Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8150144" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I think what I was realizing is that there is a profound difference in the a priori starting points that different people have when they start these conversations, and this is why they get so confusing.In my conception of what it is to play D&D, it is always a custom game. The DM is the initial "game designer" at the table. That does not preclude player collaboration on building the world through ideas and/or emergent play- it's the best part! But because every game is a custom game, I would never assume that anything (including PHB races or classes) is standard. Now, there are many times that the table might want to play a "standard" D&D game- whether it's a one-shot, or a competition (remember those?), or because that's what the table wants. But I would always go into a situation with the assumption that, at session 0, there will be some DM guidance about the guidelines of this custom game, and that players will design characters within those guidelines.On the other hand, there are many people who start with the assumption that D&D is always standard; that any deviation from "base" or "core" D&D by the DM needs to be justified. A player should be allowed to create any type of PC, and it is the job of the DM as referee/facilitator to find a place for the PC, so long as the PC was created within the rules.In the other thread, I just saw that [USER=6788732]@cbwjm[/USER] posted this:Maybe, I have definitely noticed a lot more people nowadays who think that just because something exists in a core book it must exist in game (could easily just be due to the prevalence of forums and social media making it seem like more though). I remember having an argument with people on Reddit who seemingly took offence at my statement that my world didn't have dinosaurs in it. They couldn't grasp that everything in the book is an option and that somewhere in the real world a game was being played where they couldn't polymorph or wildshape into dinosaurs.And that's where a lot of the befuddlement, for me, came. Because people can yell and scream at each other on the internet; despite the protestations, the actual positions of most people aren't that different.A: "It's my way or the highway. DM RULEZ"B: "You're a terrible person. Players should be able to bring any concept, ever, and the DM has to accept it. U A PLAYA HATER!"A: "That's silly. Besides, at my table, we actually discuss stuff. Not like your table, where people show up and DEMAND that the player gets to play."B: "No, you're the silly one. Besides, at my table, we actually discuss stuff. Not like you table, where people show up and the DM DEMANDS that the player plays what the DM wants."etc.To me, though, I kept noticing that one of the fault lines kept going to the "if it's in the published material, the DM has to use it." Which is something I'm not familiar with; it's just a difference of opinion.EDIT- by the way, I am not offering this as a be-all, end-all approach to solving the DM Agency/Player Agency "debate." Just a different way of looking at it in terms of D&D. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification