Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 9829729" data-attributes="member: 18182">I'm not sure if we are in agreement or not on this, so I'm not arguing against you but trying to further this conversation . . .D&D does have a shared understanding, it's the options in the PHB. This, of course, has evolved over the 50 years of the game, and there are a lot more player options in the core rules now than back in 1974. The various additional player options found in other official D&D sources are . . . kind of in a limbo between being a part of that shared understanding and being optional building blocks for player groups to use, or not, as they see fit. Some groups feel like anything outside the PHB needs either DM approval, a group discussion, or both before being included. Other groups feel that anything in the official books (other than perhaps campaign specific sources) should be OK without issue.Officially, clearly stated in the core rules . . . everything is optional. DMs can use or restrict any player option from the PHB or from other sources in their world-building. Now, DMs who do this should be prepared for irritated players who come into the game expecting to play something from the core rules (dragonborn), or from an official supplement (tortles). This is where a clear pitch and a good Session Zero discussion can smooth over potential upset. But ultimately, if your DMing style (controlling and restrictive) doesn't mesh with the type of game I'm interested in as a player (open and collaborative), then someone has to give in or decide not to play. Which, either way, is okay.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.For DMs who decide to break that shared understanding . . . fine, but show me that your campaign story is worth that break. And be willing to adapt your campaign to accommodate player concepts, within reason. And communicate that clearly in your initial pitch, as much as you can anyways (you probably didn't predict I'd want to play a turtle person perhaps).</blockquote>

Verification