Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2582337" data-attributes="member: 22779">Ok, I gotta say RC, you've taken KM's comments completely differently than I did.At no point is he advocating that the DM is entirely subservient to the player's wishes.&nbsp; Actually, he advocates that the DM's wishes and the players wishes should be given equal airplay.&nbsp; I just don't see what you're reading into what he's saying.In the example of the bad DM, if you care to read it closely, the DM states that the players can take any ECL+1 race on the list and then proceeds to hand out a list that has NO ECL+1 RACES!&nbsp; I believe that's the point he's trying to make.&nbsp; A bad DM is one that changes the rules to suit his own whims rather than a DM who takes a balanced approach.&nbsp; It's not about the list you mentioned.&nbsp; The fact that the DM actually LIES to the players would make him a bad DM in my books.&nbsp; Never mind that the ECL rules actually work most of the time, never mind that the DM is actually stating that he's allowing them, only to provide a list which includes none.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f635.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="O.o" title="Er... what?&nbsp; &nbsp; O.o"&nbsp; data-smilie="12"data-shortname="O.o" />NO THEY DON'T.&nbsp; The DM's rules specifically INCLUDE these choices, but he then turns around and changes the rules.&nbsp; Excluding certain choices is of course perfectly acceptable for a DM to do.&nbsp; But, not when he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.In your examples, you've gone far beyond what the DM presumably would allow.&nbsp; And, your choices are not even remotely supported by the RAW.&nbsp; The entire point of this thread is that the RAW is not supporting DM's.&nbsp; Yet, IN EVERY EXAMPLE you just gave, the DM is being supported by the RAW.&nbsp; Playing Q would be virtually impossible because of ECL.&nbsp; Playing a Klingon would be impossible due to setting constraints.&nbsp; As would the Warforged idea.Essentially, you're arguing that the RAW supports DM's.&nbsp; Which is what I've been saying all the way along.&nbsp; There is no need for the DM to go beyond the RAW 99% of the time to say no.&nbsp; The RAW sides with the DM almost always.&nbsp; The times that the RAW doesn't support the DM is when the DM decides to ignore the RAW and make his own rules.&nbsp; Well, if you decide to make your own rules, don't complain when the RULES AS WRITTEN don't support you.&nbsp; The players want it to rain +2 swords?&nbsp; Sorry, RAW blocks that.&nbsp; Player wants to play the Tarrasque?&nbsp; Sorry, point to the RAW and say no.&nbsp; What more could you ask from the RAW?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2582337, member: 22779"] Ok, I gotta say RC, you've taken KM's comments completely differently than I did. At no point is he advocating that the DM is entirely subservient to the player's wishes. Actually, he advocates that the DM's wishes and the players wishes should be given equal airplay. I just don't see what you're reading into what he's saying. In the example of the bad DM, if you care to read it closely, the DM states that the players can take any ECL+1 race on the list and then proceeds to hand out a list that has NO ECL+1 RACES! I believe that's the point he's trying to make. A bad DM is one that changes the rules to suit his own whims rather than a DM who takes a balanced approach. It's not about the list you mentioned. The fact that the DM actually LIES to the players would make him a bad DM in my books. Never mind that the ECL rules actually work most of the time, never mind that the DM is actually stating that he's allowing them, only to provide a list which includes none. O.o NO THEY DON'T. The DM's rules specifically INCLUDE these choices, but he then turns around and changes the rules. Excluding certain choices is of course perfectly acceptable for a DM to do. But, not when he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. In your examples, you've gone far beyond what the DM presumably would allow. And, your choices are not even remotely supported by the RAW. The entire point of this thread is that the RAW is not supporting DM's. Yet, IN EVERY EXAMPLE you just gave, the DM is being supported by the RAW. Playing Q would be virtually impossible because of ECL. Playing a Klingon would be impossible due to setting constraints. As would the Warforged idea. Essentially, you're arguing that the RAW supports DM's. Which is what I've been saying all the way along. There is no need for the DM to go beyond the RAW 99% of the time to say no. The RAW sides with the DM almost always. The times that the RAW doesn't support the DM is when the DM decides to ignore the RAW and make his own rules. Well, if you decide to make your own rules, don't complain when the RULES AS WRITTEN don't support you. The players want it to rain +2 swords? Sorry, RAW blocks that. Player wants to play the Tarrasque? Sorry, point to the RAW and say no. What more could you ask from the RAW? [/QUOTE]

Verification