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="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9831502" data-attributes="member: 93670">That was provided earlier here.I could include"<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-monsters-know-what-theyre-doing-are-unsure-on-5e24.716720/post-9830982" target="_blank">This is one of those cases where you're being, if anything, overly genero</a>us" as well.  It very much seems like you recognize that d&d does not definition one  entitle players to insist the gm permit them I revise the game world over a gm objection while shunning gm efforts to find some middle ground that allows the prospective player to become a player at their table and be attached to something like previously described in  <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-monsters-know-what-theyre-doing-are-unsure-on-5e24.716720/post-9831054" target="_blank">post 1948</a> that the gm does agree with but the social expectation that wotc & 5e has curated is one where definition two is an entirely reasonable mindset for players to have towards the GM provided they don't explicitly say it.    I say that italicized underscored bit having seen more than one in person player try to tell me and other nearby table FLGS d&d5e  AL GM's that "the GM's job is to xxx" hoping to force some desired ruling more than once.Once again... When a player who is entitled by definition one to create a village by rules of the game or an employer/employee relationship  the gm is not entitled by either definition to say no to the player world building during character creation or to decline allowing their employer to play at the table they are being paid to run.  Except no such rules exist and we obviously have no reason to assume an employer/employee relationship as the default player/gm dynamic</blockquote>

Verification