Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Warpiglet" data-source="post: 7493584" data-attributes="member: 6689161">I guess I skip past this consideration since I don't play with ass-hats.&nbsp; But this is true.We played with one player who enjoyed PC vs. PC conflict.&nbsp; We don't anymore.&nbsp; Everything I am arguing comes with the assumption we play well together are concerned about eachother's fun and simply want to do something off book in terms of fluff.&nbsp; I am arguing against reactive conservative assumptions about fluff in the book and NOT at the expense of shared fun, cooperation and so forth.When anyone, even in the Gygaxian AD&amp;D 1e days proposed a fun idea, DM and players alike rolled with it because its about shared fun.&nbsp; When playing villains in 1e a friend took an evil centaur-hating wood elf who belonged to an anti-centaur cult.&nbsp; He did not have an assigned deity but prayed to the darker forces of nature.Fluff was broken but game was not.&nbsp; Level-limited evil half orc cleric made use of a giant hammer.&nbsp; DM made the stats for it (believe it was 2d6?) after we watched Conan the Barbarian.&nbsp; The DMs world was not negatively impacted at all.But yes, DM was involved.&nbsp; If it was too gonzo, he would have rightly said something.&nbsp; That I think is the point I try to make however.&nbsp; Things should not be so restrictive that any deviation is seen as gonzo.&nbsp; Live a little.&nbsp; Make some sh*t up.&nbsp; Collaborate.&nbsp; Don't let coal in your anus become a diamond.&nbsp; Or, consistent with my OP, don't let diamond butt-ism forbid most multiclassing unless you simply don't use the optional rule to begin with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warpiglet, post: 7493584, member: 6689161"] I guess I skip past this consideration since I don't play with ass-hats. But this is true. We played with one player who enjoyed PC vs. PC conflict. We don't anymore. Everything I am arguing comes with the assumption we play well together are concerned about eachother's fun and simply want to do something off book in terms of fluff. I am arguing against reactive conservative assumptions about fluff in the book and NOT at the expense of shared fun, cooperation and so forth. When anyone, even in the Gygaxian AD&D 1e days proposed a fun idea, DM and players alike rolled with it because its about shared fun. When playing villains in 1e a friend took an evil centaur-hating wood elf who belonged to an anti-centaur cult. He did not have an assigned deity but prayed to the darker forces of nature. Fluff was broken but game was not. Level-limited evil half orc cleric made use of a giant hammer. DM made the stats for it (believe it was 2d6?) after we watched Conan the Barbarian. The DMs world was not negatively impacted at all. But yes, DM was involved. If it was too gonzo, he would have rightly said something. That I think is the point I try to make however. Things should not be so restrictive that any deviation is seen as gonzo. Live a little. Make some sh*t up. Collaborate. Don't let coal in your anus become a diamond. Or, consistent with my OP, don't let diamond butt-ism forbid most multiclassing unless you simply don't use the optional rule to begin with. [/QUOTE]

Verification