NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9712817" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well, to begin with, you are now inserting an assumption into what I said that isn't supported by the text. Specifically, you've assumed that the player is (or even can be) putting their foot down. I would see an utterly intransigent player as being just as much of a problem as an utterly intransigent GM!More importantly, there are a hell of a lot of ways that "insist on playing dragonborn" can play out, some of which have nothing in common with one another! Hence, that insistence is actually a very loose, weak thing taken in the abstract, while the absolute refusal to consider any possible alternative, no matter how weakened, is an extremely strong stance--and doing so by "pulling rank" is not what friends do with friends.Consider: A player might value mechanics, aesthetics, narrative (meaning, species backstory/context), or loose concept. A player who only cares about mechanics would be willing to discard everything else, happy with looking like an elf or whatever, they just like the flight and the dragon breath. Someone who cares exclusively about the look and doesn't even care if it's narratively a "dragon" person would probably accept using lizardman mechanics and narrative, just a lizardman who has a dragonborn-like appearance. Someone who loves the aesthetic and certain specific parts of the narrative might be entirely happy using bog-standard human mechanics, perhaps as a genuine one-off weirdo (again, result of an arcane experiment, a mutant or otherwise altered human, a Etc.There are many, many, many ways this could potentially cash out, so it is highly possible (not guaranteed, but often entirely achievable) that the thing that this GM doesn't accept about dragonborn isn't actually important to this player. If it is, if they truly do have an irreconcilable difference, that's a good signal that this group needs to change (what change depends on context--the presumed default is "player leaves", but sometimes the bonds between players matter more.)Point being, "insist on playing dragonborn" is at least potentially a relatively weak thing to insist upon, depending on what specific things the player is seeking. "Insist on absolutely never dragonborn we won't even talk about it I'm pulling rank and telling you no" is not that, and specifically represents a refusal to discuss.I get that some people will be jerks. That is, unfortunately, part of life. But this just circles back to the same inappropriate and unjustified presumption that GMs won't be jerks so we absolutely must trust them infinitely--even though they could 100% be jerks with their massive power--while any player ever expressing a preference and actually wanting to discuss it is presumed to be a jerk and thus told an adamant "NO" without any discussion because, apparently, doing that even once guarantees that the players WILL always be jerks forever? I guess?</blockquote>

Verification