D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yeah, but I never said "no way it's happening" in my initial post (although that would still be an acceptable answer from the DM). It seems like you didn't really read it, or you are combining my post with someone else's and responding as if I'd written both.

Again, you seem to be mixing up my response with someone else's. I never talked about "working together to make something work" - that was the troll.

However, I generally do try to work together with the player, but not always. There are some races that simply don't fit, or I'm simply not willing to deal with. That's my prerogative as a DM.

I'm not the one combining things - I was treating the exchange in which I asked if you were aware of how your statement read, and the exchange regarding the analogy Max used as the separate conversations they are. I was answering the words you put in the post you made joining in on the food analogy, not any others you may have put in some other post.

 

[Caliban]

I'm not the one combining things - I was treating the exchange in which I asked if you were aware of how your statement read, and the exchange regarding the analogy Max used as the separate conversations they are. I was answering the words you put in the post you made joining in on the food analogy, not any others you may have put in some other post.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Let me try again:

When I quote you and make a post, I'm only responding to the things actually in the post I quoted, not other stuff - specifically to avoid confusion, which has worked in all but your case.

So if you read my response to your post joining in on the discussion regarding the food analogy as though it had anything to do with any other post in this thread, yours or otherwise, that's on you. Sorry.

 

[Caliban]

Let me try again:

When I quote you and make a post, I'm only responding to the things actually in the post I quoted, not other stuff - specifically to avoid confusion, which has worked in all but your case.

So if you read my response to your post joining in on the discussion regarding the food analogy as though it had anything to do with any other post in this thread, yours or otherwise, that's on you. Sorry.

Except that's not at all what you were doing. You were referring to stuff I didn't say, and wasn't in any post I was responding too, as if I'd said it!

 

[Manbearcat]

Steven King by way of William Faulkner:

“Kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler’s heart, kill your darlings.”

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You were referring to stuff I didn't say, and wasn't in any post I was responding too, as if I'd said it!

No, I wasn't.

I'm sorry you think that I was, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Caliban]

No, I wasn't.

I'm sorry you think that I was, I don't know what else to tell you.

I'm genuinely confused by your insistence on this. Just to be clear, you said, as a reply to my post:

Saying "No way that's happening," as your initial response - which is what was being discussed here in this thread - is not a sign that "input from the players is appreciated and considered," It's the exact opposite - a refusal to consider anything.

Where did I say, imply, or reference "No way that's happening," as my initial response? The last part "input from the players is appreciated and considered," is something I said, but the first part isn't. Yet you responded as if it was something I said or intended. That is what I'm talking about.

 

[Sadras]

However, I generally do try to work together with the player, but not always. There are some races that simply don't fit, or I'm simply not willing to deal with. That's my prerogative as a DM.

[MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] doesn't follow that line of reasoning, neither does his head-scratching friend [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]. The former posted his reasoning in the Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves thread. The latter is so entitled that he casually calls the rest of us lazy.

Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn. Lazy DMs those two. How about all the other world builders who didn't include Kender. Lazy! And now with Volo's Guide, well you just cannot imagine how many Lazy DM's are out there these days. Its an epidemic I tell you!

 

[Caliban]

[MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] doesn't follow that line of reasoning, neither does his head-scratching friend [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]. The former posted his reasoning in the Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves thread. The latter is so entitled that he casually calls the rest of us lazy.

Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn. Lazy DMs those two. How about all the other world builders who didn't include Kender. Lazy! And now with Volo's Guide, well you just cannot imagine how many Lazy DM's are out there these days. Its an epidemic I tell you!

They seem to have a very player-centric view of D&D. It's all about and for the players, the DM's are just there to entertain them (for free) and should be grateful for the opportunity.

 

[Caliban]

@AaronOfBarbaria doesn't follow that line of reasoning, neither does his head-scratching friend @Shasarak. The former posted his reasoning in the Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves thread. The latter is so entitled that he casually calls the rest of us lazy.

As for Shasarak, I'm pretty sure he's just trolling. He put me on ignore as soon as I called him on it, rather than defend himself. He wants people to engage him, not reveal his game-plan.