Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7490172" data-attributes="member: 6775031">And that's the kind of player entitlement which I object to. You are a player, but you are usurping the DM's role as world-builder, and calling him names if he doesn't let you get away with it. The roles of player and DM are very clearly delineated in the rules, and you are over-stepping.It's fine if your DM wants to share the responsibility, or crowd-source for ideas, in order to increase player investment. There's nothing wrong with them having that option. What's wrong is your expectation that the DM should do so, or your perception that they're doing it wrong by choosing not to.And you're more than welcome to run it that way at your table, and anyone who objects does not have to play with you, because you're the DM and only you know the absolute truth about how your own setting works. No mere player has the authority to overrule the DM on such a matter, and any player who attempts such a thing, is indeed a jerk.I would also complain about such a DM, because regardless of their interpretation of how the Oath works in their world, they failed to properly convey it to the player. It's simply unreasonable to expect a player to know what you're thinking, when given such vague rules to go by. If nothing else, the DM should tell you that the Oath demands you give 10gp, because that's something your character would know if they were a paladin who had taken that Oath. (Not that I would agree with their interpretation, mind, but they are the DM, and it's their world.)The concept of the metagame does not apply here. The game mechanics represent the reality of the game world, and they give some examples of things that might exist within the game world alongside the mechanics which reflect those things, but neither the crunch nor the fluff is more sacrosanct than the other. It is the connection between crunch and fluff which is important, because that defines the language of the game mechanics. Indeed, anyone in the world can tell the difference between a fighter and a thief, because fighters know how to wear heavy armor without looking like an idiot, and thieves are more reliable when they try to pick a lock; they may not assign those names to any given individuals, but the difference is plain for anyone to see, if they know what to look for.It is not necessarily true that those are the only character types which can exist in the world, of course, just as it is not necessarily true that all of those in the book will exist in every given world. Any given world may or may not have humans, paladins, oni, or shugenja. Of course you can invent new character classes, races, feats, spells, monsters, or anything else. The DMG even has guidelines to help you figure out how to correctly reflect those new things, within the language of the game mechanics.What you can't do is just unilaterally change the fluff for a thing, without changing the mechanics which represent it, unless those mechanics are truly the best reflection of that reality. This isn't 4E. For all the numerous faults of 5E, the designers at least understand that much.</blockquote>

Verification