Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8120806" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I know you were mostly mocking, but your mockery is interesting, because you didn't mock the idea of me bringing a musician to the table you mocked the idea of me bringing an old man to the table.Which raises some questions, doesn't it?Is my Octagenarian more acceptable if I made a Battlemaster Fighter instead of a Bard? What if I wanted to play a valor bard?What if he is a dwarf or an elf? The premise was "Knights of the Round Table" but we are still playing DnD so those options would be allowed normally, and they didn't say human only.And, while perhaps a bit far of a stretch, are women acceptable? If we are trying to recreate the Round Table, women were not allowed to be mounted warriors in plate mail, and there were no women sitting at the Round Table as Peers of the Realm.This may seem stupid, but this is the problem we keep pointing out. The premise was "Knights of the Round Table" but some people can look at that and say a Female Elven Bard who was knighted by the First King is acceptable, and others would say that only 20 something human Cavalier is acceptable.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I did not know that. I saw his name on the list as I scanned.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Maybe part of it is that the players are looking at it this way. No one wants to be the fifth Cavalier Knight.I mean, imagine for a moment if you got exactly what you asked for. Five Human Noble (Knight) Cavaliers. Everyone has the same abilities, the same basic background, the same equipment.Most players don't want to be carbon copies of their fellow players. And if they assume that at least two other people are going to go that route, because it is the most obvious, then they are going to try and think of something else that fits but isn't exactly that.Edit: And I know. "They already agreed!" That is what you keep saying, but I'm also going along with the fact that they already agreed. They agreed to a Knights of the Round Table game and made assumptions about what that meant. Then, when they showed up with a character they assumed was fine for session 1, there can be honest confusion about why you are saying their character is not accceptable, because to them, it fits into the concept.</blockquote>

Verification