Search results

Yes kinda... but still no. It is (imo) world building for the players. Players can not engage in world building during character creation absent a system like the city & character creation in dfrpg, but players making changes in the world and building new things through their in game actions...

You might be substituting your own personal preference a bit too hard for that bolded bit as a general broad brush generality. I've had multiple players who absolutely adore worldbuilding because it allows their actions to have a real visceral impact on the world & they can often see some hint...

I think this has been covered extensively to the point that the relevant dead horse has been tenderized to dust. Most of it was directed to other posters who had admitted as much one or more times before and kept but kept getting nagged about it for insisting the GM has the option of saying no...

I forget who (maxperson perhaps?) has already given an example of a race that does exist in their setting that they wouldn't allow players to play with a good reason given. The particular race and reason was dragonborn and because he changed them in setting in some way that would make them...

In a way absolutely and that way is the same one that the actual past player of mine failed to clear in 1360/777 failed to clear at first. Anyone playing an elf needs to decide if they are a vaelenar elf a native khorvaireian elf with the culture from one of the five nations or meet a higher...

I believe that if you step back from the sense of entitlement∆ and look at it at it without the trust me bro unstated details you will see that the hypothetical example describes a player with quite the unhealthy opinion of what a player/gm relationship should look like to cast the "judgement"...

You never met the burden of proof for the gm refusing to allow "a village" to be either of those judgemental things because you never attempted to do so after being questioned about it.

That was provided earlier here. I could include"This is one of those cases where you're being, if anything, overly generous" 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...

Definition one not definition two. The reason I pressed you to explain or justify the implied employer/employee relationship or why the gm is not allowed to say no to adding "a village" on the same "because I [don't] want to" entitling the player to create it over the GM's objections is because...

I remember them. The Odyssey/moldvey stuff that mike Mearls has on his patreon includes classes with a couple variations of this kind of stuff in the last couple phb drops he's done. This one for example...

There is no putting of words. D&d is not a game like fate:dfrpg with a structured City & character creation where players are entitled to add things like "a village" to the world as part of a group activity. Since the rules don't grant it, you need to justify why a player is entitled to modify...

You skipped over the part where you explain why not making that distinction keeps the example conflict from implying default assumptions. The fact that you make no distinction is why it implies the default assumption is that the gm should be viewed as a paid service provider unable to refuse...

.... He could be but creating several NPCs and "a village" are different things. The phb does not give significant latitude to players wanting to create significant NON-Player Characters. From there it goes back to the bolded bits from my earlier post quoted below You could replace that...

You are allowed to, but your example left out too many details that makes the gm for hire and simple fact that the gm is allowed to say no relevant. This is what you wrote I'll point out what you did & did not include to make my questions about gm as an employee & gm being allowed to refuse to...

How does that change things unless a hypothetical nonspecific gm is not allowed to say "no you can not play at my table" or the default player/GM relationship should be assumed one of employer/we employee? I've rightly told players that they can't add "a village" or similar that they suggested...

One of us has obviously made an egregiously incorrect assumption about if @AlViking was acting as a paid GM for hire who agreed to a job offer or not. I don't think that the poor assumption is in my part because he has made no hint of any such employer/employee relationship that I've seen. In...

No it's a solid point. Not only that it's pretty much one that pretty much came up earlier with actual gameplay example the gm expected to kill off by level 5. More than once that character waled into town in chains or stacked high with the results of "everyone give me your pack to carry like...

Oh I wasn't suggesting that none would, just that end of the ratio being so low that it makes all the calls for the gm to give players chargen requirements and the like silly

That's because you didn't when the posters he's talking about actually talked about it, the claim is almost certainly misremembered or misrepresented. He's almost certainly talking about posts like 1142 or maybe even 1194 where the word human gets used a bunch in a different context. This...

That's generally my experience both on "oh yea, I haven't read it, what did it say" as well as the ease of finding a new player when schedules shift or whatever. It almost doesn't matter how short that kind of guide is, but the near default expectation of those new would be players of not...