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

[Bae'zel]

You know, aside from looking kind of dopey and comedic, the Bakshi version still captured Sam's essential character.

Slightly different character design, different voice acting, but same script? For sure!

 

[mamba]

I liked that guy. Really focused on the dramatic stuff. Not much for combat or exploration, though.

drink, dance, and song. Also has a thing for the ladies, typical bard

 

[Maxperson]

I would point out Dostoevsky also never used Tortles. Good company.

I'm pretty sure that Tolstoy didn't, either. I'm not 100% on that, though, so you could read through War and Peace and let me know.

 

[Basic Expert]

Oh yeah. The GM says 'no Tortlemen'. What an auteur they must be.

No, but the GM that says, 'only Tortlemen' certainly is. They would have my undying respect.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We've been told repeatedly that if we don't allow any possible species, it's a bad thing. No ifs, ands or buts. There is never a good enough reason to do so. We've also been told that if you don't do collaborative world building the players are stuck with a museum where they cannot touch or disturb anything.

Have we not been reading the same thread?

Do I have to do my speech about there being more than two positions in most threads, and not everyone who even leans on one side of a discussion shares every single position with the every single other person on "their" side?

 

[Dire Bare]

No, but the GM that says, 'only Tortlemen' certainly is. They would have my undying respect.

You are all young tortles, freshly hatched. You all start on the beach, far from the ocean. Next to you is a wooden chest, possibly washed up on the shore from a shipwreck. What's inside? Will you brave the sands to return to the ocean's protective embrace? Or will you head inland to forge a new path?

Steve, what do you mean you rolled up a halfling?!?! You do this every game!!!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Might need to point out who saud that. The compromises demanded by several posters all involved getting what they wanted.

I'm going to go through this again.

When someone wants something as a player, there is likely a minimum element that needs to be present before a compromise actually is a compromise. Otherwise its just offering something else that they may not care about.

Similarly, if there's something a GM doesn't want, there is likely a red line element that they will not proceed beyond, or its not a compromise either, because again, at that point the other side is just giving in on elements the GM does not care about.

If these two elements happen to be the same thing then no possible compromise exists, and everyone needs to figure that out before proceeding is wortwhile; otherwise it can simply seem like a "false compromise" to one or both, when that's not what's happening at all--its just one or both missing the point about the other's position.

When this occurs, one side has to either abandon their wish or the two individuals cannot play in the same game.

That said, I still stand by the position that routinely, the person critized for this situation is the player, not the GM; the fact its the inverse in this thread and occasional others does not change that. This is in part because intractability on the part of GMs is accepted more routinely than it is on players' parts, because their priorities are considered more important.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm going to go through this again.

When someone wants something as a player, there is likely a minimum element that needs to be present before a compromise actually is a compromise. Otherwise its just offering something else that they may not care about.

Similarly, if there's something a GM doesn't want, there is likely a red line element that they will not proceed beyond, or its not a compromise either, because again, at that point the other side is just giving in on elements the GM does not care about.

If these two elements happen to be the same thing then no possible compromise exists, and everyone needs to figure that out before proceeding is wortwhile; otherwise it can simply seem like a "false compromise" to one or both, when that's not what's happening at all--its just one or both missing the point about the other's position.

When this occurs, one side has to either abandon their wish or the two individuals cannot play in the same game.

That said, I still stand by the position that routinely, the person critized for this situation is the player, not the GM; the fact its the inverse in this thread and occasional others does not change that. This is in part because intractability on the part of GMs is accepted more routinely than it is on players' parts, because their priorities are considered more important.

Unhappy GM no game is why. Replacing a player is comparatively easy.

Every DM is different. 5E was built on optional vs everything is core.

DMs often the one with books, venue possibly snacks and drinks. Theyre the ones organizing everything and putting in more work.

Biggest red flag for a DM is on the fly arbitrary and inconsistent rulings.

I dont lije it im saying no is perfectly valid as long as theyre consistent. Eg no drow is fine no drow but DMs partner can play one not so much.

Lots of valid reasons to restrict something. DMs new want to keep it phb only for example. DM only owns these books. DM has a specific vision or genre. Balance reasons or plan ol DM doesn't like something.

Cant force people to do something they dont like. Cant force them to cater to your playstyle. I've never had a player leave or not join because of my restrictions. Theres a grand total of 5 hard no's on my list. All for mechanical reasons.

Theres some soft restrictions involved in settings. Eg lorwyn elf eith eberron material in FR.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Unhappy GM no game is why. Replacing a player is comparatively easy.

This again assumes a GM somehow can never deal with anything they may be unhappy about. There are going to be some brightline issues where that's true, but to assume its about everything the GM may prefer the other way elevates the GM to the only one that matters, and if that's your position, yeah, you're going to get pushback from me on it.

Every DM is different. 5E was built on optional vs everything is core.

DMs often the one with books, venue possibly snacks and drinks. Theyre the ones organizing everything and putting in more work.

I'm chronically the GM. I don't think any of the above gives an unlimited pass.

Cant force people to do something they dont like. Cant force them to cater to your playstyle. I've never had a player leave or not join because of my restrictions. Theres a grand total of 5 hard no's on my list. All for mechanical reasons.

And those may be legitimate. But to assume they automatically are when a players never are smells of privledge well beyond anything any extra work a GM doing justifies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My fun does not come first. The fun of everyone at the table comes first. There is no "problem" to avoid. You just have a different preference so you have to create this myth of World-as-GMPC out of thin air to make it sound like you know better. You don't.

If the fun of everyone comes first, then why is it you cannot accept something that isn't fun for you, but would be fun for others?