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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 7683397" data-attributes="member: 5038">Don't play with snowflake players unable to comprehend that the default assumption of the game is that the DM determines what enters the campaign (again, Organized Play aside).  If I had a player like that, they can do us both a favor and find another table.  I don't want them at mine and think they would be better off at another table whose campaign is catering to those style.Furthermore, any DM that thinks it is a cop out to tell a player, "No" needs a to develop a backbone and the ability to take responsibility for the campaign that they are running. Again, the default has always been that the DM determines what options are appropriate and enter the campaign (organized play aside).  Some groups run things differently and that is their choice, but it doesn't change the default assumption. Therefore, if the DM is going for a certain feel for the campaign, they should make it known prior to character develop and enforce it- beginning with what options are available and reserving the right to allow or disallow later material as they deem appropriate.  Knowing the terms, the player agrees and participates or they don't and either find another group, start their own group, or find something else to do.  Nothing entitles a player to sit at a table where the game is run by someone else. One of the biggest geek fallacies  held by many in this hobby is that there should be room for everyone at a table regardless of playstyles.  However, not all styles can be accommodated at all tables nor should they be.  Sometimes those styles come into conflict with pixie vampires being an example where the group is going for a more traditional fantasy vibe.  It is better for the player to find another table.No. Bloat ruins the game for you (and some others).  Not every everyone feels that way. For many people, what you call bloat is providing options from which to pick and choose and tailor the campaign setting to their vision. Others still might want gonzo and allow as much as possible.  Options, in my opinion are good (even options such as PrCs which I don't like). Some people like multi-classing to represent certain common fantasy archetypes However, multi-classing is optional and not everyone likes or uses it (or they may not like it for representing certain fantasy archetypes).  Such people  might prefer and allow a subclass to handle the concept   Yet, a third group might prefer a new base class with its own subclasses or even a class variant (as was done with the non-spellcasting ranger and favored soul).  Still, a fourth group might want prestige classes to handle a concept.  I think including all those options to satisfy each group is a good thing as it allows DMs to choose which is best for their individual campaign.</blockquote>

Verification