Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7047142" data-attributes="member: 15700">Not interested in hypothetical scenarios that will never happen (everyone playing a warlord at the table).&nbsp; As for the other scenario (someone else wanting to play one)?&nbsp; Well, it's been that way since day 1.&nbsp; Most everyone has their favorite classes, and classes or races they don't like.&nbsp; If everyone walked away from the game because someone at the table played a class or race that they didn't like (that the DM was OK with naturally), then no one would be playing the game.&nbsp; Do all the people who don't like gnomes quit D&amp;D because a player at their table played one?&nbsp; Or a paladin?&nbsp; Or a wild mage?&nbsp; If they did, I'd still rack that up there with &quot;silly and immature&quot;.Because the reality is, not every single sensibility of every single player should be catered to.&nbsp; I've heard people make statements in the past that unless every other player is optimized, they are hurting them as a result.&nbsp; That's a sensibility, so should that be catered to?&nbsp; Screw that.&nbsp; So to use a legal definition, I use the &quot;reasonable person&quot; standard combined with &quot;try not to be a jerk.&quot;&nbsp; But that doesn't mean I need to cater to every person's whims all the time, especially if they are in fact silly and immature whims.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7047142, member: 15700"] Not interested in hypothetical scenarios that will never happen (everyone playing a warlord at the table). As for the other scenario (someone else wanting to play one)? Well, it's been that way since day 1. Most everyone has their favorite classes, and classes or races they don't like. If everyone walked away from the game because someone at the table played a class or race that they didn't like (that the DM was OK with naturally), then no one would be playing the game. Do all the people who don't like gnomes quit D&D because a player at their table played one? Or a paladin? Or a wild mage? If they did, I'd still rack that up there with "silly and immature". Because the reality is, not every single sensibility of every single player should be catered to. I've heard people make statements in the past that unless every other player is optimized, they are hurting [i]them[/i] as a result. That's a sensibility, so should that be catered to? Screw that. So to use a legal definition, I use the "reasonable person" standard combined with "try not to be a jerk." But that doesn't mean I need to cater to every person's whims all the time, especially if they are in fact silly and immature whims. [/QUOTE]

Verification