This is so far removed from my way of doing things it could be on the other side of the galaxy. My players are not consumers. They are not there to share in the beauty of narrative. They are not expected to listen passively and provide feedback. If it wanted that, I could have been a storyteller (as in the campfire, not WoD definition). I don't want to sit on the tracks of the railroad and bask in the glory of your NPCs. I want to tell my story about my character too. If my value to you is as an audience, then get off your butt and write that novel.
Yeah, I really relate to this. The whole idea that the PCs are in
your world going through
your story is foreign to me. I tried doing that when I was younger and they just didn't work; it took some time before I realized that I'm not telling my story, but helping my players tell theirs that people really started to enjoy and invest in my games.
Exactly. If that's the goal, go write a book.
Now I can imagine how that.doesnt work for a particular player type, but I don't want to be uncharitable in my assumptions.
I dunno, I often find it's
DMs that are way guiltier of that critique than anyone. Like, GMs who want to tell their story regardless of player actions, who want to keep their chosen characters alive because they need to, who have their GMPC who everyone is secondary to, to want to make sure everything follows the lore and canon of their world... I'm not saying that players can't have main character syndrome, but there are just so many more ways for GMs to really fall into that trap. Hell, I definitely fell into that last one as a younger GM.
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 mean, I think there is way more nuance there, but you could probably just put the counter as "Because I don't want to" given how the arguments here go? Like, I think the biggest problem I've seen from the "GM shouldn't given in" part is not really based around some sort of reason that comes from how the game will be played, but more out of resistance to the GM giving ground. The "Take it or leave it" attitude is... honestly wild to me as a guy who constantly GMs, because I find not letting the players own a bit of the world like that largely makes players disinterested in the game they are playing.
See the bold. This is my point. It doesn't matter. Neither does the DM reason. I get it, on some meta-level, we feel that there is nuance to be had. The DM has 200 pages of lore and has built the world for twenty years. Does that mean now we suddenly respect the reason, and in turn, allow him to say no to a new species? Or vice-versa, the player has spent weeks creating and painting their mini and also painted a portrait of them for use on their character sheet. They also already bought a tabaxi themed journal to take notes in. Since they spent the time and money, does that mean the DM should have to allow it?
In the end, these reasons shouldn't really matter. The core question remains the same: Does the DM have the right to say no to your tabaxi or tortle or spell or class at the end of the day?
If you have 200 pages of lore, maybe it's time to reboot things and try something new. Or hell, allow for new and interesting things. Seriously, I've never seen a worse reason for "We should let the GM dictate this" than "Have you seen how big this lore bible is?"
I highly doubt that it says anything about tortles
