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

[EzekielRaiden]

To me it depends. Are they asking or demanding?

And to that I must return a similar question:

Is the GM actually getting player buy-in, or are they laying down the law?

Because the way it is ALWAYS presented is the latter. Consistently. Every single time. It is always discussed in terms of having to lay down the law. Never--never--as "well we need to have an adult conversation about this because I value your participation, but I also have things I want out of this." Conversation never enters; it's smacking down disobedient, disruptive, harmful players, every. single. time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You never met the burden of proof for the gm refusing to allow "a village" to be either of those judgemental things because you never attempted to do so after being questioned about it.

Bluntly, because the questioning you've provided has been both incoherent and smacks of the disingenuous. As such, there is a limited amount of effort I'm going to make to satisfy you.

 

[tetrasodium]

Bluntly, because the questioning you've provided has been both incoherent and smacks of the disingenuous. As such, there is a limited amount of effort I'm going to make to satisfy you.

I believe that if you step back from the sense of entitlement∆ and look at it at it without the trust me bro unstated details you will see that the hypothetical example describes a player with quite the unhealthy opinion of what a player/gm relationship should look like to cast the "judgement" in your original example only to then respond with a mix of hostility and contempt to having that judgement questioned.

∆ that's definition two

 

[Thomas Shey]

I believe that if you step back from the sense of entitlement

I believe I'm done responding to you in this thread.

 

[Scott Christian]

And to that I must return a similar question:

Is the GM actually getting player buy-in, or are they laying down the law?

Because the way it is ALWAYS presented is the latter. Consistently. Every single time. It is always discussed in terms of having to lay down the law. Never--never--as "well we need to have an adult conversation about this because I value your participation, but I also have things I want out of this." Conversation never enters; it's smacking down disobedient, disruptive, harmful players, every. single. time.

For someone that doesn't want to misrepresent people, you are doing an extraordinary job of it here. Almost every single person arguing for a DM set limitation has done so with an understanding they will try to meet a person in the middle, i.e. "have an adult conversation."
If laying down the law is simply a DM saying, "I have worked hard on this campaign, and tortles can't be a part of it. But we can work with you to get a tortles abilities and even a set of turtle armor." Then I don't know what to tell you other than that is a very wonky take on "laying down the law."
If laying down the law is simply a DM saying, "We are going to play a Middle Earth style game since we all know the world. Who's in?" And all the players say yes. Then someone insists on playing tiefling and the DM says no. Again, if that is "laying down the law" I think it is a very odd take.
The people on here have been more than compromising and flexible. Maybe just because you don't like the limitation, does not make the DM inflexible, or as you so biasedly stated:

None of the "it's MY world, you're just allowed to play in it".

 

[Remathilis]

For someone that doesn't want to misrepresent people, you are doing an extraordinary job of it here. Almost every single person arguing for a DM set limitation has done so with an understanding they will try to meet a person in the middle, i.e. "have an adult conversation."
If laying down the law is simply a DM saying, "I have worked hard on this campaign, and tortles can't be a part of it. But we can work with you to get a tortles abilities and even a set of turtle armor." Then I don't know what to tell you other than that is a very wonky take on "laying down the law."
If laying down the law is simply a DM saying, "We are going to play a Middle Earth style game since we all know the world. Who's in?" And all the players say yes. Then someone insists on playing tiefling and the DM says no. Again, if that is "laying down the law" I think it is a very odd take.
The people on here have been more than compromising and flexible. Maybe just because you don't like the limitation, does not make the DM inflexible, or as you so biasedly stated:

I'd accept that an adult conversation was being had IF it's not always phrased as if the compromise is "you will play what I allow and how I want you to or you will find yourself in the outside looking in."

 

[Scott Christian]

I'd accept that an adult conversation was being had IF it's not always phrased as if the compromise is "you will play what I allow and how I want you to or you will find yourself in the outside looking in."

I agree with that. Although I have never seen someone on here state the how part. In the end, everyone has limits. Just because one DM's limits are more restrictive than another's, does not make them wrong. It doesn't make in inflexible. It doesn't mean they can't compromise. It doesn't mean any of that. The only thing it means is they have limits - just like all DMs.
That said, there is one difference, at least for those arguing against the tortle on this forum - they can state why. They can give reasons why. So far, the player has not been able to give reasons other than, "I like the teenage mutant ninja turtles, and want to be like them."

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree with that. Although I have never seen someone on here state the how part. In the end, everyone has limits. Just because one DM's limits are more restrictive than another's, does not make them wrong. It doesn't make in inflexible. It doesn't mean they can't compromise. It doesn't mean any of that. The only thing it means is they have limits - just like all DMs.
That said, there is one difference, at least for those arguing against the tortle on this forum - they can state why. They can give reasons why. So far, the player has not been able to give reasons other than, "I like the teenage mutant ninja turtles, and want to be like them."

Uhm, to be a little blunt, what sort of reasons would you expect? Choice of character is often a look-and-feel thing; its not massively preplanned, but its not any more arbitrary than any other character choice (though usually there's a little something more than can be expressed in classes and other character operation choices. But racial choices aren't usually done the same way).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For someone that doesn't want to misrepresent people, you are doing an extraordinary job of it here. Almost every single person arguing for a DM set limitation has done so with an understanding they will try to meet a person in the middle, i.e. "have an adult conversation."

Except every time I talk about building toward consensus, what do people immediately do?

"Well what do you do when the player refuses to do that". "How do you move forward". "That just leads to the loudest jerk shouting everyone down".

Over and over and over and over. You can find it splattered across the pages of this thread. This isn't a mischaracterization. It's the actual content of these messages.

If laying down the law is simply a DM saying, "I have worked hard on this campaign, and tortles can't be a part of it. But we can work with you to get a tortles abilities and even a set of turtle armor." Then I don't know what to tell you other than that is a very wonky take on "laying down the law."

But that's not how it's presented. Instead we get things like--as I noted from a previous thread--the laughable, mocking """"compromise"""" of "you get to be a human, who uses human mechanics, who has nothing that isn't human, but you come from a culture where you are part of the 'Dragon Clan' and you call yourselves 'dragonborn'." Or how several different posters here consistently characterize it as the player gets absolutely NOTHING, or else the GM is being completely denied any fun whatsoever.

If laying down the law is simply a DM saying, "We are going to play a Middle Earth style game since we all know the world. Who's in?" And all the players say yes. Then someone insists on playing tiefling and the DM says no. Again, if that is "laying down the law" I think it is a very odd take.

Not one person has presented that idea. Nobody. No one in this thread has spoken of that. Ever. Not once. Well, other than the blatantly disingenuous "Jedi in Star Trek".

Point out to me ONE example where someone did that, actually seriously presented an example of a perfectly general thing that they got EXPLICIT player buy-in for, and I'll retract this claim.

The people on here have been more than compromising and flexible. Maybe just because you don't like the limitation, does not make the DM inflexible, or as you so biasedly stated:

They have? Then why do they keep talking about horrible awful nasty players. Why do they keep talking about how giving the player ANYTHING they want that wasn't what the GM planned for means the GM doesn't get to have fun?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree with that. Although I have never seen someone on here state the how part.

I have.

Repeatedly.

I'll dig up the examples, if you really want them. Might take a bit though, I have errands to run here shortly.

In the end, everyone has limits. Just because one DM's limits are more restrictive than another's, does not make them wrong. It doesn't make in inflexible. It doesn't mean they can't compromise. It doesn't mean any of that. The only thing it means is they have limits - just like all DMs.

Consistently the presentation has been nearly absolutely inflexible. The GM cannot incorporate a new race--ever. It's presented as though it is literally impossible for there to ever be any part of the world the GM didn't plan for in advance. Hence why I have made many of the criticisms I have made. Nothing can exist in the world that the GM didn't plan for ten years ago.

That said, there is one difference, at least for those arguing against the tortle on this forum - they can state why. They can give reasons why. So far, the player has not been able to give reasons other than, "I like the teenage mutant ninja turtles, and want to be like them."

Yes, because being disparaging about why others have their tastes is definitely not being hostile and definitely not mischaracterizing your opposition, something you seemed so concerned about when I did it. Why are you doing it now?