Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="weldon" data-source="post: 6557694" data-attributes="member: 18817">I think it's interesting that DMs have such strong views about the player options that should or should not be allowed in their game. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I couldn't help poking fun a bit by turning the tables on you. Sorry, but it was just sitting there…Using your analogy, I think it's OK for the player to come and ask if they can play center or forward or guard, or if they can introduce some set plays into your run and gun offense. What's the harm? It's not like we're playing competitive D&amp;D for a national championship or anything, right? It's pickup at best and a few variations can be tolerated.I'm OK with the idea that certain playstyles may not match up, but I fail to see how a race choice (by itself) is going to lead to plenty of other issues at the table. If this is your &quot;canary in a coal mine&quot; test, then I guess I understand, but it seems odd to me to hang it on a race / class choice.I don't really disagree with the various pro-DM comments. The DM is creating a story for the players and many get a lot of satisfaction out of crafting that story carefully. That effort should be respected. I just want balance where the player's efforts to craft a character are also respected. Using the improv approach, I think it's admirable for both the DM and the player to work together to weave the story.To me, mechanics are the least interesting part of trying to integrate a character into a campaign. It's so easy to reskin or refluff to make it fit in. If we're talking about broken mechanics that cause real balance problems in a combat heavy campaign, that's another thing entirely. I don't think we're at that point with 5e yet though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="weldon, post: 6557694, member: 18817"] I think it's interesting that DMs have such strong views about the player options that should or should not be allowed in their game. ;) I couldn't help poking fun a bit by turning the tables on you. Sorry, but it was just sitting there… Using your analogy, I think it's OK for the player to come and ask if they can play center or forward or guard, or if they can introduce some set plays into your run and gun offense. What's the harm? It's not like we're playing competitive D&D for a national championship or anything, right? It's pickup at best and a few variations can be tolerated. I'm OK with the idea that certain playstyles may not match up, but I fail to see how a race choice (by itself) is going to lead to plenty of other issues at the table. If this is your "canary in a coal mine" test, then I guess I understand, but it seems odd to me to hang it on a race / class choice. I don't really disagree with the various pro-DM comments. The DM is creating a story for the players and many get a lot of satisfaction out of crafting that story carefully. That effort should be respected. I just want balance where the player's efforts to craft a character are also respected. Using the improv approach, I think it's admirable for both the DM and the player to work together to weave the story. To me, mechanics are the least interesting part of trying to integrate a character into a campaign. It's so easy to reskin or refluff to make it fit in. If we're talking about broken mechanics that cause real balance problems in a combat heavy campaign, that's another thing entirely. I don't think we're at that point with 5e yet though. [/QUOTE]

Verification