First, that's a misstatement of the compromise offered with the tortles. You left out that the Dragon Clan would have Dragonborn mechanics. So yes what was offered was a compromise. A compromise is moving off your position TOWARDS the other side, not complete capitulation to the other side. What was described with the tortles was in fact a compromise offer. It may or may not be an acceptable compromise, but that it is a compromise is fact.
What you and the others are doing is saying that the only "compromise" is complete capitulation. Anything short of giving the player everything isn't a compromise to you, and that's not how compromise works. There is a very good reason why the very famous saying that a good compromise leave everyone unhappy exists.
No. You are incorrect. It was explicitly said that the "Dragonborn clan" human would use human mechanics, NOT dragonborn mechanics.
The one, and ONLY, thing that it would have is the label "Dragonborn". I'll dig up the post if you care that much about it, but it really actually was a so-called "compromise" where the ONE AND ONLY thing the player got was the label "dragonborn." NOTHING else.
And, just to be clear, this was something posted in a previous thread. I said that in the post you quoted, but you might have missed it.
No. You are incorrect. It was explicitly said that the "Dragonborn clan" human would use human mechanics, NOT dragonborn mechanics.
The one, and ONLY, thing that it would have is the label "Dragonborn". I'll dig up the post if you care that much about it, but it really actually was a so-called "compromise" where the ONE AND ONLY thing the player got was the label "dragonborn." NOTHING else.
And, just to be clear, this was something posted in a previous thread. I said that in the post you quoted, but you might have missed it.
That's generally my experience both on "oh yea, I haven't read it, what did it say" as well as the ease of finding a new player when schedules shift or whatever. It almost doesn't matter how short that kind of guide is, but the near default expectation of those new would be players of not reading stuff from the GM or even bothering to give a dig are my homework apology when showing up anyways.
I was just curious whether "If they can be adventurers they can be PCs" was liable to come up against some species that are humanoid and theoretically can do that, but have too many baked in special abilities to make much sense to be placed in the same framework as standard PC species.
Most humanoids are pretty easy to convert over, there's not too many with problematic abilities that can't be handled with the ol' 'here's a single spell or passive'. S'why there's such a huge industry on just doing up
(my favourite is the one that just adds in desmodus again. Those random bat people that 3E tried to push really hard and one of the few friendly underdark races. that were promptly not friendly in the second book)
Like I said, alignment discussion aside, you find it to be unacceptable for orcs to non-playable races. It doesn't matter what year we're in. You find it unacceptable. But for someone to say, "No, they're evil," has nothing to do with the era we're in, yet has everything to do with the way the DM expresses and explains it.
I'm hardly alone in that, and anyone who comes into this from Elder Scrolls or Warcraft is going to have similar thoughts. Given Skyrim's many releases and especially that one time they accidentally ripped off an existing module to try to do a Skyrim introduction RPG, its going to be far more common as time goes on.
That's generally my experience both on "oh yea, I haven't read it, what did it say" as well as the ease of finding a new player when schedules shift or whatever. It almost doesn't matter how short that kind of guide is, but the near default expectation of those new would be players of not reading stuff from the GM or even bothering to give a dig are my homework apology when showing up anyways.
That's because you didn't when the posters he's talking about actually talked about it, the claim is almost certainly misremembered or misrepresented. He's almost certainly talking about posts like 1142 or maybe even 1194 where the word human gets used a bunch in a different context. This thread gives sm endless chain of linkable posts with efforts to talk about the process of a hypothetical gm & player working together with tortle and other examples, but what they all fell prey to is being hijacked to grouse about specifics not meeting the goal of total and complete capitulation by the gm.
The problem was not that Jedi Klingons loxodon and so on was somehow "disengenuius", it's the fact that there was any effort other than total capitulation
Oh I wasn't suggesting that none would, just that end of the ratio being so low that it makes all the calls for the gm to give players chargen requirements and the like silly
The only orcs shown in the movie are pried from a pit fully grown and ready for battle. There's no indication of how or even if they were born in the normal sense of the word.
Again, I want to bring up that non-compromise sincerely presented in a previous thread (I don't 100% remember who floated it, so I won't name names for fear of naming the wrong one): player will be permitted to play a human (which was already permitted...) of a nomadic "Dragon clan" (which the player could already have just declared as their backstory...) who call themselves "Dragonborn", using only human appearance and only human mechanics. To which I ask, what did this GM move on? The player could always have said it is their culture to refer to themselves as such (it wouldn't be the first time in history; we know of the Ophiogenes, literally "serpent-born" in Greek, who were held to have descended from Halia, a nymph tending the grove of Artemis, and the drakon that guarded the grove.)
This "gives" something totally unimportant--literally a label and nothing else--and claims that that is a "compromise". Except that the GM never moved from their initial position. Players have always been able to give their surnames or small-scale cultural traditions, so long as they aren't in some way disruptive. Hence, it isn't a compromise, and specifically makes sure to avoid doing either of the possible things that could actually matter to the player.
Some players will care far more about the appearance than the mechanics. I'm closer to that end myself, though I value both. I would rather look like a dragonborn but actually use, say, orc, dwarf, or goliath mechanics if I absolutely have to; we could always work out a magic item that permits elemental breath later or whatever. (Perhaps a ring of dragonkind with charges, that can cast cause fear, (self-only) dragon breath, or (self-only) fly, using 1/2/3 charges out of, say, 8 or 10? Clearly very useful, probably Rare, requires attunement, etc., but not brokenly overpowered. Perhaps it could even start out damaged/drained/broken, can only use cause fear and only has 3 charges, but it can be restored, allowing the player to put effort into making it happen as opposed to just getting it all at once.)
Other players will care far more about mechanics than appearance--hence why I gave the example of someone trained in the circus. Others still will care about a bit of both (again, I'm somewhere in this area, but leaning closer to aesthetics; I want some mechanics that represent some of the dragonish nature, but they don't have to be these mechanics per se, and I want the mechanics less than the aesthetics.) Some will want the lore, and couldn't care less about either of the first two things. That's why what actually matters is, as I have said many many many many times, drilling down to find what matters most.
What does the GM want most? If it's literally nothing more than "I just want no dragonborn at all whatsoever in this world", well, frankly, that comes across as very petty and mean, and verges into "tantrum" territory--a word I am only using because one of the pro-GM people in this thread specifically used it to negatively characterize player interest. But if it's something like "I don't want to rewrite a bunch of lore I've already written", sure I can understand that. But if folks expect patience and understanding because the reasons the GM might say no are multiform, I will not accept any argument that requires dismissing the the reasons the player might have for their stuff are also multiform.
True consensus, in the vast majority of cases that aren't completely based on someone misunderstanding someone else, involves both sides drilling down (a phrase I have used dozens of times at this point) to find the bedrock of their position, the things they simply cannot let go and still feel that their position was given a fair shake. And in my experience, as long as all sides are genuinely engaged in good faith, those bedrock desires really are reconcilable.
So: What is actually important to the player about playing a tortle? What is actually important to the GM about there not being tortles in this world? Once you answer those questions, the path(s) forward toward reasonable compromise--toward actual consensus--are usually quite obvious. So, for instance...
Tortle Player (TP): I love playing tortles! The innate AC is fun, it means I don't have to worry about spending huge money on good armor. But really I just love turtle-people, especially Monks or Rogues because...well if I'm perfectly honest I just really loved TMNT as a kid. I like playing characters inspired by Donatello or Leonardo--not a hothead like Mikey, rather someone calm but flawed.
Gamemaster (GM): I never considered tortles, or most other races, when building this world. I just...don't really care for anything past human, but I know that folks like elves and such so I include the classics as a concession already. I wrote the campaign lore for this world, and built it up over a long period of time, so I don't want to change some huge chunk of it or invalidate past stories because of one person's character who might not even last all that long.
TP: Okay, I can understand that, but from my position, that's basically saying that choices you made ten years ago matter more than making a fun game at the table today. I don't want to make you do something you hate! But this really is what makes me happy. Is there something else we could work out? I'm not that attached to the mechanics, I just...want to be a turtle-person.
GM: Well, let's see. There are some non-aligned lizardfolk from the eastern jungles, the second campaign briefly interacted with them. Would you be okay with coming from a warrior caste of lizardfolk who have thick scales? It wouldn't be a "turtle" proper, but maybe something like a thorny devil or horned lizard.
TP: That could work. Did that previous group have good or bad relations with the lizardfolk?
GM: It started off bad, but the Bard--of course--rolled a nat 20 on a Diplomacy check, back when it was still called that, and uh...got along real well with this one chief's son. They got the lizardfolk to help them fight off a demon of darkness that wanted to ascend to godhood by eating the sun, which obviously wouldn't have been good for a cold-blooded race.
TP: Okay. Maybe then I'm...sorta like a spy? Or scout maybe? I keep my face covered most of the time because I'm trying to learn about these strange smoothskin outsiders and their weird ways.
GM: Hmm...okay, yeah, that could work. As long as you keep your mask and such on, folks will just think you're a particularly weird Monk, and you'd want to stick to the shadows anyway...does that work for you? Your people will want you to report back now and then, how do you want to handle that?
TP: Well I'm probably not the one-and-only scout...but I imagine they'd want contact. Maybe a magic item? Like a sending stone, but bigger messages, that can be used a couple times each day. They can send me orders, and I can send them reports.
GM: Alright. It'll only work between you and home though. Folks will be...very surprised to see you if you take off your disguise in public, or if your identity gets revealed in a public place though. Might get violently surprised, if you get my meaning--not all the time, but some of the time. Are you okay with that being a risk?
TP: ...well...how likely would that be? I don't want to get the party in trouble all the time...
GM: Let's say that you have to pass a DC 10 Charisma save if you get revealed in some places--I'll let you know which ones as you enter. Fail and people will shun you or charge you more, that sort of thing. Fail by 5 or more, it's torches-and-pitchforks. Particularly hostile places, or places where the party has a bad rap, it might be DC 15.
TP: Alright...I think I'll try to have high Charisma then, even though that's not that useful to a Monk. My tribe picked someone they thought could get along with "smoothskins". What level are we starting at again?
GM: 4th, I wanted to skip over the intro levels this time.
TP: Alright, I'll take Actor as my 4th level feat then. Ooh, I know--I'll take the Scribe background.
GM: ...Scribe? Why?
TP: Well, the stats are good, and it gives the Skilled feat. But I'm reflavoring it not as "someone who copied books", instead like...the rigorous training to hide in shadows and to write good reports.
GM: Ahh, alright, that's unorthodox but I can see where you're going with it. Alright, I'll allow it. So, a "hard-scaled" lizardfolk infiltrator, sent to learn about the "smoothskins" to see if they're worth engaging with more openly?
TP: Yep!
GM: Will you be telling your party members?
TP: ....I hadn't thought about that. I think, let's keep it secret for the time being. Drop hints now and then.
GM: That'll be interesting to see come to light.
No. Because I wasn't interested in engaging with you after how you had posted. So I instead chose to engage with someone else that I thought was actually receptive, and wrote the above.
Perhaps if your approach had been less about baiting others into the bad behavior you expect of them, and had focused on being constructive, I would have been more likely to respond. I appreciate that you have un-blocked me so we can interact again, but I have little reason to engage with something so openly and pointedly hostile to anything I think, believe, or say.
Dragonborn don't exist in my game so if someone wanted to play one I'd ask why. Is it cultural and identification with dragons? Then you come from a culture that reveres dragons. I'd probably also consider something about having a dragon patron, although the dragon may not have shown up for a century because dragons sometimes take really long naps in my world.
Mechanical benefits? Some individuals from that group are considered Dragon Blessed, and from a young age undergo supernatural rituals to gain all the benefits of a dragonborn. Perhaps they gain some some minor features or just use cosmetics but they are still identifiably as the same species as the rest of their group.
That to me is compromise. They aren't dragonborn because those don't exist. They're human (or whatever species you want from my list) but have been chosen to be imbued with the best features of a dragon. Of course they have to forego the normal benefits they normally would have received. There would be more details of course and we'd have to discuss lore but that's all campaign specific.
