Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aria Silverhands" data-source="post: 4225384" data-attributes="member: 66086">There's nothing between the lines.It's happened.  I've clearly laid out what is acceptable in campaigns online before, had players respond that they were interested... which to me says they read the information provided, and then they whine and cry when it comes time to make characters and they want to use all sorts of things I've already forbidden and they supposedly already read.The one thing I've never had a problem with, didn't have a reason other than the fact I dislike gnomes.  I've never allowed gnomes in any of my campaign settings.  For a pointless and aesthetic reason.  I just didn't like them and funnily enough... that's the only restriction no one has ever had an issue with.  I am a good dm and I tell damn good story that does involve the players and their backgrounds, as long as the players do their part and try to be part of the campaign instead of wresting control of it to make their own little version of it.No, I harbor a lot of ill will towards poorly written rulebooks and outright faulty design decisions.Yes, I already know that.  Doesn't mean I'm not entitled to criticize what WotC did wrong.The groups I have had, where the players are reliable and show up on time each time a game is scheduled, have been great.  Unfortunately, finding players like that doesn't always work out.  You're wondering where are those players now? Lives change, time passes and you move on.  I've been gaming online in various places for over ten years.  Probably longer if I look back to 2nd edition and some games I ran in and played in on AOL chat rooms.  Really sucked when AOL was charging by the hour.I disagree.  A normal setting where magic is somewhat rare and mysterious would be far more easier for a new dm to run.  They have less to deal with when it comes to higher level player abilities.  And once they get settled in, they can ramp up the magic in their campaign setting with epic events that span the world.  It's far easier to give things to players than it is to try and take them away, which is why I keep arguing that WotC should have went with middle of the road.  It provides two settings which will cover the majority of the campaigns out there.I understand very low to no magic settings aren't all that popular for whatever stupid reason (I blame computer games), and people just don't give them a chance.  So of course that should not be the default setting.  Middle of the road however is just the best because common sense says players are happier when they get more options instead of having options taken away.1. Yes, they're releasing books.2. I kinda figured players would like the stuff in the books.3. It's not the content I don't like, it's the method in which it's presented.4. No, I am pissed at WotC for releasing content that creates an atmosphere of player entitlement. When people start paying me to run a game for them, then I'll run exactly what they want.  Until they pay me, I will take their ideas under advisement but ultimately, the theme of the campaign setting that I am spending my free time creating, aside from actual game time, will be done by my standards and preferences for that setting, regardless of what it may be.I have a binder with over a hundred different world maps, a few with a page of rough notes for various campaign ideas.  They're not all low magic either.  I even have a high magic setting that if I ever ran, would end up traveling the stars.  It's not the low magic or magic rich games that I have an issue with.  It's how the book is written.  I'm criticizing WotC for making a bad decision.  Certainly I'm not the only one on any forums criticizing, even though it will do no good.I will never compromise on psionics.  That crap doesn't belong in D&D period.  If it wouldn't ruin the book, I'd cut it out of the PHB2 when it's released.</blockquote>

Verification