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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dessert Nomad" data-source="post: 7533763" data-attributes="member: 6976536">Shoehorning is exactly what is being talked about here. If the setting doesn't have gnomes and you want to put one in despite that, you're trying to shoehorn a gnome into the game, plain and simple.No, what you are saying is that the DM either must make the changes, or must concede that the setting is 'fragile' and 'not all that strong' if he doesn't want to make the change. You actually ARE saying that if that is the case, then the setting, the DM, and/or the other players suck and should just accept that their desire to play in an actual 'Campaign world X' game is badwrongfun and let the X-phile player shoehorn whatever he wants into the world. I don't have any problem if a person wants to run 'setting X, but with gnomes'. What I have a problem with is the idea that if someone wants to run 'setting X, without the change to gnomes' that means that the person or the setting is weak or flawed or unreasonable or some other bad adjective.Everyone playing a game is selfish, people playing games are doing it for their own enjoyment, if they weren't being selfish they'd be off doing charity work. Trying to make the argument that being selfish is 'the worst' just doesn't work. Game preferences are inherently selfish, I consider anyone playing games to be selfish as there really isn't a non-selfish motive for entertainment. And it's perfectly valid for the issue to be resolved by the DM saying 'this is the game I'm running', and the palyer saying 'cool, I'll play my gnome somewhere else'. But you're arguing that the DM is somehow bad if he chooses that option, or that if he chooses that option that the setting is flawed somehow. Everyone has a selfish game preference, if the preferences don't line up then you go game with someone else."Consider" and "agree to" are two different things. Also, I've found that DM's with a strong vision tend to become very invested into the setting and the game. And they've often given a lot of consideration to how to get the setting to work. Based on this, the player should consider this, wouldn't you think?False dichotomy. People can be invested in characters that actually make sense in a setting, the idea that people who come up with characters that do make sense in a setting are just picking a race/class combo from a list is both insulting and inaccurate. And in my experience, an awful lot of people who want to ignore the setting and create a character that runs contrary to it aren't invested in an interesting concept. Instead they are either just repeating a pattern that has worked for them in the past, or actually just want to keep playing the same character over and over regardless of whether that character makes sense in the world.I think that your argument that a setting is 'fragile' and 'not all that strong' if anyone wanting to play the setting feels that shoehorning in additional races messes with their enjoyment of the setting is the thing that actually is 'not all that strong'. Trying to pretend that the setting or the players who enjoy the setting are 'fragile' if shoehorning races in isn't to their liking is just an attempt to poison the well.</blockquote>

Verification