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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 6765963" data-attributes="member: 82779">Here is where you initially brought up private tables who round-robin-DM:Your initial objection related to round-robin-DM'ing specifically discusses content being objectionable to one of the round-robin-DMs and not objectionable to at least one of the other round-robin-DMs.  That has nothing to do with any burden of assessing new material and has everything to do with how the round-robin-DMs handle decision-making.  The need for a policy to make sure all the round-robin-DMs are on the same page directly addresses your objection and therefore cannot be a strawman.New options that players ask to use do require the DM to either flatly say "no," or "yes," or to assess the material first (the latter is probably the most responsible course of action, but some people do opt to go with "only PHB options" or "everything goes" models).  But that's true with the infinite well of fan options that exist and will only continue to grow.  Also, the number of new options that players will bring to their DMs is substantially lower than the number of options that exist.  3e had a wealth of splats, and all the players at my table combined only ever asked to use material from three or four books beyond the PHB.If most DMs play homebrew worlds, then the risk of having to allow things they don't want to allow is irrelevant.  It also provides them with an easy means of exclusion when material doesn't fit the feel or theme of the homebrewed world; for example, a DM whose homebrew world has a traditional fantasy feel doesn't ever have to worry about needing to assess a Thri-Kreen race.  A homebrew DM who is looking for material that may be worth adding to her homebrew setting also has the luxury of time in that she is not having to give a player an answer to the question "may I use this."  This lets the homebrew DM schedule her assessments of new material.  It's also worth pointing out that homebrew DMs do not limit themselves to official material, they take what they think is good and appropriate wherever they find it.  This means that homebrew DMs already have the unstoppable and limitless well of fan created options to deal with, and they are therefore already dealing with nigh infinite options that will only continue to grow the longer the edition persists.No, that's not what WE'RE discussing.  It's clear to me now that you have been and are simply arguing past me; that's a common problem with online discussions.  I am and have been discussing a desire for more options; I do not need them to come from WotC.  What WotC could do for me is 1) release updated versions of the settings, and 2) put out a good license for 5e.  The existence of a license would remove the legal uncertainty that could be keeping some smaller or more conservative publishers from making 5e material.I have stated my position on additional options many times, and I will restate it here for clarity:Options are, by their very nature, optional, and adding more options does harm to precisely no one.  The only time options are not optional is when one agrees to be bound by restrictions such as those of the AL.That is my position on options, ALL OPTIONS, REGARDLESS OF SOURCE.Opening your post by trying to tell the other poster what to do and accusing them of things (i.e. spamming in this case) is not conducive to getting them to read your post, and it's counterproductive to persuading them.  I looked at your post four different times before finally convincing myself to read past your first paragraph and to see if anything of a civil discussion could be salvaged from it.</blockquote>

Verification