Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Unwise" data-source="post: 6556590" data-attributes="member: 98008">For species, I'll be OK with anything that does not make me, in and of itself, remake adventures or the campaign. Examples include:- a flying creature, it just changes the game too much and I have to remake almost every outdoor encounter or challenge to account for it.- an evil species, or indeed anything that people assume is evil. I don't want to have to roleplay the villagers trying to drive out the fiend every game. It is limelight hogging and unnecessary. If I gloss over it or hand-wave it, it sucks flavour out of both the character and the world.- an enemy species. In a game about the war with the elves, no PC will play an elf.- a character that is too weird in a relatively social game. Like the evil species, a wierd species needs to be mentioned and explained to every single person you meet. That is just tiring for all concerned. Before long you stop having innkeepers even reacting to the fact that one PC is a 9ft tall purple plant two headed plant monster. It either offends the social contract of not being a limelight hog, or the believably of the world.I am happy to change the world around a character. Move a barbarian tribe into the area, even add a race into the world entirely, adjust the politics of the area to allow friendly relations etc. I just don't want to have to change the actual adventures or work around a problematic PC. I prefer to tinker with adventures to highlight some PC backgrounds etc, rather than tinker with them out of necessity just to make the damn thing work for one player.I very seldom ban classes. I do ask people to reconsider summoners though. They just make combats drag on. In 5e I ask people not to run a warlock darkness+devilsight enthusiast, as that is no fun for anybody else. I am very happy to nerf/buff things now though, so I can make anything work.</blockquote>

Verification