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

[Thomas Shey]

But your statement of the premise has your thumb on the scale. You're deliberately painting the person who wants to play a tortleman as a stranger invited into the GM's home. Why? Why can't Bob, who has played with the GM for 15 years, ask to play a tortleman? Why can't Jim, whose house all the game sessions take place at, ask to play a tortleman?

Well, it can be legitimately be asked what's occured that the 15 year player doesn't know the GM would probably have strong resistance to it in the first place in that circumstances. I'd say that combination suggests some disfunction somewhere in the GM/player relationship there.

 

[Zardnaar]

But your statement of the premise has your thumb on the scale. You're deliberately painting the person who wants to play a tortleman as a stranger invited into the GM's home. Why? Why can't Bob, who has played with the GM for 15 years, ask to play a tortleman? Why can't Jim, whose house all the game sessions take place at, ask to play a tortleman?

You can ask. Don't get to upset if the answers no.

Some restrictions can be stupid. I dont think PHB only for example is one. Espicially if DMs new.

Or very specific settings or worlds espicially licensed ones.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Also, so far it was mostly the player side that considered even the notion of having to compromise a red flag

I'd again that suggest more than the two sides do not have the same idea of the proper scope of compromise.

 

[mamba]

So what? You're avoiding saying the obvious. You have no system to handle a disagreement but to have everyone agree with you.

except that they did propose a compromise and were fine with negotiating. That they have no system to compromise with someone who is not willing to compromise is more on the other person

 

[mamba]

We still find undiscovered plants and animals on Earth today.

and how many of those are humanoids?

 

[soviet]

Well, it can be legitimately be asked what's occured that the 15 year player doesn't know the GM would probably have strong resistance to it in the first place in that circumstances. I'd say that combination suggests some disfunction somewhere in the GM/player relationship there.

Isn't it also possible that the player simply thought up a viable explanation for how a tortleman could fit in? That they buy into the game's premise but have something to add to it?

 

[mamba]

I'd again that suggest more than the two sides do not have the same idea of the proper scope of compromise.

I agree, because wanting to play a tortle and then insisting that getting to play a tortle already is as much of a compromise as you are willing to make and the DM is unreasonable for not seeing it that way is definitely not my idea of the full scope of a compromise

 

[AlViking]

Isn't it also possible that the player simply thought up a viable explanation for how a tortleman could fit in? That they buy into the game's premise but have something to add to it?

I think we should just start numbering these arguments.

#	Argument	Counter
1	The player comes up with a reason a species that doesn't exist can be added to the world.	It's never been that I can't come up with a reason, after all it's a game of imagination. It's because I want a specific theme or feel to my game.
2	If the DM has final say on rulings or what species are allowed they're entitled jerks and players are always having less fun.	I let people know what my restrictions are before they join. I can't please everyone so I find people that have similar preferences. People I play with all have fun.
3	Collaborative world building is better.	While it may be better for some and you should do what works for your group, it doesn't work better for me and it is not the default assumption of D&D.

I'm sure there are subtleties that I'm missing and different phrasing. I thought there should be more but I can't think of any off the top of my head, it's all just a variation of these 3.

Am I missing anything?

 

[soviet]

I think we should just start numbering these arguments.

#	Argument	Counter
1	The player comes up with a reason a species that doesn't exist can be added to the world.	It's never been that I can't come up with a reason, after all it's a game of imagination. It's because I want a specific theme or feel to my game.
2	If the DM has final say on rulings or what species are allowed they're entitled jerks and players are always having less fun.	I let people know what my restrictions are before they join. I can't please everyone so I find people that have similar preferences. People I play with all have fun.
3	Collaborative world building is better.	While it may be better for some and you should do what works for your group, it doesn't work better for me and it is not the default assumption of D&D.

I'm sure there are subtleties that I'm missing and different phrasing. I thought there should be more but I can't think of any off the top of my head, it's all just a variation of these 3.

Am I missing anything?

I must say your dismissive attitude in this thread speaks volumes about how you approach this IRL.

 

[AlViking]

I must say your dismissive attitude in this thread speaks volumes about how you approach this IRL.

Your post fit category #1 maybe with a smidgen of #3. Did I misrepresent your argument or the inevitable counter? I basically quoted you, how is that dismissive?

Page after page after page seems to boil down to 3 statements. If you disagree tell me what I missed. If all you can do is belittle others because they don't agree that tells me something about you as well.