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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7241688" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I allow anything...as long as I approve it first. This means that yes, you can play a Goliath...if I get to look over Goliath first, get a copy of it (photo or buy me the book), and it fits all the criteria for my campaign (it "fits" into my world setting). If it needs changes, I'll change it and re-present to the player. If he/she likes it, we're off to the races.One KEY factor is the question I pose to the player: "Why? And just saying 'I think it would be fun/cool' isn't going to cut it. WHY would it be fun/cool?" I have had a player re-evaluate his/her reasoning for playing it more times than not, and upon reflection, choose to go with some other race/class/whatever.Goliath Monk? "Why?" If the player is obviously grasping at straws as to why, as in he/she has no background idea, history, goal for the character, etc, then it's usually obvious that they just want it to min/max and are trying to be disruptive to the game as a whole. If the player says "Because I want to do a lot of damage with my fists and I want to smash <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> up". Ok. I'm cool with that. A shallow reason, sure, but at least the player is being honest. I'll reward honesty more times than not...I'll gleefully punish a player who is trying to be "weasle'ly".Same goes for the other player choices. If it looks like they are trying to "game the system", thinking that if they use X ability from some optional source in combination with Y ability from the core rules, and get something "unbeatable" or "undefendable" or some other such chicanery, they are in for a rude awakening!So, bottom line...yes, I'll allow it if I think it's worth it to the campaign as a whole. I don't just allow stuff because a player wants. Yeah, yeah, yeah..."Stringent DM!", "Control freak!", "DM can't handle diversity!", "DM's just taking away my fun!" and all that other stuff. Look. I've been at this DM thing for...over 35 years now, and there are two things that ALWAYS bares fruit: (1)It's easier to give to players, than to take away, and (2) One bad player choice can kill a PC...one bad DM choice can kill a campaign. So...ALWAYS err on the side of No, because you an always say Yes later.That said...just about everything I've seen put out for 5e as 'additional' stuff has been poor to outright crap. I've had ONE Goliath (Barbarian), and ONE Aarakocra. Nobody has asked to play anything else...because, well, see first sentence of this paragraph. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification