.
And the thing that really grinds my gears
is none of you will answer why the player would do this if they know up front exactly what they are allowed and not allowed to play based on the DM giving clear guidelines. Why would they do this?
(Edit: One person did answer and I do appreciate it.)
Why would they have a character concept that might not match exactly with the DM's canon?
Why did Michelangelo paint the face of God? Why did Little Sally paint blue roses instead of red roses on her valentine card? Why did a jazz musician try and play on a length of hose instead of a saxophone?
There are as many reasons why as their grains of sand. Why do you want to act like the player wanting to test the limits is an insult to the DM? Why do you still refuse to answer my questions if I am supposed to answer yours?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have to resort to ancient horses and ignoring the evidence, you've lost your position. This conversation is over.
In other words, you have no rebuttal. I ignored no evidence. I looked at your evidence. I just pointed out that your evidence was non-conclusive.
And considering Dinosaurs still roam the planet in many DnD worlds, and Saber-Tooth cats and Wolly Mammoths are in the Monster Manual, I don't think considering ancient horses for an Feywild race is stretching it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't call it lazy storytelling. That was part of the thread, so I left it in there to not change the wording. Just clarifying.
And I agree with you. Both are being judgmental. My premise (and always has been), that if the DM was clear about no changelings, then the player makes a changeling, the DM can say no. The DM has that ability. It might not be for a good reason. (Like I said earlier, I personally prefer a more curated world where the DM has thought all of this out.) But, the DM, regardless, has the right to say no, because they set the parameters for their world.
We may disagree on this. I am okay with that.
So, it is okay for a specific DM to be judgemental and tell their players no for those reasons, but at the same time you want to hold that every table has their own culture and we should not judge them for it?
What if I take offense to a DM being judgemental and banning a race for that reason? Am I... not allowed to take offense at that? Am I not allowed to tell them their reasons are wrong?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope! Not even close
I change rules that don't make sense, so no centaurs climbing vertical walls or ropes. I would also allow a centaur should anyone ever ask. So far no one has, because they all like to go into dungeons on occasion.
A classic soft ban, "Well, you could play a centaur, but you'll never be able to explore dungeons, because you can't climb"
Of course, they could climb, but you removed that rule, because you assume Centaurs and modern horses are mostly identical.
Wonder how many Centaurs would get mistreated by human townsfolk as well, or be forced to sleep in the stables with the animals.
