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

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm all for trying to work out a compromise, but why does the DMs fun have to take a back seat?

Why is working out a mutually-acceptable compromise always "the DM's fun hav[ing] to take a back seat"?

You are creating an us-vs-them situation by asking the question.

There's middle ground where the DM will try and work out a compromise(not capitulation), but still hold true to the world building. There are people here saying the DM should fully capitulate to anything the players wants to create for his PC.

And there are people here saying the player should fully capitulate. In fact, nearly everyone advocating for "hold[ing] true to the world building" as you put it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the better way to approach the situation is to ask the other side "Whats important to you," and start from there. The answer will tell you if a true compromise is even possible. If the answers are back at the starting position, I guess walking it a good idea for both.

....which is what I've literally said dozens of times in this forum. Over and over and over and over.

And guess who pushes back?

 

[Mecheon]

I hope this is hyperbole, because if not it borders on paranoia. Not having a race isn't enough to be anywhere close to being a reliable indicator that there isn't any freedom in the game.

DM: I don't have orcs, but you can play literally any other PHB race, or even races from other books like Tortles, Loxodon and those cat people that I forget the name of.

Player: You fiend! There's no freedom in your game at all! How dare you force me to play one of the other 54 other races. I'm so constrained!

My 'introduction to D&D' path starts in Warcraft 3. So you can imagine the shock when I come over the D&D side and people say "Orcs aren't playable. They're always evil" as a setting feature when I've come from basically the trend setter for 'yeah orcs can be good, its the individual people who are good or evil'. Anything that tries to make orcs always evil is going to sit poor with me and, well, you know my views on alignment to begin with.

 

[mamba]

....which is what I've literally said dozens of times in this forum. Over and over and over and over.

And guess who pushes back?

no one, that is what has been proposed multiple times, it just never worked because the pro-turtle side could not say what the important part about playing a turtle was that needed preserving

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Returning to the non-compromise of "literally just a human with the name 'Dragonborn' applied somewhere", the reason I don't see that as any form of compromise is that the GM did not actually surrender...anything. Like anything at all. As was previously said by @soviet, in any game with anything remotely like a player's ability to write their own backstory, the player could already do that. Hence, nothing was actually "given" by the GM--they offered "you can do literally things you already could do, in return for not getting anything of what you actually want." That's not a compromise, by any definition of the word. Nothing was given.

The absolute bare-minimum "I have to agree that that is, in fact, a compromise" would be something like this: "Look, you can't play a dragonborn. Would you be okay with playing a human who has dragonborn stats, and we reflavor your breath as you having studied circus performance stuff. You can have a free Origin feat instead of the draconic flight, because I can't think of a way to reflavor that. Deal?"

That's a give and take, even if it is 90% GM take, 10% GM give IMO. You can have some of the mechanics of dragonborn, but none of the aesthetics, and there's a patch to cover the one mechanic that the GM won't permit. I can see some portion of dragonborn fans accepting this. I don't think it would be a very big proportion, but its size is not the relevant question here.

Conversely, "you are the random product of a magical experiment gone awry, totally unique in this world and without any special assocation with dragons" seems to me the 90% GM give, 10% GM take compromise, the logical reverse of the previous. It gives the player nearly everything they want, other than the outright explicit link to dragons and the existence of a culture to which said character might belong, with a basic but serviceable excuse for the character's existence. I would not expect any hardline anti-dragonborn GMs (which are very much a real thing) to accept this compromise, but I could see a small but reasonable proportion of "my world just doesn't have dragonborn" GMs accepting this. Again, the size is not the relevant concern, but rather whether it actually does involve both sides giving concessions to the other.

"You're canonically a lizardman, perhaps from a distant/insular tribe, and can use dragonborn mechanics" would IMO be the middle-of-the-road option, assuming lizardmen are a thing. Possibly with the "Origin feat instead of flight" swap, and/or "your breath must be acid, fire, or poison type". Getting (most of) the mechanics and some of the aesthetics, but not getting any connection to dragons nor any cultural associations the player might desire. I would expect most GMs that are actually participating in good faith to accept this as a compromise, unless (as noted) there also aren't lizardmen in this world, but...well, there we are kinda getting into the "okay so what DO you permit?" territory.

Other points on the scale could be (as noted) "you look like a scaly human" (mostly GM, but a bit of player), "you're actually an awakened komodo that somehow became bipedal" (slightly more GM-favoring than player-favoring), or "you are a dragonborn, but you come from another plane of existence where such creatures actually exist" (mostly player, but a bit of GM), or "you are the result of a dragon siring children with a lizardfolk tribe long ago, so you have a touch of the dragon in you but you'll use a blend of dragonborn and lizardfolk mechanics" (pretty neutral, possibly slightly GM-leaning?)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

no one, that is what has been proposed multiple times, it just never worked because the pro-turtle side could not say what the important part about playing a turtle was that needed preserving

It's going to vary from player to player, for exactly the same reason that why the world was built without tortles is going to vary from GM to GM. If you aren't willing to allow for a diversity of player interests, why should we allow for a diversity of GM interests?

Some GMs are petulant arsehats who exclude dragonborn because "HAH, sticking it to all those NERDS who like this WEIRD CRAP." Some players are petulant arsehats who demand dragonborn because they have to be the special exception to every rule or else they're being oppressed.

With the diversity of possible reasons on both sides, we cannot make universal declarations either way.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's going to vary from player to player, for exactly the same reason that why the world was built without tortles is going to vary from GM to GM. If you aren't willing to allow for a diversity of player interests, why should we allow for a diversity of GM interests?

Some GMs are petulant arsehats who exclude dragonborn because "HAH, sticking it to all those NERDS who like this WEIRD CRAP." Some players are petulant arsehats who demand dragonborn because they have to be the special exception to every rule or else they're being oppressed.

With the diversity of possible reasons on both sides, we cannot make universal declarations either way.

Omce again that doesn't matter because there have been many many attempts to talk about the process of gm<>player cooperative collaboration on an abstract level many times. Often those were with intentionally absurd examples involving things Jedi and Klingons on TOS era federation ships that should have allowed the example to stand as an unreasonable one purely for purpose of discussing the process at an abstract. However ach time someone on the tortle side of the discussion would ignore that effort and try to justify how the trek verse could accommodate those things if only the gm were willing to be more accommodating.

About the closest that the tortle advocates ever came to making attempts at talking about the process was a few times where they suggested peppering the gm will throw away race/class combos with no further details that were regularly ascribed as things with deep player attachment the gm needs to endlessly dig through. No matter what critique was given to each of those shotgun blast process proposals it would just be ignored and go back to specifics about how the gm could make those work now that the player has fulfilled their end of simply listing a few PCs they might like to play

 

[Moving Pictures]

Uh... That's EXACTLY what a compromise is. It was meeting in the middle. What's not a compromise is the player just getting a Tortle.

Ah, I think I mis-read.
Yeah, I know, someone admitted they were wrong on the Interweb. It can happen.

At times, I want to run with certain themes or styles and kitchen sink usually only supports very high fantasy.

There.
One of the reasons I pulled back species/races/classes and other stuff is that I've run a very high fantasy game. In the end, I regretted doing a few things.

This time around, I want some grit, dirt, political intrigue and most of all moral uncertainty.

But even today, after playing with probably a dozen different DMs and half-dozen different systems, I've seen enough to know what I want from a game and what is a red flag for me. And that starts at chargen because I refuse to have my fun determined by the DM deciding cat people are stupid.

But there's a difference between "you can't play a tabaxi because I think they are stupid," and

1) "I don't have those in this setting. The game is going to be heavy on ocean travel, islands, pirates and other elements.... but I have an island full of Rastafarian Tortles, and the neighbouring island is full of dragonborn, and then there's a race of bipedal lizards. Could you play one of those?"

or

2) "well, here's the thing ... we're playing a Middle Eastern theme and Rhakshasha are a thing, and the populace will brand any sentient cat as evil to be killed outright," with the underlying thought that the DM already has ideas of having Rhakshasha as a BBEG at some point.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

2) "well, here's the thing ... we're playing a Middle Eastern theme and Rhakshasha are a thing, and the populace will brand any sentient cat as evil to be killed outright," with the underlying thought that the DM already has ideas of having Rhakshasha as a BBEG at some point.

Given that rhakshasha are shapechangers, isn't the last thing they are likely to look like a cat?

But a feline PC (who might be an outcast rhakshasha stripped of their powers) is going to take steps to disguise themselves, magically or otherwise (also, there is a Dark Gift in VGR that would do the job). It's not like there isn't a goblin who disguises themselves as a human child in a popular D&D based animated series!

 

[Scott Christian]

Yes, Scott. Obviously when I use a general term I mean absolutely everyone, with no exceptions.

I realize you are speaking in general terms, which is why I can sarcastically reply back in the same general terminology. Your quote:

Basically DMs who lack the self-awareness to realize players don’t care about their detailed setting lore.

You can see the argument you're making here, right? That players don't care about the DMs hard work regarding lore. That a DM who limits things based on their lore work is wrong because - players don't care.

So, it seems to me I have every right to turn around and say all players care about lore, including you. And that is the reason DMs should be allowed to set limits.

All I did was state the same thing you did, but in reverse. Sarcastically replying back to me of how you didn't mean "absolutely everyone," yet at the same time used it to imply that DMs who set limits due to lore are ridiculous because "players don't care," is just clever wordsmithing for a false argument.