Search results

He meant to imply that those two words could be understood as euphemisms for a condoms. Sort of humor.

I don't need advancement to enjoy a game. I'd not say I want to stay at level 1, but I am happy playing a character I like without advancing in power - the history. the adventures done are enough for m. In my campaign, we advance a level per year or so, though treasure is acquired more often.

I do not see any problem at all here. When I make characters I always try to imagine how they would look, what kind of gear they use, and so on. I haven't taken a few spells because the components were unwieldy, or too much of a bother to carry, or gross (or all three - hello spider climb). If I...

And I prefer to talk with people who are a bit more polite than you.

Would you say there is a difference between calling an opinion or PC race names, and calling a player names? It doesn't matter if you say "I think X is a prima donna" or "X is a prima donna" - you're insulting X in both cases.

There is no difference between saying "I think X is a prima donna" and "X is a prima donna".

Too many try to tell others what's badwrongfun these days. People should start to understand that not everyone has the same taste, and that not everything is a mathematical fact.

I do not play 4E, so there are no mechanical benefits a dragonborn can offer. As for concepts I go a long way to make a character fit in, and I point out the possible options, but the character will fit the setting, not the other way around. But as things are, if the player wants Dragonboobs...

One can do world building by improvisation. Start small, and create what you need - and keep it. Note down what you did, and after the first campaign you have a decent proto-setting. The next campaign can build on that, maybe start in another area, build that up, then tie the two together...

In another discussion a few months ago I stated already: I would let someone play a half-dragon lizardfolk character. Dragon Disciple? No problem. Dragon Adept? Go ahead. Such stuff has a place in my campaign - but all choices carry consequences. I won't kill off PCs with "the NPCs lynch you"...

The time of troubles were among the first novels I read. I like the idea, though some of the consequences seem silly to me now, and in my campaign those were greatly changed.

As I said - someone said that there was no single thing that would be a game breaker, and I think I proved him wrong since so many agree that some things are enough for them to stop a game. Unfortunately, those people are still stuck on "as long as I like it/tolerate it everyone has to like...

The difference is that I don't call you petty for making your choices. I am not calling anyone names ("Prima donnas") for refusing to play in a game they have no fun in - no matter why they have no fun. If people stopped calling others names for not playing like they do ("No dragonborn? Prima...

What I am arguing is that one single element can be a game breaker. Mallus argued against that. That game breaker can vary a lot. Some won't play with evil PCs even if those do not anything evil, some won't play with Dragonborn, but have no problem with lizardfolk. Same difference: Personal...

Not really. I said the Players rule too. They might not be able to force a DM to allow a race, but they can effectively ban a race if they refuse to work with a PC of said race. That's ruling as well.

So, do you think a single element - like say Jar-Jar Binks, or a spoonful of chili - can't ever ruin a movie or a dish? A player telling the GM "My PC goes and rapes the barwench" shouldn't be a game breaker for anyone, with all the violence in the game? Or a racist PC? Or is it just that...

I have to add that it's not just the DM that rules what races are played in the campaign, but the players too. Vetoing by "Our PCs kill that race on sight" works.

I take offense at people saying "If you have no fun just because there's X in this game, you're wrong, since X is a minor thing". Everyone decides for themselves what is a minor and a major point in a game.

No, that I cannot. I can understand how not being able to play a certain race can be a game breaker for someone. I can also understand how that might not be a big thing for someone else. But I really can't understand why some people try to tell others what a major and a minor thing is or should...

Ditto. The real problem are people who can't get that not everyone shares their taste.