It would be nice if you'd stop being condescending in every post you made too, but it's not going to happen so I'll live.
pot...kettle...black.
Now had you not come in here with such an accusing tone then we would not have this issue. Do you wish to start over and be civil?
Maybe you're missing this, but there are actually multiple trains of discussion occurring in this thread you've created not just the original. "Why ban for flavor?"
Then you should specify which one you are discussing.
edit:got rid of extra words.
If you ask for a reason, it is given and you can't wrap your mind around it... Sorry, not the fault of the guy who answered if you just can't understand/accept a concept.
There are 3 situations when things can't be understood.
1. The concept is beyond someone's grasp.
2. The explanation is lacking.
3. Both of the above.
In this case I have an acceptable answer that was given to me by someone who does not agree with banning fluff because of a name, and another person(Massive Pauldron) who gave the same reason, but with different words.
I am only speaking for myself because I don't know if the answer is acceptable to others. I also said that answer was ok well before MP made his comment. Once again I am only speaking for myself.
PS:I have no idea if that was directed towards me or someone else.
|
I'm going to point out that the modern world has ninjas, we just call them "spies" or "special operatives", but they all serve the same purposes.By the same token you could call an Abrams a Cannon Golem, or a Howitzer a Catapult. Just because they serve similar functions doesn't mean they evoke a similar feel.Pretty sure renaissance Italy had some pretty secretive people who poisoned people and snuck around. Stabbings in dark alleys, etc.
If a person can use the magic in their blood to change the world around them, people with ki powers are not outrageous.
Middle-eastern assassins could easily just get their powers from the drugs they smoke. Still pretty much the same class in a magical setting.
Yeah perfectly reasonable, though maybe change out the weapon proficiencies to fit the adjustment. I'm not a fan of saying one type of weapon is another in appearance, but not in function. Regardless that's totally up to you I get that generally speaking changing the proficiencies from a eastern weapons will be a downgrade and what people are looking for is a more viable rogue.
It would be nice if you'd stop being condescending in every post you made too, but it's not going to happen so I'll live.pot...kettle...black.
Now had you not come in here with such an accusing tone then we would not have this issue. Do you wish to start over and be civil?
Sure I'll start over, and for whats it worth I was more referring to posts not directed at me. I could care less about what people think about me. That said I might have an over-inflated opinion of my ability to perceive tone.
Maybe you're missing this, but there are actually multiple trains of discussion occurring in this thread you've created not just the original. "Why ban for flavor?"Then you should specify which one you are discussing.
edit:got rid of extra words.
I quoted TheRonin and not you in that particular case, though I had started up multiple points of argument so I suppose I understand the confusion. I will try to be more clear in the future.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah perfectly reasonable, though maybe change out the weapon proficiencies to fit the adjustment. I'm not a fan of saying one type of weapon is another in appearance, but not in function. Regardless that's totally up to you I get that generally speaking changing the proficiencies from a eastern weapons will be a downgrade and what people are looking for is a more viable rogue.I'm going to point out that the modern world has ninjas, we just call them "spies" or "special operatives", but they all serve the same purposes.By the same token you could call an Abrams a Cannon Golem, or a Howitzer a Catapult. Just because they serve similar functions doesn't mean they evoke a similar feel.Pretty sure renaissance Italy had some pretty secretive people who poisoned people and snuck around. Stabbings in dark alleys, etc.
If a person can use the magic in their blood to change the world around them, people with ki powers are not outrageous.
Middle-eastern assassins could easily just get their powers from the drugs they smoke. Still pretty much the same class in a magical setting.
That's specifics that I don't care about right now. You and I aren't planning a campaign together.
Overall, I just don't see a lot of anti-ninja arguments holding a lot of water, other than irrational dislike of the source of the concept (or fanboys thereof). Once you add wizards, sorcerers, monks, clerics, etc... you can't deny that people already use magical powers to do things in the world. The Arcane Trickster exists, but it's so weak if I were the DM, I would alter the Ninja class and offer it to the player instead.
The mechanics are there and they exist. You aren't required to use them, but if they accurately model what a player wants to do, the fluff you aren't using isn't an excuse to exclude it. It's like hating the color lime green, and because you saw a lime green ferarri once, you don't want to ride in your friends red one. You're entitled to your dislike of the color lime green, but it's a silly excuse to not ride in a red car.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if, What if, What if.Okay, I'll play your game you rogue. What if that happens?
Although I also have fun thinking of this hypothetical conversation.
** spoiler omitted **
Hey, you started that game. Don't complain about it now.
And if I'd get rid of Alkenstar (or any other country on Golarion)? What's the problem? You can't play a gunslinger without it? Sorry, but where's your flexibility?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The flexibility you ask from the GM is not a one-way street. I'd expect the same flexibility from you as a player when I tell you, no, you can't play that particular character, please change it so that it fits, or come up with different one.Nobody (or almost nobody) in this thread is disagreeing with you. I can't remember a single post where someone said characters with concepts that don't fit the world should be played.
What people are saying is characters that do fit the world should be allowed to be played, even if that character uses a class whose traditional fluff does not fit the world.
Same difference. When does that question come up, usually? I would hazard the guess it's when the players tell the GM what they want to play.
The prevalent opinion I see here is that all of the "blame" is laid on the GM. Maybe he and the player simply disagree on what fits and what does not? Who should relent? The GM, who does all the work to come up with great campaign? Or one player, whose options are a bit more varied, and who may even have access to different options, now that the GM has altered the setting?
Or maybe the GM does not have fun when a player plays a certain class, despite changed fluff?
There can be any number of reasons to not allow something in game, from fluff over mechanics to real world constraints (time to alter something, for example). Squabbling over that is pointless and immature. The GM bans something? So what. Play something else. His decision is as legitimate as your desire to play a certain class.
Disclaimer: I usually don't ban anything, apart maybe from the gunslinger in Eberron. I'd probably have a problem with the samurai, but for the disconnect between fluff and mechanics rather than the fluff alone. I just don't get the hostility that is leveled at GMs who do not allow certain things.
It is a bit baffling.
I'm going to point out that the modern world has ninjas, we just call them "spies" or "special operatives", but they all serve the same purposes.By the same token you could call an Abrams a Cannon Golem, or a Howitzer a Catapult. Just because they serve similar functions doesn't mean they evoke a similar feel.
Place those dudes in black pajamas and... wait, they already wear black pajamas.... Umm.... I guess you want to give them ancient weapons? One of the most important sticking points of the ninja was that they'd use ANYTHING they could get a hold of as a weapon, well in modern times, the ninjas have machine guns, grenade launchers, and packs of C4.
The whole perception that "they only used the kama, katana, kusarigama, nunchaku, sai, shortbow, short sword, shuriken, siangham, and wakizashi" is incredibly flawed, because it isn't accurate. They specialized in being opportunistic. A bad ninja sticks to all of the older ways, ways that will get him killed very quickly, because no matter how many tanks your katana can cut through, you are not bulletproof.
The Abrams actually replaces the knight, it's just a heck of a lot scarier than any army of knights.
They don't have the same feel, because the modern world doesn't have the same feel as Feudal Japan has, but, much like the modern house isn't anything like the Feudal Japanese house, they are still the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You obviously need to rethink your stance, Blue Star. A katana is at LEAST (20d12/3-20/X8) plus meteor swarm at will and death spell at anyone hit. It makes you invincible, that's the entire point! Why else would all those people in feudal Japan use katanas? To fight other people with katanas, of course! It's the only weapon that makes anyone stand a chance. Tanks? Pffft.
When that katana makes you bulletproof, I'll care, until then: meh.
... to have people "attack" your ideals but, thats what makes them stronger ideals or they fall away as silly.
In both cases the word should be ideas not ideals. They are loosely related words, but they do not mean the same thing.
Sorry, pet peeve of mine. My son does the same thing and it drives me nuts.
:p
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have we had anybody say BADWRONGFUN yet?
Because some players want unlimited ability to build whatever PC they want in whatever game. And some GMs prefer to set a tone for their campaign that involves some restrictions on player choice. Neither one is badwrongfun. Play how you want with who you want. Bandying around pejoratives like "entitled player" or "tyrannical GM" is not really conducive to grown up discussion.
Katanas, though... katanas are badwrongfun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if, What if, What if.Okay, I'll play your game you rogue. What if that happens?
Although I also have fun thinking of this hypothetical conversation.
** spoiler omitted **
Hey, you started that game. Don't complain about it now.
And if I'd get rid of Alkenstar (or any other country on Golarion)? What's the problem? You can't play a gunslinger without it? Sorry, but where's your flexibility?
I would play a gunslinger from a different region if allowed.
But you are missing my point. If you have a designed a world with no Alkenstar, mostly likely you have done so for no reason other then disallowing Guns. The issue is then, not that guns won't fit into your campaign world. The issue is 'you don't like guns'. And have gone out of your way to design a world were everything is the same except for that.
And if that is the case then just fess up to it. This isn't an issue of a player not being flexible, this is an issue of a player wanting to play a specific concept, and the GM going out of their way to design a world were that concept is invalid, for no story reason except they don't like that concept.
So admit it and move on.
Its no different than "Guns can't exist in my world because bat guano supplies are to low!". You just don't want guns in YOUR fantasy, and you feel your preference should override the player's because you are the mighty GM.
But my god at least admit it!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have we had anybody say BADWRONGFUN yet?
Because some players want unlimited ability to build whatever PC they want in whatever game. And some GMs prefer to set a tone for their campaign that involves some restrictions on player choice. Neither one is badwrongfun. Play how you want with who you want. Bandying around pejoratives like "entitled player" or "tyrannical GM" is not really conducive to grown up discussion.
Katanas, though... katanas are badwrongfun.
I don't have a problem with people that dislike my DMing style. What I do have a problem with is the following comments that call my integrity as a DM into question. Like I'm supposed to feel bad because I ban things that I don't want in my campaign.
|
Have we had anybody say BADWRONGFUN yet?
Because some players want unlimited ability to build whatever PC they want in whatever game. And some GMs prefer to set a tone for their campaign that involves some restrictions on player choice. Neither one is badwrongfun.
"Whaddaya mean, I can't play a glitterboy mech pilot, in Testament?"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with people that dislike my DMing style. What I do have a problem with is the following comments that call my integrity as a DM into question. Like I'm supposed to feel bad because I ban things that I don't want in my campaign.Have we had anybody say BADWRONGFUN yet?
Because some players want unlimited ability to build whatever PC they want in whatever game. And some GMs prefer to set a tone for their campaign that involves some restrictions on player choice. Neither one is badwrongfun. Play how you want with who you want. Bandying around pejoratives like "entitled player" or "tyrannical GM" is not really conducive to grown up discussion.
Katanas, though... katanas are badwrongfun.
What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Whaddaya mean, I can't play a glitterboy mech pilot, in Testament?"
This is basically what I am writing, right now. :D
It's called the Armiger, and there's a thread about it currently in suggestions/homebrew. It was inspired by this very discussion.
|
|
What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.
Well I'm curious, because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions, any notions of integrity have left the building long time ago via the chimney.
The way it rolls at my table is that I'm super cool with Kitsune Ninja/Summoners as long as the other side is turbo happy with me fielding Gunslingers and grumpy clerics of Erastil and vice versa.
I have my tastes, the players have their tastes, let's mix and match it, shouldn't we? If I (oh dear here comes an epic derail that will end in tears and liberals in the thread, HANG ON) introduce a gay NPC one of my players tells me "I'm OK, as long as the NPC won't hit on me, because that would feel very strange to me for personal reasons" I say "sure no problem there buddy" and if one of my player tells me she wants to play a half-orc slaver and I tell her it's all fine as long as no children are going to be involved she goes "right on" and we all go along, same applies to class/race/feat/spell/squirrel choice...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if you're just uncompromising about Antagonize?What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.
That's a feat, not a class. Stay on topic!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I'm curious, because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions, any notions of integrity have left the building long time ago via the chimney.What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.
Wait... if integrity went out through the chimney, then who did I see going out the window? Dignity?
|
|
Well I'm curious, because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions, any notions of integrity have left the building long time ago via the chimney.What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.
Actually I present my games to my players and after explaining what isn't allowed, if it is a specific game, then they decide whether they want to play it or not.
I don't force anything on anyone just like I don't expect to be forced to change my game for their sake every time they want me to.
I am pretty much anything goes. When I don't want something in my campaign I explain why and ask my players their thoughts. We have all agreed that we don't like the Atagonize feat and Summoners, so they aren't allowed at my table. (Summoners because the mechanics are confusing and well, we find that when someone is controlling multiple creatures it really slow things down for our group, so we decided just to move by that options. Other classes have that issue, but you can build away from those much easier than you can with the Summoner.)
Well I'm curious, because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions, any notions of integrity have left the building long time ago via the chimney.What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.Actually I present my games to my players and after explaining what isn't allowed, if it is a specific game, then they decide whether they want to play it or not.
I don't force anything one anyone just like I don't expect to force my to change my game for their sake every time they want me to.
So you do exactly what he said you do.
"...after explaining what isn't allowed..." = "You will play what I want..."
"...then they decide whether they want to play or not." = "...the door is that way."
|
|
Well I'm curious, because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions, any notions of integrity have left the building long time ago via the chimney.What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.Actually I present my games to my players and after explaining what isn't allowed, if it is a specific game, then they decide whether they want to play it or not.
I don't force anything one anyone just like I don't expect to force my to change my game for their sake every time they want me to.
So you do exactly what he said you do.
"...after explaining what isn't allowed..." = "You will play what I want..."
"...then they decide whether they want to play or not." = "...the door is that way."
Actually no.
Here is a campaign that I would like to run. It involves ABC and I am not allowing XYZ. Anyone want to play?
No? That's cool, Bobby has a game that he would like to run so let's hear his proposal and decide.
If you can't see the difference then that's your problem.
|
|
Well I'm curious, because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions, any notions of integrity have left the building long time ago via the chimney.What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.Actually I present my games to my players and after explaining what isn't allowed, if it is a specific game, then they decide whether they want to play it or not.
I don't force anything on anyone just like I don't expect to be forced to change my game for their sake every time they want me to.
I am morbidly curious as to two things:
1. What happens if a player says "why don't you allow X? Can we discuss that?"
2. What happens if a player says "OK, X and Y are out. Fine, you have your ideas. Now, I personally dislike Z (eg: elves) and wouldn't mind that element out. Can we discuss that?"
Oh god, I am getting flashbacks to the "SURPRISE, I BANNED THEM INSTEAD" scenario now...
... to have people "attack" your ideals but, thats what makes them stronger ideals or they fall away as silly.In both cases the word should be ideas not ideals. They are loosely related words, but they do not mean the same thing.
Sorry, pet peeve of mine. My son does the same thing and it drives me nuts.
So I failed my grammar test :sad face: (yea that is what I meant ideas.) thanks for catching that.
Oh god, I am getting flashbacks to the "SURPRISE, I BANNED THEM INSTEAD" scenario now...
Are you referring to a hypothetical in this thread (or some other thread), or did that actually happen to you?
Oh god, I am getting flashbacks to the "SURPRISE, I BANNED THEM INSTEAD" scenario now...Are you referring to a hypothetical in this thread (or some other thread), or did that actually happen to you?
The latter. I have told of it before.
Well I'm curious, because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions, any notions of integrity have left the building long time ago via the chimney.What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.Actually I present my games to my players and after explaining what isn't allowed, if it is a specific game, then they decide whether they want to play it or not.
I don't force anything on anyone just like I don't expect to be forced to change my game for their sake every time they want me to.
I am morbidly curious as to two things:
1. What happens if a player says "why don't you allow X? Can we discuss that?"
2. What happens if a player says "OK, X and Y are out. Fine, you have your ideas. Now, I personally dislike Z (eg: elves) and wouldn't mind that element out. Can we discuss that?"
Hey now, I think I've asked before as a player if there were games where I didn't have to deal with Drow or Elitist, Mary Sue Elves before after a horrible experience involving said elements. Considering that it's a single character compared to a whole world, it was easier to just look for a game that didn't have them than to ask the GM to change the whole world.
Seriously though, there are cases where players will request things, such as no rapists, sexists, or sluts. Not that those aren't valid in other games, but sometimes in your escapism you just don't want to deal with certain things.
I don't see why the GM isn't allowed that same courtesy considering that they're putting all that time and effort to run a game.
The latter. I have told of it before.Oh god, I am getting flashbacks to the "SURPRISE, I BANNED THEM INSTEAD" scenario now...Are you referring to a hypothetical in this thread (or some other thread), or did that actually happen to you?
Huh. So much for people in this thread claiming that such a scenario would never happen, and that anyone claiming that it does is making up a caricature or hypothetical.
Got a link? I'd be interested in reading it.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
... because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions ...
How is that any different from "YOU WILL MAKE YOUR CAMPAIGN TO ALLOW WHATEVER I WANT OR I QUIT." Both are closeminded and extrememly self centered.
The way I see it, there is a pretty huge difference between "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" and "These 3 options of the umpteen bajillion are not available in this campaign because they don't fit in the world I've created."
Especially since I have never said I am unwilling to discuss. As it has worked out, my current group is not interested in playing in the world I am making. That is ok, I am running the 'Curse of the Golden Spear' series for them. Eventually, when ready, I will look for another group that is interested in a low magic and non-tech item campaign.
The latter. I have told of it before.Oh god, I am getting flashbacks to the "SURPRISE, I BANNED THEM INSTEAD" scenario now...Are you referring to a hypothetical in this thread (or some other thread), or did that actually happen to you?Huh. So much for people in this thread claiming that such a scenario would never happen, and that anyone claiming that it does is making up a caricature or hypothetical.
Got a link? I'd be interested in reading it.
I don't recall writing it in a full detailed manner, but I've made numerous mentions of it with varying levels of detail.
So here's more or less the story. Basically, I told my DM back in the 3.5e days that I got inspired to make a few homebrew races. He seemed neutral about them at first, and I got write-ups for them done that I later showed to him. After our first campaign was done, he had an idea for another one, and I asked him if one of the homebrew races could be included in the new campaign world. Initially, he agreed. I also asked him if I could play one (he planned to have them wiped out, with mine being the last of her kind). When I asked if the character could be an Aasimar as well (not stat-wise, merely for fluff reasons since aasimar are not limited to humans), not only did he choose to say no, but he removed my race from the campaign completely.
THAT started a big mess (he basically betrayed me there), since later on I had different ideas after the first big heated argument ended, and he suddenly decided that he won't allow any of my homebrews in ANY of his campaigns. Hell, he even went on to mock one of them (my favourite one) behind my back to the rest of the group, who were too scared of the big bad DM to help me. The only one he said he liked was the one I liked the least. Adding to all this, he seemed to more or less overlook the write-ups I made for them so they can be incorporated to the various campaign settings, insulting me and all the sweat blood and tears I poured to get all that done without breaking whatever image said settings (like Golarion, Eberron and Forgotten Realms) more or less invoke.
To put shortly, he went from banning one thing to banning all, over one small thing I asked for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last time my DM banned a class, it was simply the Monk. And he banned it under the advice of another player that was the consistent DM before. Basically he stated that Monks were impossible to play because in order to constantly be capable of the feats of strength, willpower, and agility, the character would have no time for any interaction besides training. Because realistically speaking, the monk would need to work out constantly. I told him flat out that if he wants to inject realism into his game that harshly, he needs to check the rest of the party. The fighter can't keep the mead and mutton down for two seconds, nor is he sharpening his weapons. The wizard can't be bothered to study, experiment, or practice. The ranger doesn't teach his pets any tricks, and the magus is a jerk whose player he refused to smack down despite the absolute douchebaggery that was bringing the game down.
Let me put it this way. I don't particularly have an issue with DM fiat. I actually make good use of it. But the DM should be able to hold their decision up to scrutiny and do so on solid ground. If a player has an option to use a class as a template for their concept, the DM should at least hear it out before anything, and stop using class names as absolutes. Druids as wizards, wizards as witches, witches as priests, etc.
I don't ban classes. I allow what's appropriate.
Read* as "I ban what I don't find appropriate".
* = Past tense of the word
Also, maybe the Numerian Space Marine can be a Prestige Class?
... because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions ...How is that any different from "YOU WILL MAKE YOUR CAMPAIGN TO ALLOW WHATEVER I WANT OR I QUIT." Both are closeminded and extrememly self centered.
The way I see it, there is a pretty huge difference between "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" and "These 3 options of the umpteen bajillion are not available in this campaign because they don't fit in the world I've created."
Especially since I have never said I am unwilling to discuss. As it has worked out, my current group is not interested in playing in the world I am making. That is ok, I am running the 'Curse of the Golden Spear' series for them. Eventually, when ready, I will look for another group that is interested in a low magic and non-tech item campaign.
1) I'm pretty sure that wasn't directed at you.
2) I am also pretty sure that no one here is legitimately claiming that players should be able to force their ideas onto GMs or they'll quit. What the players want is to be able to talk about it and not have it flat out banned without discussion or the possibility of a reflavor to get the mechanics they want. In fact, the only people in this thread who I've seen claim that players want to "force their ideas into a campaign or quit" are the people who are arguing against that idea; aka a strawman.
Conversely, I have seen several people make the claim that this is their table, their game, their rules, and that's that; if you don't like it, feel free to leave.
The truth is, there needs to be at least some compromise, from both sides. Not just from one or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't ban classes. I allow what's appropriate.Read* as "I ban what I don't find appropriate".
* = Past tense of the word
Also, maybe the Numerian Space Marine can be a Prestige Class?
So does that mean that you'd consider me less of a GM if I don't allow Jedi Warriors in Greyhawk? or Mutants and Masterminds in Golarion, even though they use D20 mechanics?
A world that has everything has no character, it's a grey munge. What you leave out of a world is as much if not more a defining character than what you include.
The way one phrases a question or an answer speaks voluminousness about attitude.
1. Please don't put words in my mouth.
2. In your opinion. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
3. Could you try not to project so much, it's almost painfully obvious by now.
Also, please refer to the post above you instead of continuing this silly shouting contest.
The truth is, there needs to be at least some compromise, from both sides. Not just from one or the other.
The problem might be escalation; allowing something could open the door to needing to make the choice between allowing another derailment or make another player (or more) unhappy.
The truth is, there needs to be at least some compromise, from both sides. Not just from one or the other.The problem might be escalation; allowing something could open the door to needing to make the choice between allowing another derailment or make another player (or more) unhappy.
Might be, if we assume all people are idiots. I might be cynical, but I wouldn't go that far just yet :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... 1) I'm pretty sure that wasn't directed at you ...
I agree that it wasn't specifically directed at me. But at least some of it seems to be directed at anyone that doesn't allow everything.
... 2) I am also pretty sure that no one here is legitimately claiming that players should be able to force their ideas onto GMs or they'll quit ...
hmm... Some of it kinda reads that way. But that may be due to the tempers flying and exaggeration on both sides. And I have had players do exactly that.
... What the players want is to be able to talk about it and not have it flat out banned without discussion or the possibility of a reflavor to get the mechanics they want…
The way some of it is being stated, both sides sound rather one way. I have to say that as a GM, I have in the past (prior editions) put a huge amount of time and effort into creating a world that makes sense to me and that I can enjoy. It is very disheartening to have players agree to play then have the players complain that I did not change everything to cater to them.
I’m not saying that is what you are proposing, but it illustrates the point. I think both sides are basing their arguments on extreme examples that rarely happen. Note I said rarely not never. I’ve seen both.
GM’s that arbitrarily change rules for no reason with no warning. I’m not allowing you to animate anymore because it is too overpowered. You will have to rely on the other necromancy spells.
Players that complain because their pirate didn’t get to shine in the dwarven undermountain campaign. And he only got to play the pirate because he threw a fit about it being banned in the setup.