If the issue is the existence or non existence of something yes someone DOES have to "win", because it DOES either exist or not.The players are real people. They exist in the real world.
The setting is imaginary. It exists only in your mind.
Its existed for twenty plus years. So ...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, then so does the pc, and he doesn't need that elf?
His imaginary elf is no more or less precious than your imaginary setting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its existed for twenty plus years. So ...
Sorry, duration does not change "imaginary" things into "real" ones. There are people who spent their whole adult lives convinced that they were Jesus Christ, or Napoleon, or whatever. Didn't make it true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the smurfs are true!!!
Sorry, duration does not change "imaginary" things into "real" ones. There are people who spent their whole adult lives convinced that they were Jesus Christ, or Napoleon, or whatever. Didn't make it true.Its existed for twenty plus years. So ...
Right. Whatever. Then you would be absolutely fine with demanding a character being brought to the table that the player has through twelve levels be changed, right?
Then you would be absolutely fine with demanding a character being brought to the table that the player has through twelve levels be changed, right?
You're still badly confused. I'm not big on friends -- real people -- "demanding" things of each other. Who gets to be DM, who is the "player," imaginary settings, imaginary characters are all equally meaningless in the larger view of things.
It would be like you brining your prexisting tenth level character into a game and me saying "you can play him,just change his race."
Well if the character was not from the same setting at exactly the same time period, like others, I would imagine it is a little weird to bring in a pre-existing character. Not that it couldn't work, hell magic is ... well ... magical.
I know your character has always been an elf but just make hi a gnome,instead. It won't change a thing about him. He'll be exactly the same. No difference. Why not?
Well I would suggest that a direct comparison between cultures and individuals is not always appropriate. For example, I would imagine that Chinese are shorting than African-Americans on average. But I would suggest that the cultural differences between these two groups has less to do with their relative difference in sizes than other factors. On the other hand, I would wager that the life experiences of Emmanuel Lewis and Yao Ming were influenced much more by their differences in size. So I believe sized probably plays a bigger part on individuals lives than it does on the development of cultures.
It would be like you brining your prexisting tenth level character into a game and me saying "you can play him,just change his race."Well if the character was not from the same setting at exactly the same time period, like others, I would imagine it is a little weird to bring in a pre-existing character. Not that it couldn't work, hell magic is ... well ... magical.
I know your character has always been an elf but just make hi a gnome,instead. It won't change a thing about him. He'll be exactly the same. No difference. Why not?Well I would suggest that a direct comparison between cultures and individuals is not always appropriate. For example, I would imagine that Chinese are shorting than African-Americans on average. But I would suggest that the cultural differences between these two groups has less to do with their relative difference in sizes than other factors. On the other hand, I would wager that the life experiences of Emmanuel Lewis and Yao Ming were influenced much more by their differences in size. So I believe sized probably plays a bigger part on individuals lives than it does on the development of cultures.
I think as long as you are holding onto this "fine for me but not for thee" philosophy, there ally isn't much room for discussion.
It would be like you brining your prexisting tenth level character into a game and me saying "you can play him,just change his race."Well if the character was not from the same setting at exactly the same time period, like others, I would imagine it is a little weird to bring in a pre-existing character. Not that it couldn't work, hell magic is ... well ... magical.
I know your character has always been an elf but just make hi a gnome,instead. It won't change a thing about him. He'll be exactly the same. No difference. Why not?Well I would suggest that a direct comparison between cultures and individuals is not always appropriate. For example, I would imagine that Chinese are shorting than African-Americans on average. But I would suggest that the cultural differences between these two groups has less to do with their relative difference in sizes than other factors. On the other hand, I would wager that the life experiences of Emmanuel Lewis and Yao Ming were influenced much more by their differences in size. So I believe sized probably plays a bigger part on individuals lives than it does on the development of cultures.
You think the difference in size had more to do with the differences in the personas of Yao Ming and Emmanuel Lewis than the culture? Really?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please edit your posts if you want to make 2 comments. All you are doing is driving up the post counts and making it harder for everyone else to keep up. You have up to an hour after your initial post was made to edit it.[/rant]
I think as long as you are holding onto this "fine for me but not for thee" philosophy, there [re]ally isn't much room for discussion.
Whaaaat? LOL, that is the entire premise of your argument. That as a GM you have the "fine for me but not for thee" philosophy.
But I have never taken that stance. I have agreed that a player could change the character. In fact most people have said so, I know for example Kirth has repeatedly ... repeatedly ... said that if the group doesn't want that race, the player has a responsibility to change the character for the group.
Some of us feel this responsibility for the group also extents to the GM.
My comment was that trying to say A is to B is the same as C is to D, may not always be appropriate when comparing societies to each other as apposed to individuals to each other. Things that might not make any difference to societies might be very important for individuals and vice versa.
You think the difference in size had more to do with the differences in the personas of Yao Ming and Emmanuel Lewis than the culture? Really?
No. *takes a calming breath* I said that size played a much bigger part on them as individuals than it did on their respective cultures. I was not comparing the effect of culture and size on Yao Ming. I was comparing the effect of size on Yao Ming and China.
Please edit your posts if you want to make 2 comments. All you are doing is driving up the post counts and making it harder for everyone else to keep up. You have up to an hour after your initial post was made to edit it.[/rant]
I think as long as you are holding onto this "fine for me but not for thee" philosophy, there [re]ally isn't much room for discussion.Whaaaat? LOL, that is the entire premise of your argument. That as a GM you have the "fine for me but not for thee" philosophy.
But I have never taken that stance. I have agreed that a player could change the character. In fact most people have said so, I know for example Kirth has repeatedly ... repeatedly ... said that if the group doesn't want that race, the player has a responsibility to change the character for the group.
Some of us feel this responsibility for the group also extents to the GM.
My comment was that trying to say A is to B is the same as C is to D, may not always be appropriate when comparing societies to each other as apposed to individuals to each other. Things that might not make any difference to societies might be very important for individuals and vice versa.
You think the difference in size had more to do with the differences in the personas of Yao Ming and Emmanuel Lewis than the culture? Really?No. *takes a calming breath* I said that size played a much bigger part on them as individuals than it did on their respective cultures. I was not comparing the effect of culture and size on Yao Ming. I was comparing the effect of size on Yao Ming and China.
No. My stance is; once you have agreed to play in a campaign, which has certain ground rules you should stick with those ground rules. Or don't chose to play in that campaign. Don't agree to play in the hypothetical no elves world and then ask to play an elf.
And what we others are talking about is the discussion that happens BEFORE the agreement is made.
Of course if someone approaches [social] contract negotiations from the perspective that no discussion is necessary and in a meeting gives an ultimatum of "take it or leave". Then surely our viewpoint would seem strange to that person.
Difference being, I present a set of campaign worlds, each of which does have a certain set, however small they may be, of immutable conditions(rarely the same as each other.) Pick one or pick someone else to run.
I genally don't just make up worlds as I go while sitting at the table, its been a long process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... neither smurfs nor even bacon worked. Seriously, get over it. This idiot thread has gone beyond insane now. Literally every argument now is rehashed times fifty. From the start we did not discuss the same situation. I bowed out when it became too painful to have to restate that no, that was not what I said. I understand that you are still angry about being misrepresented. Everyone seems to get that from this thread.
For the sake of sanity, stop this. Either start discussing the same situation or accept that there will be differences in GMing style. Please.
Hate to break it to some posters, but your campaign setting..you know...isn't a real thing.
I think their is a tendency to treat world building for the game like world building for a novel, which is where I think a lot of the arguments in this thread are stemming from. But...those are not the same thing. If you have a rock solid awesome vision for your setting WHICH CAN NEVER BE CHANGED and has no room IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE for a given race, than you have a problem. Settings should be designed to have appropriate stories that the GM can run, and players can have fun with. If a GM is putting so much effort into his setting that he can tell you the trade routes for ten different spices before the game is ever played, he should consider just writing a novel or publishing the setting as 3pp. And remember no matter how awesome your setting is, it's ultimately going to be derivative of other settings, because that is pretty much what any DnD setting is, if it even remotely attempts to use the core rules.
Also...I don't think it has been commented on, but actually Kitsune are the worst example of a 0HD exotic race to argue against. All Kitsune have a human form, which means they are ridiculously easy to add, since they could just be living amongst humans in secret. As long as a player is willing to use the human form in towns/villages, there should be no problem.
Hate to break it to some posters, but your campaign setting..you know...isn't a real thing.
I think their is a tendency to treat world building for the game like world building for a novel, which is where I think a lot of the arguments in this thread are stemming from. But...those are not the same thing. If you have a rock solid awesome vision for your setting WHICH CAN NEVER BE CHANGED and has no room IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE for a given race, than you have a problem. Settings should be designed to have appropriate stories that the GM can run, and players can have fun with. If a GM is putting so much effort into his setting that he can tell you the trade routes for ten different spices before the game is ever played, he should consider just writing a novel or publishing the setting as 3pp. And remember no matter how awesome your setting is, it's ultimately going to be derivative of other settings, because that is pretty much what any DnD setting is, if it even remotely attempts to use the core rules.
Also...I don't think it has been commented on, but actually Kitsune are the worst example of a 0HD exotic race to argue against. All Kitsune have a human form, which means they are ridiculously easy to add, since they could just be living amongst humans in secret. As long as a player is willing to use the human form in towns/villages, there should be no problem.
If you have a vision for a character which can ONLY accommodate ONE race and has no room to be ANYTHIGN ELSE WHATSOEVER, then you might have a problem.
Back at ya.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hate to break it to some posters, but your campaign setting..you know...isn't a real thing.
Well yeah, but neither is my character.
Difference being, I present a set of campaign worlds, each of which does have a certain set, however small they may be, of immutable conditions(rarely the same as each other.) Pick one or pick someone else to run.
I genally don't just make up worlds as I go while sitting at the table, its been a long process.
Okay supposing I am bring a previously played, established character to your previously played, established campaign world. And let's say said character is a elf spell dancer magus, but I'm perfectly willing to play another race.
Would 1) you allow reskinning spell dancer as a different race's racial archtype; 2) let me rework the character by blowing a feat on racial heritage, even though there's no in-game race to inherit it from; or 3) Tell me that it's your campaign world and I can like it or lump it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"OK, and now Steve will introduce the next campaign."
"For two thousand years, elves ruled over all. Their mage-queens reigned for a century before abdicating to their chosen heir. Other races were tolerated, but had no say in government, nor were they permitted to enter the crystalline towers of the tree-shrouded elven cities. At last, the other races united in rebellion, and a terrible war began, one which wrought destruction across half the world. The feud grew more bitter and bloody by the year, until at last all elf life was destroyed. Now, three centuries later, a new civilisation has risen in the ashes of the old. You are part of an archaelogical survey team, sent to investigate whether the elves are truly extinct as most believe, or whether some dark and terrible remant remains, perhaps in the chasms below their desolate cities, alive or undead..."
"Sounds good. I'll play an elf."
Reskinning would be peachy.
Hate to break it to some posters, but your campaign setting..you know...isn't a real thing.
I think their is a tendency to treat world building for the game like world building for a novel, which is where I think a lot of the arguments in this thread are stemming from. But...those are not the same thing. If you have a rock solid awesome vision for your setting WHICH CAN NEVER BE CHANGED and has no room IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE for a given race, than you have a problem. Settings should be designed to have appropriate stories that the GM can run, and players can have fun with. If a GM is putting so much effort into his setting that he can tell you the trade routes for ten different spices before the game is ever played, he should consider just writing a novel or publishing the setting as 3pp. And remember no matter how awesome your setting is, it's ultimately going to be derivative of other settings, because that is pretty much what any DnD setting is, if it even remotely attempts to use the core rules.
Also...I don't think it has been commented on, but actually Kitsune are the worst example of a 0HD exotic race to argue against. All Kitsune have a human form, which means they are ridiculously easy to add, since they could just be living amongst humans in secret. As long as a player is willing to use the human form in towns/villages, there should be no problem.
Oh, for crying out... now the pendulum on the ridiculous scale swings the entire opposite direction.
No, I don't allow magma slurks in anything I DM, no, there's no room for them IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and no, it turns out I don't "have a problem".
No, I don't allow magma slurks in anything I DM, no, there's no room for them IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and no, it turns out I don't "have a problem".
Interesting. Spells like summon monster always imply to me that there are other planes out there. Maybe even places like elemental planes of fire and earth. Which maybe have magma-y border areas. There might be all kinds of magma-y critters there, including magma oozes and "magma slurks" (whatever they are).
The only barrier is whether they have level-appropriate abilities, because "play a +10 LA race in a 1st level party" isn't the same argument as "play a +0 LA exotic race alongside other +0 LA standard races."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hate to break it to some posters, but your campaign setting..you know...isn't a real thing.Well yeah, but neither is my character.
Tell that to Blackleaf. Oh, you can't because you killed her.
Tell that to Blackleaf. Oh, you can't because you killed her.Hate to break it to some posters, but your campaign setting..you know...isn't a real thing.Well yeah, but neither is my character.
Exhibit a ...
No, I don't allow magma slurks in anything I DM, no, there's no room for them IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and no, it turns out I don't "have a problem".Interesting. Spells like summon monster always imply to me that there are other planes out there. Maybe even places like elemental planes of fire and earth. Which maybe have magma-y border areas. There might be all kinds of magma-y critters there, including magma oozes and "magma slurks" (whatever they are).
The only barrier is whether they have level-appropriate abilities, because "play a +10 LA race in a 1st level party" isn't the same argument as "play a +0 LA exotic race alongside other +0 LA standard races."
Just because something can technically exist doesn't mean it has to exist.
"OK, and now Steve will introduce the next campaign."
"For two thousand years, elves ruled over all. Their mage-queens reigned for a century before abdicating to their chosen heir. Other races were tolerated, but had no say in government, nor were they permitted to enter the crystalline towers of the tree-shrouded elven cities. At last, the other races united in rebellion, and a terrible war began, one which wrought destruction across half the world. The feud grew more bitter and bloody by the year, until at last all elf life was destroyed. Now, three centuries later, a new civilisation has risen in the ashes of the old. You are part of an archaelogical survey team, sent to investigate whether the elves are truly extinct as most believe, or whether some dark and terrible remant remains, perhaps in the chasms below their desolate cities, alive or undead..."
"Sounds good. I'll play an elf."
"You really sure you need to do that, man? I was kinda assuming that there weren't going to be any elves in this campaign... though in retrospect I probably should have given you some heads up on that before I went and did a bunch of work on the idea, checked to see if you'd all be cool with that."
"That's cool, it's no big deal, I was just reeeeeeally psyched up because of the new Hobbit movies and I really, really, really love elves... but... *despondent sigh* if it's going to be that much extra work for you... I... guess I can be a gnome instead." *hangs head*
"...no, no I really want you to have the funnest possible time with this, and I'm pretty sure I can actually make this work now that I've thought about it for a minute. I'll have to change the specifics of some of the encounter details later on, but most of that won't even start to hit until you reach the ruins at the very least; you've still got that trek ahead of you. Okay, taking it from the top."
"For two thousand years, dragons ruled over all. Their sorceror-wyrms reigned for a century before...
Dragons and elves don't have even anything close to remotely the same flavor and implications to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, it's a matter of communication. If people are dead set against talking to each other or bending in the slightest, the game has more problems than playing anthropomorphic foxes or dark elves. You're setting yourself up for more problems along the road.
As an aside, the s***f thing is (to me) sort of like the exotic races. Nice in small doses, but after two or three the joke wears thin and loses the point, ya know?
Edited to remove s****f picture and to add: not to say that every exotic is a one note joke or disruptive, but that they may be viewed that way given the way that many are played or displayed.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My PFS characters right now are a human cleric, a gnome druid, a human bard, and a tiefling wizard. When I pick a race, it's for both RP and mechanical reasons. If I was to pick something for entirely mechanical reasons, it'd be a human, although a lot of mechanical thought went into my tiefling wizard.
I have two non-PFS pathfinder games I'm in, one is a Skull & Shackles game and the other is a campaign in a world the GM created and has used as a setting for years.
In the Skull & Shackles game I play a hobgoblin. A human would have been slightly better combat wise for the combat style I use, but a hobgoblin is more interesting. His background, the reasons he left his hobgoblin community (exile), why he turned to piracy, why he's chaotic neutral instead of lawful evil, these are things that inform how I play him and how he interacts with other people. And it's much more interesting than playing a regular human. For example, when our new fledgling pirates were punished, he scoffed and said he'd had worse when he was 4. Hobgoblin training starts early and stays brutal. This gives him the experience and perspective to laugh off anything anyone else tries to do to him.
In the homebrew game, we went into it with the intention of having it be a bizarre races game. We had copies of the Advanced Races Guide, and the GM told us to make 20 RP races for our characters. I made a race I called the Tuiju, they are basically vulture versions of Tengu (which are closer to crows) and their backstory is that they were magically uplifted from regular vultures, by Pharasma, to serve as her undead hunters in a desert full of ancient tombs where ghouls and skeletons walk the lonely sands at night. He eats anything, he's utterly appalling to most civilized people, and he has a fiercely pragmatic outlook on both life and death. I also made, for my wife, a enhanced version of Grippli called a Bull Grippli, who were magically mutated to be bigger and stronger by exposure to an ancient arcane temple in the depths of a swamp.
You can make exotic races interesting. You can also make humans interesting.
Just because something can technically exist doesn't mean it has to exist.
That's true, but just because you could always declare something non-existent doesn't mean you should necessarily always be so quick to do so.
Carefully developing something over a long while is not "being quick to do so"
My inclination is to include less with room to add if an appropriate niche exists then to throw everything into the pot and make a feckless mush of a stew.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can make exotic races interesting. You can also make humans interesting.
Reminds me of the old quote "There are no small parts, only small actors." Anything can be interesting if you are willing to pour some creativity and effort into it. I'm always leery when people tell me they've exhausted every avenue of a class or race.
I prefer to leave enough empty space in my setting that people can play what they like to.
I prefer to leave enough empty space in my setting that people can play what they like to.
Essentially, the only valid setting is a clone of Golarion or the Forgotten realms.
Oh, plenty of things are left undeveloped ... With certain things that AREN'T there. But plenty of things that could be.
And yes, I do tend to limit planar concerns. Because planar travel being plausible or easy would change things considerably. Incidentally, there isn't much done with summoning either, other than things like "natures ally"
And it has its own deity structure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So now your "carefully devised" setting includes a very limited multiverse, inner and outer planes that are no more expansive or varied than a typical village. Because, starting with the standard PF model of a multiverse full of planes of potentially infinite extent, that doesn't work. And the next obvious question, I guess, is to ask why the setting needs to be designed on such a limited scale, with no signle corner anywhere left undeveloped.
To expand on that: Arssanguinus, you've remarked that your players can affect the world by play. I think people are submitting that allowing changes at the beginning is just like that. Player created changes that can enrich your world and develop ideas and concepts that you may not have previously thought out. Instead of believing that any changes are disruptive, maybe you could look at them as chances to develop in ways you had not previously thought of. Otherwise, I wonder how you deal with player wrought changes in game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because planar travel being plausible or easy would change things considerably.
So, you ban a lot of core rules spells, too? Many of us were perhaps laboring under the misunderstanding that we were all discussing relatively standard Pathfinder and/or 3.5 edition games. The question of whether to allow kitsune in a James Bond 007 game is, to me, maybe slightly different from allowing them in a Pathfinder game, if only because of the additional discussion with the players and overcoming of assumptions that would be needed.
My inclination is to include less with room to add if an appropriate niche exists then to throw everything into the pot and make a feckless mush of a stew.
This is a serious question, Ars: what's a more appropriate niche than seeing that everyone at the table enjoys themselves?
So now your "carefully devised" setting includes a very limited multiverse, inner and outer planes that are no more expansive or varied than a typical village. Because, starting with the standard PF model of a multiverse full of planes of potentially infinite extent, that doesn't work. And the next obvious question, I guess, is to ask why the setting needs to be designed on such a limited scale, with no signle corner anywhere left undeveloped.To expand on that: Arssanguinus, you've remarked that your players can affect the world by play. I think people are submitting that allowing changes at the beginning is just like that. Player created changes that can enrich your world and develop ideas and concepts that you may not have previously thought out. Instead of believing that any changes are disruptive, maybe you could look at them as chances to develop in ways you had not previously thought of. Otherwise, I wonder how you deal with player wrought changes in game?
Not even remotely the same thing. Changing a setting as if you were one of its deities is different than changing it my interacting with it within its rules and making things happen.
Besides which ... I've added an ancient city state of mercenary warriors led by a really ancient order of paladins on the request of players despite not having included paladins before. Because some players wanted to play them, and they made the idea fit - and while it hadn't been included it hadn't been specifically excluded.
Dragons and elves don't have even anything close to remotely the same flavor and implications to them.And...? Neither do LotR-style-elves and gnomes.
Yes, a dragon campaign will have a somewhat different "flavor" to it (though the degree of that difference will depend on how I, with my omnipotent GM powers, flavor my universe's version of dragons, and how I planned to flavor my elves). But I like dragons too, in different ways. And if I, hypothetically speaking, hadn't liked dragons, I could have used something else I did.
Plus, I've made my LotR-lover-elf-crazed player happy, in a way I couldn't have done if I'd considered that kind of change to my world's "immutable" parameters flatly off the table.
I consider that a definite GMing win.
Somewhat? Vastly.
"Your elf is now a dwarf"
"OK, and now Steve will introduce the next campaign."
"For two thousand years, elves ruled over all. Their mage-queens reigned for a century before abdicating to their chosen heir. Other races were tolerated, but had no say in government, nor were they permitted to enter the crystalline towers of the tree-shrouded elven cities. At last, the other races united in rebellion, and a terrible war began, one which wrought destruction across half the world. The feud grew more bitter and bloody by the year, until at last all elf life was destroyed. Now, three centuries later, a new civilisation has risen in the ashes of the old. You are part of an archaelogical survey team, sent to investigate whether the elves are truly extinct as most believe, or whether some dark and terrible remant remains, perhaps in the chasms below their desolate cities, alive or undead..."
"Sounds good. I'll play an elf."
An example I have brought up already in this thread. If the campaign is built up around "Find out what happened to the Elves", than yeah, Elf isn't appropriate. But gnomes would be...or maybe kitsune, etc.
I think there is a difference between "For this campaign to work, This specific race is excluded" since presumably if you ran the idea by your players they would no that racial restriction for the campaign, and would chose a different campaign if they didn't like it.
Not even remotely the same thing. Changing a setting as if you were one of its deities is different than changing it my interacting with it within its rules and making things happen.
Besides which ... I've added an ancient city state of mercenary warriors led by a really ancient order of paladins on the request of players despite not having included paladins before. Because some players wanted to play them, and they made the idea fit - and while it hadn't been included it hadn't been specifically excluded.
Our idea of remotely may be a bit different: change is change. As for the rest, you've said now that you're open to PC changes in one regard, so is the other that much more difficult?
Tell that to Blackleaf. Oh, you can't because you killed her.Hate to break it to some posters, but your campaign setting..you know...isn't a real thing.Well yeah, but neither is my character.
*#&% for stealing the joke I was going to make! :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to keep in mind is that if you're going to cast elves as the extinct race of former tyrants, odds are good you don't have a problem with changing how races are. So saying "elves are nothing like dragons" isn't really valid.
Pretty much 75% of what I've seen in this argument is just back-and-forth--I actually have no clue who's on whose side because of how vague things are. I just know that it involves elves and gnomes. So...good luck with that?
For me, races and settings ain't real. Fun is. Fun is increased when everybody's having it, so I tailor my settings (and PCs) to fit with what others want to play. This often means playing the human to even things out, but that's cool, humans are fun.
Smurfs are not suitable as a player race on account of their smurfstremely oversmurfered abilities. I think they've smurfed their match in this thread, though. Not even they can fix things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I a straw DM? Because, for a minute there, that sounded like something I would do -- lead the campaign so that it ends up in the direction the players really want. If you're so prickly you'd rather argue than accept a compliment, that's OK, too, I guess...I'd consider that to be both good DMing and cooperating with the majority opinion.Not at all. Why are you trying to make me into a straw DM?
Sorry about that. Got overly defensive and lashed out without reading it in the proper context.
My bad!