Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7493240" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot;Why couldn't a good DM make it work in their campaign?&quot;Nobody is saying a good Gm couldn't. Nobody at all.At least, nobody i have seen here on this thread.The implied &quot;if you say no your not a good GM&quot; is just a slant at dismissing the other side.As i and quite a few others have said already in this thread time and time again, we say yes a lot, we allow these things a lot, we allow lots and lots and lots of new backstories and new clever player stuff all the time.We really, if you read even a decent number of posts really do not need you to encourage us to try what we have already been doing for years, and in some cases, decades.A core issue at discussion here is &quot;does a Gm have to&quot; and there doesn't really seem to be any disagreement on &quot;can a gm include these kinds of things&quot; at all - except when it gets paired with &quot;good gm&quot; or &quot;campaign so fragile&quot; and so on.Gms can allow lots of backstory and fluf and based on what i have read here most if not all of the GMs objecting to some of the &quot;hands off must allow&quot; examples do allow and include them a lot. So, my deepest appreciation for you encouraging me to just try... to maybe say yes unless i have a compelling reason to say no - even though i have stated it over and over thru the thread and of course its not at all condescending of you to phrase it this way with &quot;good gm&quot; thrown in for good measure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7493240, member: 6919838"] "[COLOR=#333333][I]Why couldn't a good DM make it work in their campaign?" [/I][/COLOR]Nobody is saying a good Gm couldn't. Nobody at all. At least, nobody i have seen here on this thread. The implied "if you say no your not a good GM" is just a slant at dismissing the other side. As i and quite a few others have said already in this thread time and time again, we say yes a lot, we allow these things a lot, we allow lots and lots and lots of new backstories and new clever player stuff all the time. We really, if you read even a decent number of posts really do not need you to encourage us to try what we have already been doing for years, and in some cases, decades. A core issue at discussion here is "does a Gm have to" and there doesn't really seem to be any disagreement on "can a gm include these kinds of things" at all - except when it gets paired with "good gm" or "campaign so fragile" and so on. Gms can allow lots of backstory and fluf and based on what i have read here most if not all of the GMs objecting to some of the "hands off must allow" examples do allow and include them a lot. So, my deepest appreciation for you encouraging me to just try... to maybe say yes unless i have a compelling reason to say no - even though i have stated it over and over thru the thread and of course its not at all condescending of you to phrase it this way with "good gm" thrown in for good measure. [/QUOTE]

Verification