D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay. And you can't work them in? Why not? @Remathilis gave multiple ideas of working in a turtle-race or a unique individual turtle person.

Sure, there are campaign themes where none of that would work . . . but very narrow campaign themes. But if you can find the players for your very specific and narrow campaign setting, that's great and everybody will likely have fun. But @Remathilis will probably not be interested in your game. Neither would I. Are you okay with that?

It's not so much, "Gosh darn, I was dead-set on playing a turtle-person!" but rather, "Wow, this DM is really restrictive and prioritizes his worldbuilding over collaboration with players, and that's not a game I think I would be interested in." It's a red flag . . . not that you are a bad DM, but that your DMing style doesn't match what I'm looking for in a game.

Precisely.

"You can only be an X, Y, Z, or W. Also, classes L, M, and N are banned, and O/P/Q are only available by request."
"Uh...why?"
"Because that's the world I built."
"Oh. I was kinda hoping to play <class L> and <race V>. Could we work something out?"
"No. If you want to play that, you'll have to play in someone else's game. My worldbuilding cannot include them."
"That seems pretty inflexible."
"I prioritize setting consistency. If you don't like that, this won't be a game for you, so...you'll just have to take it or leave it. It's not like I have a shortage of interested players."

Do you not see how "my way or the highway" that looks, @AlViking ? And I'm not even adding anything that hasn't been said in this thread: claims that collaboration will always completely and thoroughly destroy setting consistency; claims that players cannot be trusted; claims that, because there's an endless supply of players, GMs can do and say whatever they want so long as a handful of people will still accept it.

Like...how is that not "the GM is always right and if you don't like it you're the problem"?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Like...how is that not "the GM is always right and if you don't like it you're the problem"?

It is.

I guess I don't see the debate here. Fair? Not at all. But I think it reflects the majority of the hobby's current environment. A wise poster about 20 pages ago said, "This is why we need to onboard more DMs."

I don't think anyone disagrees about the state of reality though. No one really pushed back on my post articulating this exact thing about DMs having no incentive to compromise.

So I know this is weird to hear, but you're right.

EDIT: Although, I dont think you are the problem. Just so thats clear

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I really do not care how old a race is, as I mentioned before the tortle is just an example.

But the specific rebuttal you and others have given, a zillion times over, is that they're supposed to be "weird", unusual, unfitting, an extreme option/example.

When you base an argument around something being weird, pointing out to you that it is inoffensive and has existed in the game for a very long time is quite relevant!

that is basically you repeating what I responded to, so you might as well revisit my initial response to this since you did not move the discussion forward

I don't see how it doesn't.

You claim the GM deserves to be special, to ALWAYS get EVERYTHING they want, no matter what, guaranteed. I don't buy that. That doesn't mean the GM deserves to be shackled to a campaign they don't want to run either though. It means the GM actually has to EARN the players' enthusiasm, trust, and support. I have never seen a single person who argues for the absolute centrality of the GM put more than a less-than-half-a-token-effort into talking about how one does that. Instead, exactly as I called out above from AlViking, we get people emphasizing just how replaceable the player is. Because, y'know, that isn't hostile at all, repeatedly emphasizing how there's an ocean of players desperate to play so the GM can always find someone willing. And what is the ineluctable conclusion from that argument? That GMs never need to listen to the players' interests--they can just kick the "problem" player and get one of the million other players instead.

Which, gee, doesn't that look like "the player is always the problem unless they accept absolutely everything the GM says"...?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is.

I guess I don't see the debate here. Fair? Not at all. But I think it reflects the majority of the hobby's current environment. A wise poster about 20 pages ago said, "This is why we need to onboard more DMs."

I don't think anyone disagrees about the state of reality though. No one really pushed back on my post articulating this exact thing about DMs having no incentive to compromise.

So I know this is weird to hear, but you're right.

So that is the argument being made, then? The bald assertion that the GM is just always right no matter what, and the player is just always wrong no matter what, unless and until they completely surrender on any point where they differ from the GM?

Forget fairness. That's being a blatant @$$#%!&. "My way or the highway" is not how friends or companions treat one another.

 

[gban007]

No it doesn't. No more so than my wanting to play a tortle demands everyone else play tortles or the DM to fill his world with tortle villains and empires. A tortle village on the edge of the swamp is no different than a tin of caviar on the table next to the veggie tray.

I dont think it fully works, as depending on what is happening, the whole party could be impacted by the player playing that race, and other players may not be happy about it.

I ran a Dragonlance campaign recently, I said based on the world, there are the common races that are native to the world, but any race available in 5e is playable, they would just be outsiders visiting Krynn, and depending on the race may get quite a bit of attention, possibly unwanted, by npcs around them because of their unusual appearance.

I also said that Dragonborn are a step further, as due to the emergence of Draconians, many may be suspicious of another dragon looking creature, and so would make some interactions harder, and some potential routes / opportunities may get close off as a result , though campaign will still be doable.

If a player did choose to be a Dragonborn, then it would impact on the whole party for being associated with that character. In this instance, it may not have concerned the DM so much, but may have made other players unhappy, and in that instance, who takes precedence?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

So that is the argument being made, then? The bald assertion that the GM is just always right no matter what, and the player is just always wrong no matter what, unless and until they completely surrender on any point where they differ from the GM?

Forget fairness. That's being a blatant @$$#%!&. "My way or the highway" is not how friends or companions treat one another.

Not in a literal sense, but in a DMs are scarce, players are not, kind of sense. So if you want to play you acquiesce to a DM or you DM yourself.

The only exception is if you are part of a small group in a small town where players are also in short supply. Than as others have mentioned, things even out.

So yes. Fairness is kind of out the window here.

The debate I see only seems to be about the hypothetical implications of the culture, not the culture's existence. More whether its a problem, whether the DM should have that power, not whether they do. Any foray into online or public gaming makes their power pretty clear. I don't think you could reasonably make an argument they don't have it.

EDIT: for clarity

 

[tetrasodium]

If you quoted my entire post . . .

Since you complain about partial quotes... What happened here?

Okay. And you can't work them in? Why not? @Remathilis gave multiple ideas of working in a turtle-race or a unique individual turtle person.

I don't think that you cleared the bar needed to justify that question. You quoted 1190 while asking that ay1190 starts with the words "Tortles don't exist in my world. Why do you want to play one?" Very strip that striked bit?

It's usually not a positive sign and tends to justly trigger warning flags with good reason when players seem to be making an effort to hide things and keep secrets from the gm like refusing to answer that question hints at

 

[gban007]

So that is the argument being made, then? The bald assertion that the GM is just always right no matter what, and the player is just always wrong no matter what, unless and until they completely surrender on any point where they differ from the GM?

Forget fairness. That's being a blatant @$$#%!&. "My way or the highway" is not how friends or companions treat one another.

I dont see it as the DM is always right, but if they aren't going to bend, what is the player going to do? If they can get whole group to move, then maybe that would show the DM that they are doing something wrong, but if the DM still gets players willing to play, then for better or worse they don't see an issue with way they are running, regardless if there is or not.

Now I think hopefully this mainly comes into play with a new DM / player interaction, that get into this sort of irresolvable mess.

If it is an existing group of friends/ players, then I would hope that being friends they would be able to work through to an outcome. Maybe the DM doesn't want to play Dragonlance with Dragonborn, but would be happy to run Forgotten Realms instead, and player happy with that. If fortunate enough like with my group with multiple people who DM, then it gets even easier to find a solution that makes everyone happy, and often our next campaign will land on a compromise on what system / world people want to play in that a DM is happy to run.

E.g. it may be that people arent interested in playing a sci fi game this time around, which one person only wants to DM, but someone else is happy to DM Age of Sigmar that everyone else is interested in playing in.

TLDR, I wouldn hope that in an established group there would be the mutual respect and understanding of each other to get to an outcome everyone agrees on, but with a new player or new DM without prior experience, there may be irreconcilable differences.

 

[Scribe]

I dont see it as the DM is always right, but if they aren't going to bend, what is the player going to do?

Throw a fit, sabotage the game, lash out and troll people online...

 

[mamba]

But the specific rebuttal you and others have given, a zillion times over, is that they're supposed to be "weird", unusual, unfitting, an extreme option/example.

not sure why a weird and unfitting race cannot also be one that has been around a while, the two have nothing to do with each other. Also, the turtle was an example and the DM is hypothetical, no one is arguing for an inclusion in anyone’s specific game

When you base an argument around something being weird, pointing out to you that it is inoffensive and has existed in the game for a very long time is quite relevant!

no, it is not. Inoffensive is a personal opinion, just like weird, and having existed for a while is irrelevant for this. I am sure there are plenty of weird races in D&D’s past that rarely were used, just like the tortle

You claim the GM deserves to be special, to ALWAYS get EVERYTHING they want, no matter what, guaranteed. I don't buy that.

I do not claim that, I only said the DM cannot be forced to run a game they do not enjoy

That doesn't mean the GM deserves to be shackled to a campaign they don't want to run either though. It means the GM actually has to EARN the players' enthusiasm, trust, and support.

I agree with all of this, so the DM did not earn the player’s support here, that still means the player does not have a game now

Which, gee, doesn't that look like "the player is always the problem unless they accept absolutely everything the GM says"...?

no, I have been saying from the start that neither side can be strongarmed into anything, and if no compromise can be found then they simply cannot be in the same game. No harm, no foul

Not sure why any result where the player has to work on a compromise with the DM is treated as a ‘the player always has to do what the DM says’, that sounds an awful lot like ‘the DM always has to accept the ideas of the player’