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

[dave2008]

The Tortle came from another dimension/world. Hopefully this is an answer both sides will dislike while still fulfilling both wishes--the world has no Tortle(until now) and the character is a turtle-man

It is a way to get a tortle to the world, but I don't think that is not a compromise to a DM that doesn't want a tortle in their world. That is simply capitulation.

 

[GobHag]

Maybe I worded my question poorly, but I don't think that answers my question. So please, help me out.
You talked about:

• Your personal taste in play culture
• Your willingness to compromise
• Your dislike of “GM supremacy”
• Acceptable reasons in your view for restrictions (mechanics, balance, stress)
• An analogy that seems to collapse setting into cosmetics.

I simply want to know, can a DM say no for reasons such as setting, tone, or genre? The post you linked me to, sounds like you think a DM caring about setting coherence is a red flag.

Are you arguing for player veto power based on taste, while condemning DM veto power based on taste? Restricting DM veto power only to mechanical reasons? Because your phrasing "anti-supremacy" doesn't come off as neutral.

Please, help me understand your position.

I am absolutely not neutral at all, while in-table it's best to be more moderate I think it's better if I put myself in a reasonably extreme position in regards to culture of play where most 1st party character options are available and a curtailing of GM power is expected.

Mechanical and table issue reasons are both valid in my eyes.

 

[Remathilis]

I think that is a valid reason. However, it also seems one where there is no room for compromise if the DM's reason is this world doesn't have them (aka the muses inspired them and they don't want them), which would be equally as valid. I don't know how to square that hole (and thankfully never an issue I've had to deal with). So I will turn the question back to you:

Is there anything that can be done to accommodate both wishes?

I can't see one, but I hope I'm wrong!

I always question this line of thinking. I used to run my own homebrew for a while and I can tell you with 100% certainty I did NOT flesh out my world to such a degree that I could not add new options (PC or monster) if I so chose. Why would you do so? You lock your world into a finite state so that the next coolest idea cannot be accommodated. For example, if you say "I only have the 10 chromatic/metallic dragons in my setting." you leave out the possibility of a rare new dragon type in some future book being unusable because you decreed only those ten dragon types will ever exist. Almost no DM ever does that with his monsters, but its perfectly fine to rule that your world has six playable races and never more than that.

As to your question, I'm pretty sure there is no option of compromise. This is the "Lion and the Lamb deciding what to have for dinner" debate, no compromise will be acceptable. DM always Wins.

 

[Belen]

I think that is a valid reason. However, it also seems one where there is no room for compromise if the DM's reason is this world doesn't have them (aka the muses inspired them and they don't want them), which would be equally as valid. I don't know how to square that hole (and thankfully never an issue I've had to deal with). So I will turn the question back to you:

Is there anything that can be done to accommodate both wishes?

I can't see one, but I hope I'm wrong!

Sure.

In my game, the player writes up the ecology, culture, region, and then works with me to revise and fit it into the campaign world.

If not, then they are not that invested in the concept.

If the player does the work and just does not add it to my burden, then we can agree.

If they player puts it all on me, then I am less inclined to bend over backwards.

 

[Remathilis]

Its actually ironic, I don't have a tortle PC idea. I was using it because it was the original example. That said, I am DYING to play dhampir bloodmage (wizard with the blood wizardly from Taldorei Reborn) for a while now, but the curse of being a Forever DM means the character sits in my ideas folder. I would kill for a DM to let me use it, and I would absolutely use any possible means to get them played. But I would HATE the DM to tell me "Sorry. How about you play a human evoker and just wear goth clothes?"

 

[AlViking]

I think that's where the "compromise" framing falls apart. I am look for a compromise of "How can I play the character I want in a way that won't upset your world-building", which I have given several options from mutant to magical creation to super-rare species previously unknown to "came off a spaceship that crashed." You have responded with compromises that don't involve me actually playing a tortle, but just a regular dude with a turtle fetish. That is like saying "You can't be a wizard. You can be a fighter with a stick and robes who hits people with the stick and yells "MAGIC MISSILE" when he does so." My compromise is "how can I make this work in a way that doesn't break your world" and yours is "how do I make it so that your character is nothing more than a funny hat on my already in stone preferences."

It ends where the player and DM find actual compromise. DMing 101 teaches two improv skills: "Yes, and" and "No, but". Yes, And would be the "Yes you are tortle, and you are a one-of-your-kind magical experiment". No, but is "No, but you can be a lizardfolk who developed a shell-like curse and everyone thinks he looks like a tortle." In both scenarios, the player gets his character and the DM is consistent with his world.

But that's not what is happening. We are stuck with just "No." Or maybe "No, but you can put on turtle Spirit Halloween costume and people will look at you funny."

Depends. Can I refluff the firearms are modified crossbows?

Clearly the GM is referee for in game actions, but usually a GM listens to both sides before ruling. Then again, I would wager if you weren't willing to listen to me on character generation, I feel I have little chance of winning any disagreement about rulings.

Who are these mythical anti-tortle players whose whole night is ruined if they see a tortle? Do they sit there and police every other PC as well? "Sorry Bob, I won't play with a warlock. Make a new character." "No Sue, you either ditch the paladin or I walk!" "I can't stand halflings, too Tolkien. If anyone plays a halfling, I'm killing them on sight!"

That's a whole lot of words to say "The player decides what options are allowed." I see no room for player compromise.

If you're that adamant that only you can make the final decision then you are free to find another game because I sincerely tried to come up with a compromise that would work and you aren't interested.

 

[Maxperson]

The former of course. Do you think I'd respect someone that doesn't allow their player to wear a tophat or have natural green hair?

Nobody that acted in that manner would be allowed at my table. The players don't get to run roughshod over the DM. The DM doesn't get to run roughshod over the players. It's a group game and anyone who thinks their desires are king and the others have to just accept it isn't welcome to play with my group.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I am absolutely not neutral at all, while in-table it's best to be more moderate I think it's better if I put myself in a reasonably extreme position in regards to culture of play where most 1st party character options are available and a curtailing of GM power is expected.

Mechanical and table issue reasons are both valid in my eyes.

Thank you. So my understanding is that narrative and setting are not valid reasons in your eyes?

To me you are advocating a culture where the DM is expected to compromise on fiction and tone by default, while players aren’t expected to do the same.

Does this facilitate mutual enjoyment of the game? Or does this prioritize player enjoyment over DM enjoyment? And in the case of the latter, what is the incentive for the DM to partake?

Once you frame “curtailing DM power” as a cultural good, you’ve already decided whose enjoyment is negotiable. And I think you lose incentive on the DM side in that framing.

Why am I wrong?

 

[GobHag]

Nobody that acted in that manner would be allowed at my table. The players don't get to run roughshod over the DM. The DM doesn't get to run roughshod over the players. It's a group game and anyone who thinks their desires are king and the others have to just accept it isn't welcome to play with my group.

I'm glad we agree that banning tophats and green hair is ridiculous.

 

[dave2008]

I always question this line of thinking.

It is one you created though. If the reason to play the tortle is the muses are guiding me and that is all I will play. Which is a limited but valid reason. Then the DM saying the muses are guiding me and there are no tortles in this setting is also limited but valid reason.

I have never seen a player or a DM take these type of stances, but the fiction works both ways.

I used to run my own homebrew for a while and I can tell you with 100% certainty I did NOT flesh out my world to such a degree that I could not add new options (PC or monster) if I so chose.

Sure, but that is not the question I asked you.

Why would you do so?

I wouldn't. I hand the players the MM and say what do you want to play.

Almost no DM ever does that with his monsters, but its perfectly fine to rule that your world has six playable races and never more than that.

I didn't say that was fine and it has nothing to do with the question I asked.

As to your question, I'm pretty sure there is no option of compromise.

I think I agree. I sure can't think of one.

This is the "Lion and the Lamb deciding what to have for dinner" debate, no compromise will be acceptable. DM always Wins.

I would say everyone loses personally.