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

[Maxperson]

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."

Good news! There were tons of posts in this very thread not phrased that way.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You keep going back to this dragonborn example, but it's from a different thread. If you have to go to a different thread to get your example, perhaps your position here isn't as solid as you think it is.

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.

People aren't presenting my way or the highway, either.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You really don't seem to be in the same thread here that I am.

 

[Maxperson]

I once had a player play a gnome Tempest Cleric who was certified insane. He introduced himself as Tesla, God of Lightning and honestly believe he was the God of Storms on the world. (The world was Eberron, btw). He obviously wasn't, and in his madness he wasn't sure where his cleric powers came from (He left it up to me to decide, and I did and it became relevant to the story). But He walked around declaring he was a God trapped in mortal form and soon he would win back his followers and be restored to his rightly Godly place.

Could I play that character in your game?

You could play that in mine.

 

[Maxperson]

I forget who (maxperson perhaps?) has already given an example of a race that does exist in their setting that they wouldn't allow players to play with a good reason given.

The particular race and reason was dragonborn and because he changed them in setting in some way that would make them too powerful for a PC

And to clarify a bit. The PHB mechanics that are dragonborn aren't attached to any lore, so if a player wanted to work with me for a non-dragonish PC that used those mechanics, I'd work with him to come up with something. It's not like I'd be refluffing anything.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Please, dig them up. I do not think they exist.

Alright. This post would take a long time to write if I waited first, so I will write this post, and then go looking, as I'll have to trawl through 2000+ posts. But rest assured, I'll give you a list. Of course, I predict that you will dismiss all of them because they won't seem offensive to you, given they aren't targeting your interests, but at least I can say I tried.

No. The DM pitched the campaign. The players accepted to have a look. Session zero

You've already made an assumption: that the GM made a pitch and waited until Session Zero, where they presented their case and secured player buy-in. That is never mentioned in these conversations--and when I've brought up how it would be appropriate to have a discussion in the Session Zero part, folks have repeatedly, across several threads, asserted that that's already too late.

So you're already creating something that is a catch-22 based on these threads. Session Zero is already too late. Or so I've been told--by several people currently posting in this thread.

All the player did is go against the DM's wishes right away (step one of character creation). Then they refused to choose another race, even when the reason became clear.

All the player did was have personal tastes. It's on the GM to actually sell them on leaving those personal tastes aside. That is the actual step one you are pointedly and repeatedly ignoring. Why? Why do you choose to ignore such a monumentally important step?

You can view it through your lens all you want. But the player took the first misstep. Then, they refused to compromise.

No. The GM did. By refusing to actually get player buy-in. That is the my way or the highway moment. Not the player merely having personal tastes.

It is not disparaging for a DM to ask a player who directly went against the campaign's theme to ask why. That is literally how communication works.

But that isn't what I responded to, now is it?

Let us go back to the so-called "literally just asking a question" question you asked:

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."

You have disparaged the entire space of personal taste by claiming that one single example preference was the one and only reason anyone could ever want to play a particular thing. That's not "just asking a question". That's bait. "Well you can't even give one reason", then taking the one reason and pretending it's the only reason anyone could ever have, and dismissing the numerous times I and others have told you that the reasons are as varied as personal taste because that's literally what it is!

For God's sake, you try to skewer me for misrepresentations, but what is this? You literally just said that it's not possible for anyone to want to play a tortle than because of the one example I invented. You know there are more reasons. I know you know there are more reasons. You cannot possibly fail to understand the concept of individual taste and preference. Individual taste and preference is baked into your own argument in defense of GMs running the campaigns they want.

Otherwise, I can turn around and do exactly the same thing to you: the only reason someone could have for refusing to allow a tortle is because they just don't like the Ninja Turtles and don't want to ever allow that in a game. What would you say to that? I can predict with, I should think, spot-on accuracy that it would be something like, "Obviously there are a zillion reasons why a GM might not have included tortles or might not want them to be in a given campaign." Which is exactly what I've said about reasons for players wanting it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Maxperson]

You've already made an assumption: that the GM made a pitch and waited until Session Zero, where they presented their case and secured player buy-in. That is never mentioned in these conversations--and when I've brought up how it would be appropriate to have a discussion in the Session Zero part, folks have repeatedly, across several threads, asserted that that's already too late.

So you're already creating something that is a catch-22 based on these threads. Session Zero is already too late. Or so I've been told--by several people currently posting in this thread.

I already said how I missed 50 or 60 pages of this thread, so it makes sense that I wouldn't have seen these statements, but I don't understand how Session 0 can be too late. It's literally the session where you talk about character creation and other things.

I think the reason people assume a Session 0 pitch is because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for a DM to curate races and/or classes and not tell the players about it BEFORE they make characters, so a Session 0 happens to inform them.

When I post in these discussions, it's with the much more likely than not assumption that there was a Session 0 where the DM informed the players of the settings restrictions so that they could make characters that fit the setting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First, that's called conspiracy.

No, it isn't. Conspiracy is when two or more people work together to attempt to commit a crime. It still requires actus reus, generally, demonstrable acts which cannot be reasonably construed as anything other than an attempt to commit a crime, when the facts are understood together. E.g. buying fertilizer is not a crime. But buying ammonium nitrate fertilizer plus fuel, a detonator, gloves, and ski masks, and going to websites that provide information on bomb construction, and renting a van under a pseudonym using false ID, and being observed repeatedly investigating an area, and having drawn plans, and multiple people all clearing their schedule on the same day? Collectively those would add up to the actus reus of conspiracy to commit terrorism. Even if the plan is never actually carried out, it was in fact a plan and demonstrable, concrete actions were taken to make it happen: actus reus.

You can look up the legal definition if you like. I don't know if you live in the US, but here at least, it is required at the federal level and most (if not all) states also require that at least one person in the agreement must make an overt act to bring the agreement about. If the agreement occurred but no one acted on it, it is not conspiracy. However, everyone who was party to the agreement is guilty of conspiracy if even one participant committed a single overt act toward that goal.

It takes more than one person, but they can be imprisoned for just wanting to do the crime.

No, they cannot. Because if I tell you that I'd like to murder Mr. Boddy, and you tell me "yeah, Mr. Boddy's a real jerk, let's off him", and then neither of us actually does anything, that's not conspiracy to commit murder. It's not even conspiracy to attempt murder, because no attempt was made. Even if both of us were 100% sincere in our stated desire to kill Mr. Boddy, we did nothing to actually bring that desire about. Whether or not you could establish mens rea, there IS no actus reus--and thus no crime.

Believe it or not, there's even a term for a related thing, the "impossibility defense", whether factual or legal. TL;DR: factual impossibility is when the alleged crime literally could not have been done, e.g. if I shoot a person with intent to kill them....and they are already dead when I do that...then I didn't commit murder. (I could, however, be charged with attempted murder, since that's a different crime with a lower actus reus standard.) Legal impossibility is where the action being considered isn't even illegal in the first place, e.g. if I attempt to print bootleg copies of the first Nancy Drew mystery, The Secret of the Old Clock, that's not a crime even if I was trying to commit intellectual property theft, because that book is now in the public domain--it's not illegal to print my own handmade copies of that novel, regardless of whether I knew that.

Second, mens rea is there BECAUSE intent is the most important thing. Without the intent, there's no crime for that act.

Sure there is. In the US, 22 states have strict liability (=no mens rea requirement) for statutory rape (warning, SA). Further, traffic violations and other similar acts, some of which are still outright proper crimes, do not require any mens rea component at all. Other countries such as Australia and Canada also have a small number of criminal offenses where strict liability applies. As an example, Australian air safety laws regarding the use of unmanned aircraft (read: drones) are often strict liability: all you have to demonstrate is that the act occurred, you don't need to demonstrate any mens rea whatsoever.

So: no. The mens rea is not the most important thing. In rare cases, it isn't relevant at all. In most cases, it is co-equally important with having actually done something worthy of guilt. Where there is no actus reus, no deed of any kind commmitted, there can be no crime. Thankfully, we have not reached the point of having thoughtcrime yet.

If the action can happen with or without intent, but is only a crime if the intent is there, intent is the more important of those two components. It and it alone decides whether it's a crime or not. I also never claimed intent was the only part. Only that it was the most important.

But, as I have shown, it is not the most important part. It is at best co-equal in importance with, y'know, the crime having actually been committed in the first place.

"The crime did not actually happen" is the strongest defense in the world if it is true. For example, in the Sherlock Holmes story The Adventure of the Norwood Builder, (spoilers for those who are unfamiliar) the alleged "victim" is actually alive and well. He either killed, or exploited the death of, a homeless man to fake his own death, in order to get revenge on the son of a woman who spurned him, and to evade his creditors. Holmes is able to draw him out of his hidey-hole by pretending that the house is on fire, forcing the man to escape. That this "victim" is, in fact, entirely alive would be a slam-dunk defense against the charge of murder. Hence: the guilty act is just as important as the guilty mind. No actual act? No crime. No guilty mind? No crime. They are individually necessary and jointly sufficient, in logic terms.

You aren't understanding the context of that comment. It was about whether the act was evil and therefore deserving of punishment, not whether they are prosecuted or get away with it.

How was I supposed to interpret the phrase "no one gets off the hook"? The meaning of the phrase "get off the hook [for]" something, means getting away with it without being punished.

 

[Zardnaar]

I can be a hardass about curated settings. But I ask the pkayers first about running said setting.
So any new player coming in woukd have to accept that. After that campaigns over they woukd get more input.

Right now its FR with suggested races. Everything in HB and Shadar Kai are fine. Ask for 5.0 material.

Last game (FR) had a Tortle.

Even in a heavily curated setting eg Darksun im open to suggestions. More likely fhance of me saying yes if it fits (lizards, insects, based races more likely to get a yes vs Drow or Warforged). Genasi no problem. Even 2E.

Hard no's are things completely opposed to a themed setting. Warforged on Athas come to mind or aquatic races or the extinct races. Anything else could maybe be a mutant.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What hostility? You guys are really starting to crack me up. Mike was new to the game and I don't lore dump so he didn't realize being halfling nobility didn't make a lot sense. So we worked something out that worked for both of us. He was fine with it, it worked for me.

I really don't understand why you are so determined to turn an simple, normal everyday example into a DM abuse story.

Do you, or do you not, see a difference in the description? Because if you don't we're going to have a much more difficult time discussing...anything, really.

I gave an example of when and why a player's background didn't fit and how I handled it. Why would I need to give examples of the 95% of the time I just have to verify a few details? Because I've already explained that's what happens most of the time.

Edit - Mike was not demanding anything. He wanted to play a halfling with a noble background which didn't make sense so we figured out how to make it work.

Will you allow me to give an example of why what you said was a problem, but it turned out that the underlying example was not?

Because folks in this thread have been quite prickly when they feel anyone has characterized any GM as being unfair, draconian, or capricious. How would you feel if I recharacterized your very own example as, "The GM ignored the player's interests and dismissed his requests, and just said that halflings don't have empires when asked why."? That is inherently antagonistic to the GM--portraying them as dismissive and even flippant, giving a paper-thin excuse.

How you choose to talk something matters just as much as what you choose to talk about.

Based on your own words, what you actually did was discuss the matter. You listened, sincerely, to the player's request. You then explained, "Well...uh...that's kind of a problem because no such empire exists. Halflings just aren't super ambitious overall so they never had such an empire. That said, the 'Noble' background doesn't really require you to be literally a noble, right? So we can say you are the closest thing halflings have to 'nobility', even if they don't really do that sort of thing, strictly speaking. Your family is important, respected, possibly even wealthy, etc. You just won't have a castle, nor a title of nobility, even though that's what the flavor text says." Or something more or less along those lines.

And notice, here, that you gave the player....well, functionally everything they wanted, yes? They got the Noble background mechanics, and they got the actual backstory of "my family is well-known and influential". The only thing they didn't get was something that was genuinely irrelevant to them, namely, the actual castle and title of nobility. So...where's the riding roughshod? Where's the total breakdown of setting consistency? Where's the loudest-jerk-in-the-room-always-wins? You'd said that if you just let players have what they want you'd be destroying the campaign. Why didn't that happen here?