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

[GobHag]

If there's a rules disagreement does the player decide? If other people at the table don't want a tortle why do you get to override their preference?

In a rules disagreement we look at the book but acceptable to make a quick ruling to cotntinue the flow

Entirely dependant on what their issues are; If they just don't like the image of a Tortle then they don't get to override it.

Is any restriction by the DM allowable in your opinion? Or must the DM always allow any and every idea a player has that is within the collective of a system's rules?

The human in the DM chair, do they have any power to cultivate a game without committing a red flag?

Curious little me wants to know

I'm actually someone that'd more than willing to reshape my character concept for the campaign, but I find that the contemporary play culture where it's in the player's court to decide if they want it to fit or not is just the way I like it. I'm not even against banning classes or races, just not if the reasoning is 'Wehweh I don't wanna see a green dude as a hero in my brain theater wehweh'. The class/race has a broken combo? It's unbalanced? It's features are too stressful for the GM to manage? It could cause Table Troubles because of it's mechanical premise(Friendly Fire as a baseline, trade-off debuff/buff that can be forced, etc, etc)? Sure, understandable. I'd be willing to talk and debate to self-nerf or choose another or something.

Just that I'll never consider 'setting coherence' as that big of a deal to ban something, like restricting the PCs to never have pompadours or being born with green hair. Ridiculous.

But yes, I'm taking a hardline stance against the return of previous era GM supremacy in the culture.

 

[dave2008]

The reason I wanted to play him was because the muses inspired that concept in my head. The question is what, if anything, can be done to accommodate both our wishes.

I think that is a valid reason. However, it also seems one where there is no room for compromise if the DM's reason is this world doesn't have them (aka the muses inspired them and they don't want them), which would be equally as valid. I don't know how to square that hole (and thankfully never an issue I've had to deal with). So I will turn the question back to you:

Is there anything that can be done to accommodate both wishes?

I can't see one, but I hope I'm wrong!

 

[tetrasodium]

In a rules disagreement we look at the book but acceptable to make a quick ruling to cotntinue the flow

Entirely dependant on what their issues are; If they just don't like the image of a Tortle then they don't get to override it.

Why is a random post of mine from a couple days ago quoted between 3-4 other seemingly unrelated quotes ?

 

[GobHag]

Why is a random post of mine from a couple days ago quoted between 3-4 other seemingly unrelated quotes ?

Wanted to link to my post but it kept being weird so I gave up and just quoted myself

 

[DinoInDisguise]

In a rules disagreement we look at the book but acceptable to make a quick ruling to cotntinue the flow

Entirely dependant on what their issues are; If they just don't like the image of a Tortle then they don't get to override it.

Maybe I worded my question poorly, but I don't think that answers my question. So please, help me out.
You talked about:

• Your personal taste in play culture
• Your willingness to compromise
• Your dislike of “GM supremacy”
• Acceptable reasons in your view for restrictions (mechanics, balance, stress)
• An analogy that seems to collapse setting into cosmetics.

I simply want to know, can a DM say no for reasons such as setting, tone, or genre? The post you linked me to, sounds like you think a DM caring about setting coherence is a red flag.

Are you arguing for player veto power based on taste, while condemning DM veto power based on taste? Restricting DM veto power only to mechanical reasons? Because your phrasing "anti-supremacy" doesn't come off as neutral.

Please, help me understand your position.

 

[GobHag]

I think that is a valid reason. However, it also seems one where there is no room for compromise if the DM's reason is this world doesn't have them (aka the muses inspired them and they don't want them), which would be equally as valid. I don't know how to square that hole (and thankfully never an issue I've had to deal with). So I will turn the question back to you:

Is there anything that can be done to accommodate both wishes?

I can't see one, but I hope I'm wrong!

The Tortle came from another dimension/world. Hopefully this is an answer both sides will dislike while still fulfilling both wishes--the world has no Tortle(until now) and the character is a turtle-man

 

[Belen]

Before we switched to Pathfinder I had a tortle light cleric i wanted to play, i had this idea about tortles meditating in open sky temples on the backs of massive dragon turtles, contemplating the sun as they bask in it, and what it means to them as cold blood creatures.

The tortle would have symbols of sun gods or whatever else setting appropriate painted on its shell and they would glow when they cast powerful spells.

Will that do as a good faith reason to play a tortle, to have the discussion from the perspective of having a player want it?

I’d have that conversation with you if you were wiling to write things up.

 

[Remathilis]

I've given you several ideas of compromise that give you what you claim to want that doesn't involve playing a tortle.

I think that's where the "compromise" framing falls apart. I am look for a compromise of "How can I play the character I want in a way that won't upset your world-building", which I have given several options from mutant to magical creation to super-rare species previously unknown to "came off a spaceship that crashed." You have responded with compromises that don't involve me actually playing a tortle, but just a regular dude with a turtle fetish. That is like saying "You can't be a wizard. You can be a fighter with a stick and robes who hits people with the stick and yells "MAGIC MISSILE" when he does so." My compromise is "how can I make this work in a way that doesn't break your world" and yours is "how do I make it so that your character is nothing more than a funny hat on my already in stone preferences."

If all you really want is a game where the player makes the final call say so. If that is your stance, where does it end?

It ends where the player and DM find actual compromise. DMing 101 teaches two improv skills: "Yes, and" and "No, but". Yes, And would be the "Yes you are tortle, and you are a one-of-your-kind magical experiment". No, but is "No, but you can be a lizardfolk who developed a shell-like curse and everyone thinks he looks like a tortle." In both scenarios, the player gets his character and the DM is consistent with his world.

But that's not what is happening. We are stuck with just "No." Or maybe "No, but you can put on turtle Spirit Halloween costume and people will look at you funny."

Do you get to play a gunslinger?

Depends. Can I refluff the firearms are modified crossbows?

If there's a rules disagreement does the player decide?

Clearly the GM is referee for in game actions, but usually a GM listens to both sides before ruling. Then again, I would wager if you weren't willing to listen to me on character generation, I feel I have little chance of winning any disagreement about rulings.

If other people at the table don't want a tortle why do you get to override their preference?

Who are these mythical anti-tortle players whose whole night is ruined if they see a tortle? Do they sit there and police every other PC as well? "Sorry Bob, I won't play with a warlock. Make a new character." "No Sue, you either ditch the paladin or I walk!" "I can't stand halflings, too Tolkien. If anyone plays a halfling, I'm killing them on sight!"

 

[Belen]

Psst... while you are trying to dismiss everyone outside the 20-45 age range, I'm talking about a significant chunk of people who are 43-47. I know that it's common for people to say that it's been a long time since math class covered something but I'm sure that you can math out that overlap. It's roughly the same size as any 5 year group in both generations it bridges.

Heh! I am technically a xellienial at 49.

 

[Minigiant]

Again rarely is a player transfixed on a specific character. Usually its a roster.

A dm bands in entire roster, I believe the onus is now on the dm to provide information about their setting, which wold possibly interest the player.

And the player has a onus to provide the DM with the style of characters they would like to play.

Then, they compromis..
It's sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

Me personally, I think it's bad form to come to a DND game with only a single character concept in your head. Mostly because this is a game where your character could die and you might need a new one.

I believe it's also bad for him to create a setting that has a very narrow amount of our character types for characters because Dean is a DND is a game where your character can die. And the player might want to play something else after their first one dies.

This is before you go to things like older editions, where the game pretty much came with requirements from the players. So you as a dm must allow certain things or must replace things that you remove.