Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6557737" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Indeed. Now roll in&nbsp; [MENTION=18817]weldon[/MENTION]'s on-point note that DMs are players too, and often not as far removed from the &quot;regular&quot; players as one might think. Then &quot;absolutely no warlocks, tieflings, or dragonborn&quot; comes across as just as dogmatic and &quot;maybe-we-won't-jive&quot; as &quot;absolutely must be a dragonborn warlock of Cthulhu.&quot; Yeah, the DM invests more time and effort, so there is to some extent a...shall we say, &quot;favoring&quot; of what they want. But they also get to control basically everything the party ever experiences, so it's hardly like they're being MASSIVELY disenfranchised by a player who really wants to play some particular option or other.And really, this whole perennial debate (which 5e amplified greatly by trying to bring in &quot;older school&quot; players/DMs) tends toward the two extremes being contrasted against each other, when I suspect that many actually fall somewhere in-between. That is, there are probably plenty of older-school DMs who will want to be sold on a concept they consider &quot;weird&quot; or the like, but who will give it a fair hearing. Similarly, my personal experience has generally shown that most people who want the &quot;new&quot; or &quot;non-traditional&quot; stuff are highly adaptive and more than willing to compromise.That said, though (and this may be because of where I stand on the matter), I often feel like the more dogmatic position is the &quot;disallow&quot; camp. Hence my &quot;NIMBY&quot; comment earlier. I get a VERY VERY strong vibe, from most...&quot;classic-style&quot; DMs for lack of a better term, that anything which doesn't have 25+ years of history (which, as a gross generalization, often means &quot;anything that was added after said DM started playing&quot;) doesn't just get a &quot;nah, I'm not really into that,&quot; but a &quot;no, hell no, and never darken my door again.&quot; (I have, in fact, actually had someone write that precise phrase to me before, elsewhere on the internet, and I don't believe it was purely hyperbole either.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6557737, member: 6790260"] Indeed. Now roll in [MENTION=18817]weldon[/MENTION]'s on-point note that DMs are players too, and often not as far removed from the "regular" players as one might think. Then "absolutely no warlocks, tieflings, or dragonborn" comes across as just as dogmatic and "maybe-we-won't-jive" as "absolutely must be a dragonborn warlock of Cthulhu." Yeah, the DM invests more time and effort, so there is to some extent a...shall we say, "favoring" of what they want. But they also get to control basically everything the party ever experiences, so it's hardly like they're being MASSIVELY disenfranchised by a player who really wants to play some particular option or other. And really, this whole perennial debate (which 5e amplified greatly by trying to bring in "older school" players/DMs) tends toward the two extremes being contrasted against each other, when I suspect that many actually fall somewhere in-between. That is, there are probably plenty of older-school DMs who will want to be sold on a concept they consider "weird" or the like, but who [I]will[/I] give it a fair hearing. Similarly, my personal experience has generally shown that most people who want the "new" or "non-traditional" stuff are highly adaptive and more than willing to compromise. That said, though (and this may be because of where I stand on the matter), I often feel like the more dogmatic position is the "disallow" camp. Hence my "NIMBY" comment earlier. I get a VERY VERY strong vibe, from most..."classic-style" DMs for lack of a better term, that anything which doesn't have 25+ years of history (which, as a gross generalization, often means "anything that was added after said DM started playing") doesn't just get a "nah, I'm not really into that," but a "no, hell no, and never darken my door again." (I have, in fact, actually had someone write that precise phrase to me before, elsewhere on the internet, and I don't believe it was purely hyperbole either.) [/QUOTE]

Verification