Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fanboy2000" data-source="post: 5499705" data-attributes="member: 19998">I agree, but I don't think you went back far enough. First, KM made a really strong claim. Look at the the first sentence of the quote.Of course, while he says that it doesn't have to be that way, he then says that it is. Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but whatever. Still that's some pretty strong language about the nature of D&amp;D and it was begging for someone to say &quot;not in my game.&quot;Which is what happened. Now, of course, that's Dannyalcatraz's (I wonder if he's ever been to Alcatraz, I haven't and I used to live in the Bay Area) experience. It is what it is and you can't really argue with that. So, of course, KM doesn't. Instead he makes the claim that the rules assumed a certain style contrary the style Dannyalcatraz normally played. And that is what started this tangent.See, here's the deal: anytime someone makes a claim about what style the rules a particular edition of D&amp;D, or D&amp;D as a whole, support--and imply that they either don't like or are indifferent to the style--people come out of the T1 lines to say that that person is wrong. Then an army of equal size comes out and says that the original poster is right. Anyways, the lawyer from Texas then comes-up with the response you quoted.But after all of this, I gotta question for you, maybe I should make it a poll, but here it is: If you were the DM for a D&amp;D game set in Greyhawk and you wanted to start a game a first level and a player came up to you and asked if his first level fighter could have the back story of being a potato farmer before he was a fighter, would you allow it?Would the edition of D&amp;D influence your answer? What about the setting? Have you ever played in a game where a PC's background was something similarly mundane?O.k., that's more than one question, but they all key off each other.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fanboy2000, post: 5499705, member: 19998"] I agree, but I don't think you went back far enough. First, KM made a really strong claim. Look at the the first sentence of the quote. Of course, while he says that it doesn't have to be that way, he then says that it is. Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but whatever. Still that's some pretty strong language about the nature of D&D and it was begging for someone to say "not in my game." Which is what happened. Now, of course, that's Dannyalcatraz's (I wonder if he's ever been to Alcatraz, I haven't and I used to live in the Bay Area) experience. It is what it is and you can't really argue with that. So, of course, KM doesn't. Instead he makes the claim that the rules assumed a certain style contrary the style Dannyalcatraz normally played. [b]And that is what started this tangent[/b]. See, here's the deal: anytime someone makes a claim about what style the rules a particular edition of D&D, or D&D as a whole, support--and imply that they either don't like or are indifferent to the style--people come out of the T1 lines to say that that person is wrong. Then an army of equal size comes out and says that the original poster is right. Anyways, the lawyer from Texas then comes-up with the response you quoted. But after all of this, I gotta question for you, maybe I should make it a poll, but here it is: If you were the DM for a D&D game set in Greyhawk and you wanted to start a game a first level and a player came up to you and asked if his first level fighter could have the back story of being a potato farmer before he was a fighter, would you allow it? Would the edition of D&D influence your answer? What about the setting? Have you ever played in a game where a PC's background was something similarly mundane? O.k., that's more than one question, but they all key off each other. [/QUOTE]

Verification