Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1379368" data-attributes="member: 6398">See, let's take a look at the issues you seem to have. 1. You seem to have forgotten your blatant and arrogant assertion that you like non-hostile GMs.  This indicates that you view GMs that require additional requirements (i.e., RP) in leveling, gaining classes, and so forth, as being hostile and un-fun. 2. I am also a player.  I am playing in Oathbound.  I have never read an Oathbound book.  I am learning about the setting and its mysteries entirely through role-play.  And guess what?  I'm having loads of fun!  I know, you find it hard to believe, but it is true.  And the character is likely the most bas a$$ I've ever had the pleasure of running ("Have army, will travel."). 3. You automatically assume that my players must metagame/powerbuild a lot, completely twisting what I've indicated: That I present the world in flavor and allow the PCs to role-play towards learning more (eventually ending with the actual mechanics).  I must say, players that metagame or powerbuild most often run from my game screaming incoherently, ripping off their clothes as they vanish into the woods never to be seen again. 4. No, it isn't a big deal.  However, it isn't wrong not to do so.  I have no problem if you are playing in a game that doesn't have any such limitations.  Guess why?  It's your friggin' game.  Doesn't effect me.  I don't give a rat's behind.  You, on the other hand, seem quite ready to indicate that anyone that doesn't run their game that way is really screwing over the players, and that, dear sir, shows that it is you, not I (or others), that have a problem with other people's games, especially since you don't know jack dooky about those games other than one post made on one message board. Ah, here we go... Tell me...  When was it suggested that "sub-par" was the standard in these games?  Or is this just a hollow argument you are pulling out to lend your argument some false sense of value? Who said it made me mad?  Did I say it made me mad?  Nope, not at all. What I indicate is that, for story consistancy, viewing past experiences is just as important as pursueing a specific goal.  Want an example?  Look at your own life and the life of everyone else you know.  You'll likely find a goal, or series of goals, that you pursue, yet over time, the goals are adjusted and other, non-planned events provide other, non-planned gains. An example of myself: I am a draftsman.  Went to school for it, got my degree, and went to work.  My goal was to become an architect.  However, upon entering the field, I find that I was also good at MSOffice.  Then I get really good at Access.  Then I get really good at intergrating Access and AutoCAD, which then leads me into using the SPAN Facility Management database.  Where'd this lead me?  A year ago I handled a contract doing GIS/GPS surveying for the US Military all along the east coast. Am I an architect?  No.  Am I sub-par?  Far from it. Yawn... Another worthless strawman.  Mind not bringing that one out again?  At least, get the dust of that ol' thing.  And look, it's spilling straw all over the place.  That's what happens when these things are kept around for as long as that one has. Gee...  When did I speak against this?  Hell, I said something quite similar too it, in fact. Characters should have goals, yes.  It's the blanket-belief that any such goal should be accomplished regardless of any other considerations that I discourage because it is often a hamper to the verisimilitude of the characters themselves.  The DMG is rather specific that all things in a dungeon should have a sensible reason for being part of the dungeon to increase its believability.  Funny that the Player's Handbook doesn't say the same thing about characters, ain't it?</blockquote>

Verification