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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I mean, would you believe me if I told you that folks have done it and found it to be not only not "completely opposed to a themed setting" but actually helped enhance the themed setting?

I'm specifically thinking here of a GM who had a player that wanted to play a Shardmind (4e psionic rock people race) in Athas. Per the GM's own words (all emphasis in original):

Case in point: I dislike the shardmind race out of 4E. I get what they are supposed to be and all, but they just really aren't to my taste. Had a player who wanted to play a shardmind bard in my Dark Sun game. I said, "Well, I don't necessarily see a place for shardminds on Athas. How do you see your character fitting in?" His reply was, "I don't know. I just want him to wake up in the desert, with no memory of where he came from. And he looks to be made of obsidian. You have carte blanche to come up with a background for him."​

BAM! Not only did that give me, the DM plenty of leeway to work the character in, but gave me a hell of a hook for the campaign, too. I couldnt picture how Arshaka the Obsidian Bard would fit in the campaign at first. Now I couldn't picture it without him. That's the power of saying "yes" instead of "not in MY game."​

Now, obviously, these are bespoke solutions to bespoke problems. There is not, cannot be, and should not be, one size that fits all. It needs to be worked out between each GM and player, each and every time. Nothing less will do. But my point, as said at the start, was that things are more complicated than just "nope that contradicts the setting, not possible". Fiction is a deep, deep well. It behooves us to remember that when we claim anything is impossible within the realm of fiction.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, would you believe me if I told you that folks have done it and found it to be not only not "completely opposed to a themed setting" but actually helped enhance the themed setting?

I'm specifically thinking here of a GM who had a player that wanted to play a Shardmind (4e psionic rock people race) in Athas. Per the GM's own words (all emphasis in original):

Case in point: I dislike the shardmind race out of 4E. I get what they are supposed to be and all, but they just really aren't to my taste. Had a player who wanted to play a shardmind bard in my Dark Sun game. I said, "Well, I don't necessarily see a place for shardminds on Athas. How do you see your character fitting in?" His reply was, "I don't know. I just want him to wake up in the desert, with no memory of where he came from. And he looks to be made of obsidian. You have carte blanche to come up with a background for him."​

BAM! Not only did that give me, the DM plenty of leeway to work the character in, but gave me a hell of a hook for the campaign, too. I couldnt picture how Arshaka the Obsidian Bard would fit in the campaign at first. Now I couldn't picture it without him. That's the power of saying "yes" instead of "not in MY game."​

Now, obviously, these are bespoke solutions to bespoke problems. There is not, cannot be, and should not be, one size that fits all. It needs to be worked out between each GM and player, each and every time. Nothing less will do. But my point, as said at the start, was that things are more complicated than just "nope that contradicts the setting, not possible". Fiction is a deep, deep well. It behooves us to remember that when we claim anything is impossible within the realm of fiction.

Shardminds a psionic race though do unless theres sonething else going on.......

Warforged, autonomous and anything else that essentially ignores the environment is out on Athas.

As I said its an issue for new players joining. Atm I'm more focus on 5.5 so want to use that more vs older stuff I'm sick of.

If I spend $300 on product I want to use it basically. Same as 2019 with 3pp I bought.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Shardminds a psionic race though do unless theres sonething else going on.......

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Warforged, autonomous and anything else that essentially ignores the environment is out on Athas.

Shardminds have the exact same characteristic. Literally. They are both "Living Construct" characters. The text is identical.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.


Shardminds have the exact same characteristic. Literally. They are both "Living Construct" characters. The text is identical.

Yeah thst would tule the. Out for me. I dudnt know the shards indicated abilities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I'm fortunate myself that while I get to DM Saturdays, I get to also play on Wednesdays in a game DMed by one of my Saturday players. We frequently connect with each other on how things are proceeding so we can build up each other's skills, and we play in each other's games with an eye to how we can help each other move the game forward.

Our combined group (we have 3 games because I alternate Saturday games to accommodate people's variable schedules) includes munchkin players who prioritize how to be mechanically amazing, roleplayers who bind every mechanic to the story they'd like to tell, vibe players who remember about a third of what their characters can do week to week, and one player who simply prefers always to play the "weird" character that most often seems out of place for the setting and group.

Hearing so many people talk about things on this site, you'd think I'd have a group destined to spin out into a controversial split, rather than going strong for 8 years now. We communicate, we don't put our own ideas and preferences above everyone else's, and we prioritize first and foremost the fun and enjoyment of everyone.

And for that "weird" character player, whose preferences are most pertinent to the conversation this thread has become, I am thankful each and every time I've approved it, and deeply regret the one time I vetoed it. Every single time I've adjusted my ideas for the setting and world the group was playing in to accommodate this character, it has 100% led to a much better world and story than I would have otherwise made. The one time I vetoed it was because it was my first interaction with the player and it was my first time DMing. The player was unhappy but did pivot, and later experience proves to me that I was wrong to require it. For the record, the first side game we did, which ended up a full campaign itself, that player got to play their previously vetoed choice.

This is not a blanket statement that every DM should approve every PC always, just that at my table, with proper communication and shared priorities of everyone's fun, I've found that approving has always led to a better experience for the players and myself as DM. I've just found that players who fit the description of problem tropes are often much more than that, and working together builds something better. I'm not de-prioritizing my needs or wants as the DM, I'm incorporating theirs within my own. The more incompatible they may seem, the more creativity may be involved, but every single time, the end result was something I was happier with than what I started with on my own.

My most munchkiny player, as another example, is the best DM's assistant I can ask for. Looking up rules as needed so the game flow isn't interrupted, engaging with the plot and remembering details of the story. My most vibes player loves engaging with NPCs and asking after them, checking in on them. My player who was newest to D&D now has the most powerful character who has dropped more bosses than everyone else combined, which the whole table celebrates and actively makes room to allow them to claim even more kills.

Just want to say: I missed this post, and I wish I hadn't. My experience of the thread would have been rather better had I seen it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You are very consistently anti-DM across many threads. It is one reason that I perceive ENWorld has become DM-unfriendly.

That may not be the case but it sure feels that way.

I did not see this post before.

I am not "anti-DM". I am, however, anti-jerk GM. I see many patterns of behavior, especially here on ENWorld, where jerk-GM behavior is lauded. I speak out whenever I see such things.

I can assure you, I am nowhere near representative of this forum.

What is "anti-DM" about asking for genuine consensus-building? What is "anti-DM" about saying that the unrelenting insistence on "absolute power"--a phrase I quote verbatim, because I tried very, VERY hard to get people to step away from it and they consistently refused--has some real bad optics? What is "anti-DM" about saying that GMs do in fact need to sell their players on their premises, and need to leap WAY out in front of possible issues? What is "anti-DM" about calling out the fact that far too many GMs are quite comfortable slapping down ban after ban after ban?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

An odd position to take, given how much you insist on having "absolute power".

Because "absolute power" literally means being able to ride roughshod over anyone who disagrees with you. That's the very thing which makes the power "absolute".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@Scott Christian You asked for quotes. I cannot quote the most virulent voices in the thread, so you'll have to settle for secondhand stuff in some of these. Some quotes are for contrast; not all of these are from the "I as GM get to do whatever I want and players just have to lump it" crowd.

However, I will admit--as noted in previous posts!--that there are messages I missed. Some of which had much more friendly content. It may also be the case that one or more of the people I've quoted in this post are on your ignore list (or vice versa if they have two-way ignore active), and thus your view of the thread would have been...rather more congenial, shall we say. Consider opening this post in an incognito tab so you can check for such things.

To avoid producing an insanely long post, I'm putting spoilers around this.

Spoiler: Many, MANY quotes

I generally won't allow warforged into the games I run (unless I'm actually running Eberron, obviously). I just really dislike having androids (or the like) in my classic fantasy. No firearms, either. That can all work for a particular kind of setting, but not for a Forgotten Realms style campaign, at least not for me. Does that make me a bad DM? No. It's all my other failings that make me a bad DM.

Tortles? Blech. I ain't down with your comic mutant teenage B.S. Take your kitanas and pizzas and get off my lawn, son.

eh, they are still exotic and did not show up in almost anything until the Tortle Package for 5e. Just because a bad idea is old does not suddenly mean it is not a bad idea, calling it ‘legacy’ does not change that.

Can you find a place for them if you want to, sure, doesn’t mean you have to.

not a fan, I don’t need a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle (1984) dressed up as a Tortle (1986) in my game

And yet I've seen people on this very board badmouthing players who are only interested in playing what they want to play.

The most vocal of the people on the thread that views D&D as being hostile to DMs. You might have them on ignore or vice versa?

For me personally that is ... problematic. When you come to the table, your character concept completely planned out, down to the feats and ASIs you will take up to level 20.
In the good old days a character developed during , which makes them inflexible during play and makes roleplay worse, because they have thise perfect character in mind that they can't change out off, which makes them inflexible during play.

It doesn’t matter. I have been told consistently from the folks arguing in this thread that any restriction on the player is bad.

If I do not allow Goliaths and Orcs but I do allow Lizardmen, Minotaurs, Satyrs, and Faeries, then I am still wrong for restricting any options.

It’s exhausting.

I am not interested in being forced to run generic D&D kitchen sink BS.

Don't either opt-in to the premise or opt-out? Both as a player and a DM.

If a player dislikes they restrictions, they opt out. If a DM dislikes what the player wants, they opt out.

Why is a moral value being placed on an opt-in decision? The is nothing moral here. Who cares? If I propose a game with 4 classes and 6 races banned, and you don't like it, opt out. If you are a player and want to play a goblin and the DM doesn't allow goblins, opt-out. If you are a DM and there is a player who wants to play a race you don't like... opt out.

I don't see the argument here. It's like saying "I dont like how some DMs choose system X, so I should be able to force them to use some rules I want." No, you opt out of that game. Why are restrictions different? Why are we moralizing people's version of fun?

No gaming is better than bad gaming, for sure. If your group wants to do a campaign that excluded (or includes) stuff that would be un fun to you, then walk away, for sure, if you can't negotiate.

But all this "are DMs such snowflakes" stuff is reading as very personal and specific to you. I'm guessing you had some real bad experiences with naughty word DMs who were too restrictive?

You are right. Players are allowed to opt out and have standards. That is not controversial. Your issue is your framing and the sneering.

I bolded some clearly mocking phrases. Why are you mocking DMs? Once we start mocking the DMs, we stop having a neutral opt out, and instead we have an opt out while sneering. There is a real possibility, that DMs aren't snowflakes, but simply don't care for the opinions of players who opt out of their game. Why would they care, they are there for their own fun. I know for my private games, I could care less what you or anyone not at the table thinks.

The WotC comparison is incorrect. WotC products are commercial goods sold to a mass audience. A DM’s campaign is a private, unpaid creative offer to a small group. It is very different to criticize a commercial product, than to criticize someone's private fun you are not a part of. You are doing the latter, and doing it on a broad scale.

You can believe what you believe, but when you use the tone you are using about a community, expect social friction. I can say “System X isn’t for me,” and the reaction is very different from me saying, “System X is lazy garbage and anyone who likes it has low standards.” One is a difference of opinion, the other is elitism in it's purest form.

So I think we should not broadly insult wide swaths of the community, because we disagree with their fun. But who knows, maybe that is a lazy opinion to have.

I'll be blunt: I have stated repeatedly that I have a standard I hold for new games I'm joining: no options less than what the core rulebook gives. If I don't see that, I will walk. I've been told I am entitled and wrong for having that standard. I can only imagine this is because people have a problem with me, as a player, having said standard because they feel if I'm going to walk because of it, that I must be calling them a bad DM rather than a DM who I feel I won't have fun playing with.

I've given up trying to explain that. So now I am calling them a bad DM.

Because it all comes back to the DM is Always Right and the Player is Always Wrong mentality that this board in particular exposes at every opportunity. Every DM is above reproach, every DM immune to criticism. I'm sick of it. So if you want to make players the bad guys, I'll play that role. To be fair, I think a lot of DMs are high on their own farts and could stand the reminder they aren't Tolkien or Martin and that those carefully considered visions aren't any better or worse than a kitchen sink gonzo game.

So yeah, your game (editorial, not personal) sounds terrible and I don't think I'll have fun playing it. Thanks for the invite, but no thanks. Either accept the criticism that your pitch doesn't interest me or don't. I don't care. But you (editorial) can quit trying to defend that since I didn't like it, I'm the one that's wrong.

But why? That was my whole point. Why bother to yuck their yum? Why is it worth your time? Is this actually about the argument or is it just about catharsis? Like you seemed to completely abandon the entire "can opt out" line of thinking. So are we just in pure hostility mode? Because that's how it reads to me.

I mean if so, live your best life. But I'd love to know, because if you have an argument, you lost me.

I have to wonder if it is more that people talk about restrictions here and immediately get called a bad DM and that gets them on the defensive...here.

I am sure it has happened in real life. I tend not to go down the rabbit hole of creating all new mechanics. I have created species and prestige/subclasses for my settings and items, classes, subclasses, prestige classes for players but never wholesale game altering mechanics.

My next campaign will center around undead. The majority of the lands will be ruled by the noble dead with only enclaves of free beings remaining, protected by divine beacons that prevent low level from entering and severely weaken upper level undead in their sphere of effect. Outside the spheres, undead gain strength and HD. Living beings still live and work in the dead zones but are a constant source of prey for the undead. The Gods barely retain enough strength to maintain the beacons. It is loosely based on the old Vampire Earth novels. I am still writing the overall concepts but I am intrigued on how it will play out and my group want to try it.

DM: "Cool, cultists summoning elementals, or giants and monstrosities it is! Sweet, lets roll those characters up"

I have no idea, it was just a throw-away line someone used. The relevant part was that @GobHag made it clear they literally don't care what's suitable and would happily turn up with something they know for a fact is not suitable.

That is not what the discussion was at all. @GobHag made it clear they do not care whether or not their character is suitable, and will happily show up with a character they know is not.

You've shifted the goal posts constantly throughout this thread, but doing so on behalf of a completely different poster is certainly a new one for me.

You mean your GM doesn't make you sign a blood contract that forces you to play their game?

How do they expect to lord their mighty power over you?

Are the folks complaining about "player entitlement" really in the majority on these boards? They are loud and they are persistent, but that isn't the same thing.

While I'm in general agreement with you that DMs who are very precious about their settings and are into world-building by subtraction are not my cup of tea, and in their extreme form can be toxic DMs . . . I don't think they are any sort of majority here or elsewhere.

And even if they are . . . so? How important is it to "win" in these types of never-ending debates?

I prefer someone make the final call. I think it makes for a better game rather than the loudest player at the table shouting until they get their way. That it is a far cry from a maniacal power hungry overlord GM.

Someone has to make the final call. If you don't have mutual respect and trust then there are bigger issues at the table.

Did I say otherwise? But if the disagreement is resolved by whoever shouts loudest how is that any better?

I've stated my preference. Obviously there should be a discussion about how things work - I may still make a call to keep things moving and we'll discuss it later. Life, and my time spent playing games, is too short to have long drawn out discussions.

The buck has to stop somewhere.

Compromise always seems to mean the player gets to do what they want and the DM needs to stuff it. If I allow a tortle, do I also need to allow tabaxi, bugbears, centaurs, genasi, harengon and plasmoids? What about leonins, shifters, loxodons and grungs? After all I don't want to leave anyone out. Meanwhile I play in FR games where anything and everything is allowed and the main reason people pick a different species seems to be because of some perceived mechanical benefit.

When I invite people to my game I let them know what the restrictions are. I've also spent untold hundreds or even thousands of hours over the years thinking about my world, planning adventures, creating histories. It's not a work of art, it's far from perfect, but like most DMs I've put far more work into it than a player will ever put into coming up with something that will fit the themes and lore I've established. Want to come up with something different? Cool, we'll discuss it. You just won't get carte blanche and I reserve veto rights.

Well, I'm not advocating for DMs, because I'm not buying into all the "us vs. them" stuff, but I freely admit I'll lay down an ultimatum when it comes to running a game:

If I tell someone I'm in the mood to run a campaign using a particular set of rules, and they say they'd rather play in a campaign using some other set of rules, I'm not going to be their GM. Full stop. No compromise. I'm not sorry. I'll find someone else who wants to play in the campaign that interests me, and they can find someone else to run the campaign that interests them. Life's too short for either of us to be running or playing in campaigns we don't actually enjoy.

And a key addition to this is working with the player to identify what it is they're really looking for, and what alternatives they would be interested in, if any.

A lot of responses I'm seeing read like either a flat no, or the player must accept the DM's alternative or it'll be a flat no. And that reads to me to be no different than the problem player being complained about.

Why is it a red flag that I set limits as a DM? I'm making decisions constantly about what exists or does not exist in the campaign world.

If that means I'm not the DM for you, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with red flags.

your fun is not worth more than theirs and vice versa, so if you cannot find a compromise where you both can have fun, then your tortle is not part of the campaign

So if you were playing BitD would you insist on playing a turtle guy? What if I really want to play a anthropomorphic piece of toast? My reason? Because it's toast man! At a certain point we're simply at an impasse. The DM doesn't allow tortles and a player will not consider any other option. As far as I can tell there's no real compromise here - neither side is willing to budge.

If that's the case then it's nothing for the player and the DM will find someone else to fill that seat.

I mean, I have a theory as to why.

Scarcity.

I bet the behavior is different if DMs are a dime a dozen, and players are hard to find. But, as a DM who runs games online, for random people, I have no incentive to compromise for a player unless I have a history with that player. In fact, I've never been asked to compromise at all, dozens and dozens of players just accept what I post. Each eager to play.

This leads me into situations where I do restrict character creation choices for flavor reasons. Allowing only a small number of races plus reskins of other races. And I just state up front the restrictions. And I fill the game easily.

For example, my last game I posted on r/LFG last spring, restricted races to one of 9. In 24 hours, I had 81 replies in my google form. I had fourteen willing players in under 60 minutes.

Do I have any incentive to loosen my restrictions when the game fills in minutes?

Right or wrong. I think this is why, in practice, DMs always win. And likely always will. They simply have no reason to compromise, when players are so readily available. And players who wish to play, have every reason to compromise.

Is this fair? Nah. But what is the DM's incentive here? There is none.

Sure. You can turn up to the session with your tortle, and everyone at the table can ignore your character and play on as if they're not there, only interacting with the non-tortle elements of the world.

only if you consider any compromise a win for the DM and only the player getting exactly what they want a win for the player. I do not

No, I was suggesting that, for the purposes of the analogy I was responding to, ignoring the caviar is the same as ignoring the player.

As you've noticed, that isn't actually a productive or mature behaviour to display in real life. Hence my underlying point that the analogy, as presented, didn't work.

In case there is any doubt, I do not actually endorse inviting a player to a game and then having everyone ignore them.

The onus it's still on the DM because it requires the DM to give a part of their world building responsibility..

Again, a dm should not be forced to run something they don't want to run..

not sure why a weird and unfitting race cannot also be one that has been around a while, the two have nothing to do with each other. Also, the turtle was an example and the DM is hypothetical, no one is arguing for an inclusion in anyone’s specific game


no, it is not. Inoffensive is a personal opinion, just like weird, and having existed for a while is irrelevant for this. I am sure there are plenty of weird races in D&D’s past that rarely were used, just like the tortle


I do not claim that, I only said the DM cannot be forced to run a game they do not enjoy


I agree with all of this, so the DM did not earn the player’s support here, that still means the player does not have a game now


no, I have been saying from the start that neither side can be strongarmed into anything, and if no compromise can be found then they simply cannot be in the same game. No harm, no foul

Not sure why any result where the player has to work on a compromise with the DM is treated as a ‘the player always has to do what the DM says’, that sounds an awful lot like ‘the DM always has to accept the ideas of the player’

Another easy one. The DM has curated their world. If we are talking a notepad with five pages, I would be skeptical. In fact, I would push back on it. But if the world is curated, I would have a really hard time to have you walk around as a turtle - when turtle people don't exist. Every social encounter would have to be about you being a turtle, and not about moving the story forward for the group.
"Why does the DM have to do that?"
Because they want to play their curated world with fidelity.
"Can it be fun to have an outcast? A one of a kind? A Drizzt?"
It sure can. But that is something you need to discuss session zero, and the other players have to be ok with it too.

The simple fact you can't see how it might affect others in game is... interesting.

I read this as the typical - let the player decide all of the options for the game and the DM must make it work.

I'd give my logic and reasoning behind I do what I do but it never matters. If there's a disagreement on what is allowed and there is no compromise no one at the table can force the issue. For a player it means there's no game to join, for the DM it means that seat at the table is still open.

Because they’re doing all the work. They bought all of the books (usually). They do all the planning, improvisation, setting book keeping and running hundreds of NPCs. They design the dungeons, make rulings, come up with DCs, balance encounters, do most of the math.

Players just have to show up with their characters sheets. Even then, guaranteed, several don’t even do that.

So yeah, the DM gets some authority. In D&D they have to. If you don’t like that, play something else: there are tons of RPGs where the DM shares narrative and mechanical control with the players. Or even DM less systems.

Are you really so set in your ways that you can't just play a wise old druid who has a totem spirit turtle and has picked up many of the same mannerisms?

For me, I'm not playing a dwarf. I'm playing Kreko Kegshatter a dwarf who has shamed his family name because his mind was wandering when he should have been paying attention to the repairs to the rack holding the kegs causing it to collapse. He's now on a quest to not just reclaim his family's respect but also ... well that depends on the campaign because I'm not going to flesh it out further until a session 0. Even then the character is only really developed in play. Class, goals, personality? All of that matters more than species. Right now I'm playing an orc that was raised by dwarves and doesn't feel like he fits in anywhere. He also speaks with a "dwarven" accent unless he's raging. But I only finalized the character once I discussed it with the DM and the rest of the group.

Why do they have to be a tortle? Why not just someone that believes in animism and identifies with turtles? When they came of age they have a ritual to identify their spirit animal and they had a vision of turtles on the back of a massive dragon turtle contemplating the sun as they bask in it? Seems to me you get the same backstory and feel.

Several people have claimed there should be compromise when they really mean the player gets to decide. I never said you personally stated that. It has little to do with power, it's me running the best game I know how.



You have your preferences, I have mine. Good luck with yours, mine works just fine for me and my players.

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.

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.

Is it as strong of a position as saying "The DM's worldbuilding is meaningless?" No turtlemen seems like a narrow creative choice, while DM worldbuilding being maligned to insignificance is the demonization of an entire creative endeavor.

I'd argue that the position that DM's cannot set boundaries for narrative, tone, or world coherence, is a much "stronger" position, than the opposite. The former simply relegates homebrew worlds to Forgotten realms clones, and leaves the hobby in a state of creative blandness.

I don't know that turtlemen being allowed carte blanche is worth that trade off.

"Either the GM's authority is unassailable or the players have carte blanche to wreck everything'

There's nothing in between those two extreme positions?

Ah, the old "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

If our tastes aligned (which of course, they don't), you would certainly not have to allow everything and anything once you said "yes" to the tortle PC. That's a ridiculous argument. However, an open and collaborative DM would listen to his players character ideas and give them honest consideration each time, and look for ways to expand their world to accommodate a player's desired concept.

but I want to be a tortle

Have you been reading the thread?

Some of the folks worried about "entitled players" are making this out as an irrational drive to play a turtle, all or nothing.

But folks arguing for a more collaborative approach have been very clear that playing a tortle, or dragonborn, or tiefling, are just examples. It's really about several things.

• Player agency and choice.
• A collaborative approach to DMing rather than a controlling approach.
• Prioritizing player fun over restrictive world building.

If you are a restrictive world building DM who expects your players to cater to the setting you crafted, and you and your players are all on board and having a great time . . . keep on keeping on! But this is a DMing style that more and more of us are ready to leave in the past. I don't run my games that way, and I won't spend my time as a player in those types of games. Well, unless the DM is a good friend that I trust, then I'll just roll my eyes and play a human fighter . . . and continue to develop a more collaborative approach in my own games.

What I really find irritating as a player, and will walk away from, is DMs who have (seemingly) arbitrary restrictions from that shared understanding and are inflexible about changing them . . . and their rational is "Because I'm the DM and tortles don't exist in my setting and that's that". And often the communication doesn't make that clear until that Session Zero (or Session One) where I excitedly share my dragon tortle aspect of Tiamat character concept and get it shot down without any attempt at expanding their world and find a way to collaborate. Maybe I came to the session with 4 different concepts, three of which would work just fine in that DMs campaign . . . but the controlling and inflexible style of DMing just leaves me cold, so I walk.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of compromise when it means "The player gets whatever they want and ignores the DM." I gave an example of someone that has all the characteristics of a tortle except for the physical form. It was rejected out of hand.

Within the scope of this conversation, surrounding a simple hypothetical, what you've shown is a lot of inflexibility and a need for the player to concede without compromise. That's all. I don't think this makes you a bad DM at all.

This isn't the first time you've switched things around to make things more of an affront to you personally, so I do honestly wonder if that is a cause for the inflexibility presented.

This is because you think that compromise "would work" and they don't. You feel its a functional compromise where they don't; they have ideas they think are a functional compromise you don't.

If only one side gets to decide what "would work" that's not a compromise even if that side thinks so; someone could just as easily say they had a functional compromise and you "aren't interested".

But isnt this whole thread people saying "compromise" while restating their hard line? Be that a "worldbuilding project," or the "no restrictions" mantra?

It seems to me that only a few people like @EzekielRaiden have expressed a desire to actually compromise. Most just say, "My way must win."

Then it's not compromise if the DM has a curated list of species and the player insists on playing something not on the list either. At that point if no compromise is possible then it's not a good fit, the DM did not gain a player and the player did not join a game.

But people have been framing DM capitulation as compromise. It's not.

Honestly that seems like a bizarre take. Is that an issue when you play in something like Call of Cthulu set on 1920s earth. Is it "restrictive" to you that you know all the countries that exist in that world?

I have a decades old homebrew that I use for my campaign so naturally it has a lot of pre-existing lore. None of this makes it anything like a "prewritten play" and players have plenty of agency. I expect them to interact with the lore when bringing their character concept, but I will generally work with good faith attempts to create a appropriate character. What you're proposing sounds like some sort of mini-emotional tantrum directed at a DM who has the temerity to expect to be able to curate any aspect of the world they've created.

I'm all for trying to work out a compromise, but why does the DMs fun have to take a back seat?

There's middle ground where the DM will try and work out a compromise(not capitulation), but still hold true to the world building. There are people here saying the DM should fully capitulate to anything the players wants to create for his PC.

Okay, no compromise between two extreme positions no one is actually arguing for. I guess you're right. But I'm still a bit confused.

not really, these were suggestions for how they could play a tortle. Given that playing a tortle was the initial idea, nothing was being compromised

Congratulations. Then you have found your niche. Much like the people who want only Sword and Sorcery, or only low magic campaigns, or only campaigns where sexuality is encouraged or restricted, or only cogwheel and steampunk exist, or only a campaign where everyone is a little Godzilla or other creature from the Monster Verse. You have found what you like.

But because you found what you like, does not mean you can impose it on others - even if you had a neglected and difficult start to find what you enjoy. We are all sorry your starting play experience and DM didn't match. It's frustrating. We understand. But by no means does that give you the right to declare others are wrong for setting similar limits.

(Which by the way, they are not. Your DM sounds arbitrary. Almost everyone on this forum has stated explicit reasons, most of which is hard work and logical consistency in their DM (and players') world, as to why you can't play a tortle.)

So, we are sorry you had a hard time playing what you wanted when you were younger. We are happy that you found a DM in college that let you do whatever you want, and in turn, we are happy you found out what you like. But that, by no way means or form, make the DMs here declaring limits wrong. You are still wrong for insisting your discovered viewpoint must be used by the DMs.

This is the most limited take I have ever seen. So you speak for all players? None of them care?

As a player, I care. I care a lot. Every group I have ever played with has had players care a lot about the setting. Just because you don't, doesn't mean that is true of others.

Yes, Scott. Obviously when I use a general term I mean absolutely everyone, with no exceptions.

By and large I have tried to quote whole posts. Where I did not, it is usually because there was a long discussion about something unrelated that I felt would not be helpful to quote. If you suspect anything has been quoted out of context, the links are present. Again, I want to reiterate that some of these are direct demonstrations of the negative attitude I've seen, and others are folks calling out the negative attitude or responding to it.

Edit: And one final note, I stopped looking around page 81? 82? (that is, around post 1620 or so), mostly because I'm tired, I have other things to do, and I can't afford to not sleep properly tonight. So I may have missed out on other things that happened in the past 400 posts or so.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Well, as an example, I believe it was AlViking who bad-mouthed any player who comes to Session Zero with a character concept they're already intending to play. So...yeah, Session Zero is already too late. A player having personal tastes and interests of their own is irrelevant and Session Zero cannot help because Session Zero has the GM already bringing all the concepts of a world, but the player is forbidden to bring even the tiniest concept of a character.

And that, I think, most cleanly and neatly summarizes the problem I have with the "GM wins" argument. It pretends that it's perfectly fine for the GM to bring the world's most stringent requirements solely and exclusively because they wanted them, but the player cannot even begin to think about their own interests until they've already accepted 100% of the GM's interests first--no matter what. No discussion. No reconciliation. No attempt at consensus-building. Accept or get OUT.

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.

Except that the moment Session Zero begins, the player is expected to already be on board with 100% of everything simply because they accepted the pitch. That's a massive disconnect--and it really, really is the GM not getting the player buy-in. But the players are embarked; they already agreed, so now the GM has "absolute power" over them within the game, right?

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.

And in informing them, he's told them that it's already too late. That's precisely what I mean. The players get no opportunity to ever advocate on their own behalf. As soon as Session Zero has started, you are chained by the GM's interests. Period. Don't like it? F#$k off, you're just a replaceable player.

 

[SableWyvern]

@Scott Christian You asked for quotes. I cannot quote the most virulent voices in the thread, so you'll have to settle for secondhand stuff in some of these. Some quotes are for contrast; not all of these are from the "I as GM get to do whatever I want and players just have to lump it" crowd.

However, I will admit--as noted in previous posts!--that there are messages I missed. Some of which had much more friendly content. It may also be the case that one or more of the people I've quoted in this post are on your ignore list (or vice versa if they have two-way ignore active), and thus your view of the thread would have been...rather more congenial, shall we say. Consider opening this post in an incognito tab so you can check for such things.

To avoid producing an insanely long post, I'm putting spoilers around this.

By and large I have tried to quote whole posts. Where I did not, it is usually because there was a long discussion about something unrelated that I felt would not be helpful to quote. If you suspect anything has been quoted out of context, the links are present. Again, I want to reiterate that some of these are direct demonstrations of the negative attitude I've seen, and others are folks calling out the negative attitude or responding to it.

Edit: And one final note, I stopped looking around page 81? 82? (that is, around post 1620 or so), mostly because I'm tired, I have other things to do, and I can't afford to not sleep properly tonight. So I may have missed out on other things that happened in the past 400 posts or so.

The first two bits where you have quoted me and claim I was being virulent: I was explaining exactly what @GobHag had said earlier in the thread. Someone came along and tried to claim GobHag had not really said those things, but GobHab themself then replied to that person and confirmed that my statements were, in fact, completely accurate. So, not "virulent" at all, just statements of fact. The person you think I'm being virulent to agrees 100% with my comments and indicated that I was representing their position accurately, and it is the person I was replying to who was misrepresenting them. GobHag has been clear and consistent in their statements that they have no respect for a GM's world and do not have any interest in working with a GM to make their character fit. They make the character they wants, irrespective of any other factors, and the GM is expected to deal with it. While I don't agree with the way they approach this topic, I have stated that I do respect the fact that they own it 100% and stand by their position unashamedly.

The third quote of mine is the final statement I made in a discussion about an analogy, and is missing all the requisite context to understand it. The statement was intentionally ludicrous, to show the analogy itself is ludicrous. I already addressed this earlier in the thread and made it clear that statement was not intended to be taken literally, nor is anything else I've said in this thread consistent with anyone who would take that statement seriously.