Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2586811" data-attributes="member: 18280">Which is great, if that is what you want to do.It has nothing to do with sacredness, it has to do with investment.&nbsp; I do a lot of work designing a campaign setting because I enjoy it.&nbsp; I want to share my work because I enjoy that, too.&nbsp; I want to share my work particularly with people who will enjoy the work that I have done, who will add to it and build on it rather than attempting to tear it apart.Because of this, I can and will say &quot;No&quot;.&nbsp; I can and will say &quot;My game, my rules.&quot;&nbsp; I don't mean that all of D&amp;D is my game; I mean my campaign is my game.&nbsp; The thing is, my contention that you have the right to say &quot;No&quot; does not mean that you have an obligation to say &quot;No&quot;.&nbsp; My contention allows us both to play our games in our styles.&nbsp; We both get to have fun.Conversely, your contention that the DM can only say &quot;No&quot; when the players let him is not only obviously untrue (You can vote with your feet, but you can't force me to let you play a warforged samurai with the Hand of Vecna), but it also says, in essence, that my saying &quot;No&quot; to protect the intergrety of my investment is wrong.&nbsp; In other words, it is wrong of me to create something that I enjoy and then seek to share it with others who will also enjoy it rather than find out what a particular group would enjoy and then bend all of my efforts to that end.Under that arrangement, you get to have fun and I don't.Politely, I suggest that mine is the superior contention.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2586811, member: 18280"] Which is great, if that is what you want to do. It has nothing to do with sacredness, it has to do with investment. I do a lot of work designing a campaign setting because I enjoy it. I want to share my work because I enjoy that, too. I want to share my work particularly with people who will enjoy the work that I have done, who will add to it and build on it rather than attempting to tear it apart. Because of this, I can and will say "No". I can and will say "My game, my rules." I don't mean that all of D&D is my game; I mean my campaign is my game. The thing is, my contention that you have the right to say "No" does not mean that you have an obligation to say "No". My contention allows us both to play our games in our styles. We both get to have fun. Conversely, your contention that the DM can only say "No" when the players let him is not only obviously untrue (You can vote with your feet, but you can't force me to let you play a warforged samurai with the Hand of Vecna), but it also says, in essence, that my saying "No" to protect the intergrety of my investment is wrong. In other words, it is wrong of me to create something that I enjoy and then seek to share it with others who will also enjoy it rather than find out what a particular group would enjoy and then bend all of my efforts to that end. Under that arrangement, you get to have fun and I don't. Politely, I suggest that mine is the superior contention. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification