Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7492723" data-attributes="member: 6799649">We both know that the game is cooperative by its nature. It cannot be that EITHER DM OR player controls everything; if the DM controls everything then there is no point to the player even showing up to Magic Story Time, and if the player controlled everything then why would a DM turn up just to watch a player play his own 'choose your adventure' book?Given that neither can control everything, then it must be that the DM controls some things and the player controls other things.Also, since we know cooperation exists and is better than non-cooperation, but we also know that disagreements will always crop up, then the above statement can be modified to this: it must be that the DM has the last word on some things, and the player has the last word on other things, when disagreement rears its ugly head.For the entire history of the hobby, the consensus about who has the final word on what, the line of demarcation, is that the player has the final word on their own PC and the DM has the final word on everything else.But the DM can always say 'no', right? True, but there has to be an explanation as to why the DM is treading on the player's toes. There are plenty of valid reasons to say 'no', but also plenty of invalid ones. Last night I asked my DM if my idea of training in the Feywild for 40 years while only 20 years passed on the Prime Material would be okay. He said 'no'. Why? Because although the rate time elapses in each plane is variable, it always goes faster in the Feywild. If you spend 40 years in the Feywild, you don't know exactly how many years would elapse on the Prime Material, but it cannot be less than 40 years, and it would be likely hundreds or even thousands of years. Given that, my idea would not work. What the DM said makes sense, the rate time passes in the world(s) is in his purview, and I don't think he's impinged on my agency one iota.But what if he had a different objection to my PC? What if he didn't have a valid explanation? What if, for example, his objection was that my PC is female? What could his reason be? Are elves a single gender race? No, not even on his world. He doesn't like playing PC of the opposite gender? Well, first of all he can choose whatever he wants for his own characters, but my character, my choice. Second, he is playing every NPC in the world; are none of them female? Does he acknowledge that females exist but he makes sure that none of them turn up in the entire campaign just so he doesn't have to play one? Of course not! So it's not true that he doesn't play female characters.He doesn't like it when other people play characters of the opposite gender? He doesn't think that a man can possibly realistically play a girl, so he disallows it? What, are the role-playing police going to kick down the door and arrest me for not playing my own PC with enough realism? We would all be in jail! Meanwhile, you're totally okay with players playing elf/dwarf/dragonborn? No, that's not a valid reason and I'll choose my own PC's gender, thank-you-very-much!Not that my DM would ever have that attitude, I'm just making an extreme example to illustrate the point.So that's why your objection to my fluff is not valid. It would be valid if my fluff choice changed the way lycanthropy worked in his game world for any other creature, but my circumstance is unique. Even if the same set of circumstances occurred with another human mating as they turned for the first time, it doesn't force it to happen again, there are too many variables. Plus, the fiend that's secretly directing all this behind the scenes is not forced to do the same for every similarly tragic couple! You're trying to pretend the DM is somehow hampered by my fluff, just so you have something to complain about.     Maybe I could post a coherent response to that line if I knew who Flip Wilson was.But, yeah, we are arguing extremes here. The vast majority of the time player and DM will work together, adjusting to take account of each others' ideas and concerns. But, when it comes right down to it, the player has the final word on his own creation, and the DM has the final word on everything else.Of course, all this is in the light of the player creating a PC within the pre-set parameters given by the game itself and the DM for this campaign. So no Star Trek characters in your Tolkien, and no cyber-ninjas in your fantasy. After all, if we were playing d20 Modern I would have to ask the DM's permission to import the idea of lycanthopy into such a campaign, because the campaign is the DM's purview.Also, there is no One True Fluff for the 12 base classes in D&D 5e. Not every barbarian has to be born outdoors to 'earn' that d12 hit die! I didn't have to come up with ANY explanation of why my barbarian has never worn a loincloth in his life, knows how to use a knife AND fork, and eats with his mouth closed. Is the barbarian class available in this campaign? Great, I'm a 1st level barbarian. Is the soldier background available? Great, I'm a soldier. The effort I put into my backstory, to explain why I am a perfect human (three 18s in the physical stats, 6 Int), why I have a preternatural sense for danger (Alert feat), why I can get supernaturally stroppy (Rage), why am I so hard to hurt when I am going postal (werewolves are immune to normal weapons; I have a diluted version which explains the damage resistance from Rage, and better Unarmoured AC), why I get Danger Sense at level 2, why I Recklessly Attack, why at level 3 I get the Zealot subclass instead of the more obvious wolf totem, and why I do extra necrotic damage instead of the more optimal radiant (the fiend), why I get warlock powers at all (the fiend was also the patron of the original werewolf who bit my <s>paw</s> Daddy, which no-one knew about at the time, and my PC is only starting to realise during play), why my original spells known included charm person and my original invocations were Devil's Sight and Beast Speech (because of the animal magnetism and werewolf senses), why I swapped charm person for darkness and Beast Speech for MOMF (because the influence of the fiend was starting to become more powerful and swamping my animal magnetism)....and my fluff will continue to influence my crunch as time goes by, whether it is 'optimal' or not.And yet, I didn't have to provide ANY explanation. I have the right and responsibility to choose my class and background (and, yes, fluff) from those the DM has already said are available. I'm entirely happy to work with the DM, and do! If the DM wants me to adjust something, he explains why and we make it work. But if the DM were to insist on something I wasn't happy about, I'm not compelled to play his idea of what my PC should be! If my DM were to insist, for example, that my barbarian MUST be from a culture of iron-age savages, then as far as I'm concerned he's banned my perfectly RAW 1st level barbarian by insisting that his fluff overrules my fluff for my PC. I don't play that PC, because 'civilsed' barbarians are banned, and that was my character concept. My DM would also be showing that he treats the game mechanic of class as if it were a real thing in his game world, rather than a set of rules and tools to make your PC, a philosophical difference which may or may not be overcome.</blockquote>

Verification