Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6537312">Moderately.&nbsp; If you mean how important is it to be an established setting, not important at all.&nbsp; If you mean &quot;how important is the style or type or setting&quot; well, rather important as certain settings have more interest to me than others.&nbsp; I guess I'm almost a person of extremes, as I like either very high magic settings or very low magic settings.&nbsp; Things in the middle just scream &quot;meh&quot; to me.&nbsp; It either lacks the reality-bending excitement of high-magic or the constant feeling of danger of low-magic.I think a good game can have many different tones at different points within the game.&nbsp; I guess I want a game that takes itsself seriously when it needs to and allows for a good drink and a good laugh at other times.&nbsp; I don't like games that laugh at stuff that should be serious.&nbsp; Maybe I'm just somber today 'cause I had to kill my party member.MANY!&nbsp; But it doesn't have to be the ones from the book.&nbsp; Diversity of options can be well-represented within a single race if the DM is willing to take the effort to do so.&nbsp; Even if the only choices were to play human fighters, there's still good room for diversity there and when a DM severely limits RAW options, they should take the time to diversify what they do offer.If it doesn't fit the setting, get rid of it!&nbsp; Otherwise if there's no sound argument to restrict it within the game/world, it should be allowed.&nbsp; The DM reserves the right to say &quot;NO&quot; of course, but I think the DM should be required to have a sound reasoning behind it other than &quot;i don't like it!&quot;.&nbsp; That kind of attitude is one I don't play with.Whatever rules fit the setting of course!&nbsp; I don't believe there are any &quot;mandatory&quot; house rules at this point in the edition.&nbsp; Nothing is so terribly broken that it needs fixing at every table.I don't think I've run or played in a game that had consistent house rules for anything and I can;t say there's anything I don't like except, as above, DM decisions made on nothing more than &quot;I don't like it!&quot;If you don't like it, do what I did: build your own setting where the things you don't like don't exist.&nbsp; Boom!&nbsp; Problem solved.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6537312"] Moderately. If you mean how important is it to be an established setting, not important at all. If you mean "how important is the style or type or setting" well, rather important as certain settings have more interest to me than others. I guess I'm almost a person of extremes, as I like either very high magic settings or very low magic settings. Things in the middle just scream "meh" to me. It either lacks the reality-bending excitement of high-magic or the constant feeling of danger of low-magic. I think a good game can have many different tones at different points within the game. I guess I want a game that takes itsself seriously when it needs to and allows for a good drink and a good laugh at other times. I don't like games that laugh at stuff that should be serious. Maybe I'm just somber today 'cause I had to kill my party member. MANY! But it doesn't have to be the ones from the book. Diversity of options can be well-represented within a single race if the DM is willing to take the effort to do so. Even if the only choices were to play human fighters, there's still good room for diversity there and when a DM severely limits RAW options, they should take the time to diversify what they [I]do[/I] offer. If it doesn't fit the setting, get rid of it! Otherwise if there's no sound argument to restrict it within the game/world, it should be allowed. The DM reserves the right to say "NO" of course, but I think the DM should be required to have a sound reasoning behind it other than "i don't like it!". That kind of attitude is one I don't play with. Whatever rules fit the setting of course! I don't believe there are any "mandatory" house rules at this point in the edition. Nothing is so terribly broken that it needs fixing at every table. I don't think I've run or played in a game that had consistent house rules for anything and I can;t say there's anything I don't like except, as above, DM decisions made on nothing more than "I don't like it!" If you don't like it, do what I did: build your own setting where the things you don't like don't exist. Boom! Problem solved. [/QUOTE]

Verification