D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[CleverNickName]

Maybe try

"If you allow any race, potentially changing fluff, just say so. Don't pretend it's a compromise."

"I curate races because it helps me run the best campaign I can."

Trouble is, it's not broad enough. You're focused on the "curated races" parts of the thread, but that's just one issue out of several that a DM and player might have to work together to resolve.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Maybe try

"If you allow any race, potentially changing fluff, just say so. Don't pretend it's a compromise."

"I curate races because it helps me run the best campaign I can."

So if a player was so committed to playing a certain race that they would gladly accept a lower quality campaign (and got all the other players to be fine with it as well) you would accept that??

That is an edge case, but there are people that are committed enough to a concept that they would be willing to do that.

 

[Oofta]

So if a player was so committed to playing a certain race that they would gladly accept a lower quality campaign (and got all the other players to be fine with it as well) you would accept that??

That is an edge case, but there are people that are committed enough to a concept that they would be willing to do that.

When I invite people to my game I let them know what restrictions I have which includes a limited set of races and no evil PCs. It's up to them whether that means they don't join. I can't be the right DM for every player.

 

[Oofta]

Trouble is, it's not broad enough. You're focused on the "curated races" parts of the thread, but that's just one issue out of several that a DM and player might have to work together to resolve.

Easier to say "People have different preferences and styles of playing. As long as they're up front about it, it's all good."

 

[Jaeger]

That's an odd definition of "compromises", to me.

I disagree.

The poster I replied to clearly stated:

... the player was only interested in tortle mechanics ...

I took this at face value. Why read something else into it? I was not contradicted by the OP.

I then explained, by citing the dictionary definitions of the words 'compromise' and 'accommodation' exactly why accomodation was the more clear and correct word to use to describe what was actually going on.

He then said:

You make this sound like a bad thing.

Then I said:

Not necessarily. I just feel that we should tell it like it is with plain speech.

I believe that when people used the word 'compromise', when what is really happening is 'accommodation'; it has caused undue confusion, and frustration when it comes to understanding where people really stand.

Then the issue was dropped.

You are taking up the gauntlet of a discussion that I and CleverNickName have already amicably resolved...

 

[CleverNickName]

You are taking up the gauntlet of a discussion that I and CleverNickName have already amicably resolved...

Yep, agreed. I thought we had settled the matter pretty well. But to recap:

In a campaign setting that doesn't allow (forbidden race) as an option, the DM made enough changes to (allowed race) to keep the player happy, instead of just flatly saying "no." I called it a compromise, @Jaeger called it an accommodation, it might even be both, but who cares? The player and the DM worked together to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all. That's the important part. That's the path I recommend.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Sometimes I think this whole thread can be summed up in two lines:

"We can come to a compromise if we work together."
"Nah, that's admitting defeat. I'm here to win!"

That's beneath you. That isn't at all what's being discussed and I think you know better.

 

[Oofta]

That's beneath you. That isn't at all what's being discussed and I think you know better.

It does pretty much say "DMs who place restrictions on player choices are being adversarial jerks."

 

[CleverNickName]

That's beneath you. That isn't at all what's being discussed and I think you know better.

I did say "sometimes." (rimshot)

It does pretty much say "DMs who place restrictions on player choices are being adversarial jerks."

I didn't distinguish between players or DMs. I intended for it to apply equally to both.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I did say "sometimes." (rimshot)

I didn't distinguish between players or DMs. I intended for it to apply equally to both.

That's better. The context I was in at the moment gave me the impression that you were leaning to one side. Sorry about that.