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

[Scott Christian]

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?

Ok, let's say Bob, who has played with the group for fifteen years asks to play a tabaxi. The situation is the same: The DM says use these three books, for whatever reason, and Bob asks to use something outside the books. Should the DM allow the tabaxi?

I also had the new player be the one asking because in all the groups I have played with, if the DM asked us to use three books, we would. So I figure the established social contract already exists between the friends who have already played together for awhile.

 

[soviet]

Ok, let's say Bob, who has played with the group for fifteen years asks to play a tabaxi. The situation is the same: The DM says use these three books, for whatever reason, and Bob asks to use something outside the books. Should the DM allow the tabaxi?

It depends on what reason/explanation the player has to want to play a tabaxi, and what reason/explanation the GM has to not allow them. All of your questions require an instant answer but the point isn't that players or GMs should always get their way. The point is that you start with an assumption of good faith on both sides and explore whether a compromise can be made. The point is that this should be a conversation not a snap response.

 

[Scribe]

Tabaxi is the new Tortle?

The clear and obvious answer is no you cannot play a Tabaxi, because its not in the list of approved books. How is this difficult...

 

[Bae'zel]

It depends on what reason/explanation the player has to want to play a tabaxi, and what reason/explanation the GM has to not allow them. All of your questions require an instant answer but the point isn't that players or GMs should always get their way. The point is that you start with an assumption of good faith on both sides and explore whether a compromise can be made. The point is that this should be a conversation not a snap response.

I think everyone here is in agreement about having mature conversations instead of being bull headed.

The problem is that one side disagrees about the GM ultimately having final say, and has been using very judgmental language to express that. Even if it is just a play style, not a socio-political viewpoint.

The assumptions of bad faith have felt very one sided here. And getting weirdly personal.

 

[Scott Christian]

It depends on what reason/explanation the player has to want to play a tabaxi, and what reason/explanation the GM has to not allow them. All of your questions require an instant answer but the point isn't that players or GMs should always get their way. The point is that you start with an assumption of good faith on both sides and explore whether a compromise can be made. The point is that this should be a conversation not a snap response.

The question is still the same. The DM set a list of books to use, and the player wants to use something outside of the books. Of course, if this were real life, they would probably have a regular-ho-hum-no drama conversation about it. But, the question still boils down to: should the DM allow it?
There are a myriad of reasons why and why not. But, the essential crux distills down to: does the DM have a final say? Some people on here think this is obvious - of course they do. Others say no. What's your answer?

 

[mamba]

the essential crux distills down to: does the DM have a final say?

unless you are forcing the DM at gunpoint or something similar, I’d say the DM very obviously has the final say. Which is a very a different question from whether they should allow Tortles & Tabaxis

 

[Thomas Shey]

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?

Largely irrelevant in the context of a GM who isn't going to go along.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

No, I'm not playing this game. Some people may want that, but some might have wanted some elements of a tortle that the GM was not willing to go with but willing to let others go. You don't get to just claim that's no change or compromise; its just not a compromise in the area the GM was wanting to allow. Its still a compromise.

As I've said repeatedly, you have to have an idea of what the core elements are each side is interested in before you can make a useful compromise. The answer to that may make a compromise impossible, but trying to claim only one is willing to is special pleading.

 

[AlViking]

No, I'm not playing this game. Some people may want that, but some might have wanted some elements of a tortle that the GM was not willing to go with but willing to let others go. You don't get to just claim that's no change or compromise; its just not a compromise in the area the GM was wanting to allow. Its still a compromise.

As I've said repeatedly, you have to have an idea of what the core elements are each side is interested in before you can make a useful compromise. The answer to that may make a compromise impossible, but trying to claim only one is willing to is special pleading.

I tried to compromise. Every aspect of the tortle short of physical appearance. Nobody ever once gave a single counter proposal other than "I want to play a tortle." Nobody ever gave me a reason it wasn't good enough other than "I want to play a tortle."

So where exactly is this "both sides" coming from? Give me a single example where someone gives up a single thing on the tortle side. Saying "Here's an idea of how I can play a tortle" because that's not giving an inch. I you can find a single post I'll print out this response in very small print and eat it.

 

[Maxperson]

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

For sure. The player side was very insistent that no compromise at all was the only acceptable compromise. Coming up with a story about how a tortle could get there isn't compromise unless the DM's specific issue is it existing as a race.

As an example, I simply cannot see warforged as a race. When a mommy robot and a daddy robot like each other a lot, a baby robot doesn't appear in a crib. So when my players wanted to be a warforged, I came up with one of those one off examples for how a warforged came to be. My issue was settled and they were happy with a warforged. But, it was in fact a warforged like in the books. If my issue was living construct or construct appearance, a compromise would have to involve a change in those things, not the origin story.