NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Panda-s1" data-source="post: 7762424" data-attributes="member: 59554">...I'm not sure why you're calling this out, even though we basically agree on this point (I put the A in parentheses for a reason as people seem to treat the entirety of everything before 3rd edition as some sort of arbitrary morass). But even in the first DMG (1979) there are choice quotes such as "Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends." or "As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best."Okay I guess you decided to go with the nitpick everything route to replying to my post, but I'll address these two points specifically: 1) No, you don't get to claim this is the real issue everyone was getting at, because if that were the case the enjoyment of the players as a priority would have come up in people's arguments, but instead it's a sea of "I'm the final arbiter!" and "My game my rules!" There are DMs (actual DMs!) here being accused of "player entitlement" because they talk about working with their players in figuring out what is allowed in their campaign, so I can't say I'm surprised.2) I'm not sure where you get off insinuating I've never had mechanical concerns over new material, or seen them be detrimental to the game. Of course I have. I still believe preemptively banning stuff because of a concern feels unnecessary. Things like this imagined scenario where a player can get a Holy Avenger at first level are obvious exceptions (I know someone's gonna say my exception of obvious and extreme cases is a "flaw" in my argument, so I'll just call it out here).If you actually read my original post you might not find it so odd.</blockquote>

Verification