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

[EzekielRaiden]

Your compromise was always a tortle though.

Was it?

Seriously. Was it?

If I am the result of one mad wizard's cruel and insane experiments, does that mean "tortles" live in this world? Or does it just mean that there's a single sapient turtle-man who will always be in some way alone, simultaneously the foundling and the endling of his lived experience?

You keep acting like these compromises are 100% purified unqualified absolute implementations of everything "tortle" means. That's not true.

Where's the nuance folks seem to want so badly in this thread, that people keep getting mad at me for not including? Where's the "well it has some of the parts of a tortle, but not all of them"? If there are shades of grey, then there are shades of tortle, no?

Ive banned twilight domain. Compromise would be moon domain if the concept is the sticking point.

Sure. But you're still giving something moon-related. What you keep saying with the above is that it cannot be even 1% turtle-related. You must have NOTHING turtle, at all, no matter what. And no, "literally a human who just happens to wear a turtle costume" is not 1% turtle. It's 0% turtle with some silly equipment.

 

[Zardnaar]

Was it?

Seriously. Was it?

If I am the result of one mad wizard's cruel and insane experiments, does that mean "tortles" live in this world? Or does it just mean that there's a single sapient turtle-man who will always be in some way alone, simultaneously the foundling and the endling of his lived experience?

You keep acting like these compromises are 100% purified unqualified absolute implementations of everything "tortle" means. That's not true.

Where's the nuance folks seem to want so badly in this thread, that people keep getting mad at me for not including? Where's the "well it has some of the parts of a tortle, but not all of them"? If there are shades of grey, then there are shades of tortle, no?


Sure. But you're still giving something moon-related. What you keep saying with the above is that it cannot be even 1% turtle-related. You must have NOTHING turtle, at all, no matter what. And no, "literally a human who just happens to wear a turtle costume" is not 1% turtle. It's 0% turtle with some silly equipment.

Had a Tortle last game. Monk even.

Only hard bans are flyers. That's a fairly common rule.

I prefer the most recent version of races but allow some older ones as long as its not power crept out.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

If the roles are not meaningful, why do people insist that the GM role gets so much power and control?

Human psychology. People tend to identify with the role they most often invest in, and their brain skews the importance and relative authority of the other roles to fit. This is automatic.

We can think of it this way. You are both riding in a bus, looking out the window at cows, and having a conversation. But your windows are tinted different colors, and you are arguing about what color the cows are.

The issue is obvious. You will never fully reconcile the difference in that debate because your perspective is different, you are operating from a different starting point.

This is so predictable, that you could likely guess people's primary role based on their side in this argument, and score pretty well. It doesn't mean people don't engage as the other role ever, just that they relate more to one than the other.

But yeah, the short answer is their humans, just like the rest of us.

 

[M_Natas]

I literally said that. Repeatedly. In multiple posts.

As I've said, again repeatedly: I'm not the one saying one person always gets what they want and everyone else just accepts it. I'm not the one saying the GM should always get what they want, and then players might get what they want if it wouldn't put out the GM in any way.

One side here is advocating for genuine back-and-forth, give-and-take, etc. The other is not. Guess which one is which!

Yeah, the Pro-GM is allowed to have fun, too, side is advocating for a genuinr back-and-forth, while the "give the player always what he wants crowd" is not able to compromise, is demeaning and insulting of DMs who not give a player 110% of what he wants, always, all the time. The side that is talking about winning and capitulation when it is about game preferences in a game of pretend elf is definitely in the wrong here.

From the way folks have spoken in this thread, I am given to believe that something like 50% of GMs will not accept ANYTHING that isn't their maximum fun preference.

And from the way the "Player advocate"-side speaks, GMs need to always have to give in, or whole social groups will fall apart, because players can't say "no" and are hostages kf the D&D game and the DM needs to be a geneoreous Kidnapper.

----------------------------

You see, I can also misreperesent the opposite Position of mine in the most ungenerous way possible.

If the roles are not meaningful, why do people insist that the GM role gets so much power and control?

It is not control to say, that you don't want to run a game under certain conditions. Because this is about a game that anybody is entering out of their free will and nobody is forced to play it or die, for Tyrs Sake!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, the Pro-GM is allowed to have fun, too, side is advocating for a genuinr back-and-forth, while the "give the player always what he wants crowd" is not able to compromise, is demeaning and insulting of DMs who not give a player 110% of what he wants, always, all the time. The side that is talking about winning and capitulation when it is about game preferences in a game of pretend elf is definitely in the wrong here.

And from the way the "Player advocate"-side speaks, GMs need to always have to give in, or whole social groups will fall apart, because players can't say "no" and are hostages kf the D&D game and the DM needs to be a geneoreous Kidnapper.

----------------------------

You see, I can also misreperesent the opposite Position of mine in the most ungenerous way possible.

It is not control to say, that you don't want to run a game under certain conditions. Because this is about a game that anybody is entering out of their free will and nobody is forced to play it or die, for Tyrs Sake!

Quote me where I said that.

Quote me where I said "give the player always what [they] want".

You'll come up empty--I guarantee you this. Because I have said, repeatedly, that everyone is on the same playing field.

Meanwhile, there are multiple people in this thread who have repeatedly said, when you actually get them to sit down and make a clear, simple statement, that when the player wants X and the GM wants not-X, the GM always wins. Doesn't matter what X is. The GM gets it and the players don't. Period.

Do you disagree? Is that not what was said mere minutes ago (bolded for emphasis):

If push comes to shove my preference wins.

It pretty much never cones to that as my players are mono focus on a must have xyz they dig in over.

"If push comes to shove, my preference wins."

There is no alternative. The GM always gets what they want. The players might, if they're fortunate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

People tend to identify with the role they most often invest in

Out of the last 8 years, 5 of them were years in which I was not a player. All of them have been years I was a GM.

Out of the last 15 years, 10 of them were years in which I was not a player.

I don't identify with either role here. I am a player. I am a GM. When GMing, I hold myself to the same standard, or perhaps higher, as I would any GM I play with. When playing, I treat GMs with at least as much respect as I would like when GMing, generally more.

My position is not changed by either role.

 

[SableWyvern]

"If push comes to shove, my preference wins."

There is no alternative. The GM always gets what they want. The players might, if they're fortunate.

Only if you assume there are constant disputes that can't be resolved amicably.

And, if there are constant disputes that can't be resolved amicably, with people constantly wanting different things, the issue isn't who has right of veto.

More likely, in @Zardnaar's games, disputes are rare and usually resolved easily and amicably. On very rare occasions, the GM needs to use their power of veto. This means, 99% of the time, everyone is happy and, on rare occasions the GM uses their power to mandate a solution everyone finds acceptable.

Your scenario, where players rarely get what they want and their opinions don't matter, is not believable, because if that was really the case, Zardnaar would most likely not have a group in the first place..

 

[M_Natas]

Quote me where I said that.

Quote me where I said "give the player always what [they] want".

Your "side". You are speaking of sides. You are lumping everybody together.

You'll come up empty--I guarantee you this. Because I have said, repeatedly, that everyone is on the same playing field.

Meanwhile, there are multiple people in this thread who have repeatedly said, when you actually get them to sit down and make a clear, simple statement, that when the player wants X and the GM wants not-X, the GM always wins. Doesn't matter what X is. The GM gets it and the players don't. Period.

It is not about winning or loosing, a concept that your side brought in and already poisned the discussion with.

Do you disagree? Is that not what was said mere minutes ago (bolded for emphasis):

"If push comes to shove, my preference wins."

There is no alternative. The GM always gets what they want. The players might, if they're fortunate.

No. In this case both GM/Player "win", because now a GM and a player are not playing together, because they have incompatible gaming preferences.
The tortle hater and tortle lover would lose, when they are forced ti play together, no matter what, because one if them would be miserable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The tortle hater and tortle lover would lose, when they are forced ti play together, no matter what, because one if them would be miserable.

Then let me speak clearly and succinctly.

I think it's petty to the point of jerk to have your fun completely ruined by someone in your game playing a turtle-person.

 

[M_Natas]

Your "side". You are speaking of sides. You are lumping everybody together.

It is not about winning or loosing, a concept that your side brought in and already poisned the discussion with.

No. In this case both GM/Player "win", because now a GM and a player are not playing together, because they have incompatible gaming preferences.
The tortle hater and tortle lover would lose, when they are forced ti play together, no matter what, because one if them would be miserable.

Let me double down on that:

The "GM-Side" is saying, that when a GM and Player have two preferences that are incompatible, e.g.

• wants to play evil PC vs no evil PCs ever
• wants to sex up all the Tavern Maidens vs. no akward sex and flirting in my campaigns
• Tortle lover vs. Tortle hater

Those should not play together.

This is about a situation, where a compromise is not possible.

And not playing together is actually a win for both, because they are incompatible at the table. Playing together would be a loose situation

This is not about a sitiuation where a compromise is possible. This is about red lines in the sand, that shall not be crossed.

A GM with chelonaphobia should not play with "I only want to play a ninja turtle!"-guy.
A 12 year old DM should not play with 34 year old horny bard guy, who hits on his mom in front of him.
Some of those red lines are irrational or don't make sense to you. But especially when they don't make sense to you then you should not play together. And that is a "win"!