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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CreamCloud0" data-source="post: 9717587" data-attributes="member: 7034710">i can't say i felt like that response was meant to be taken in an entirely serious light, but that's just IMO.i feel there's less difference between them than you think, while i won't deny it doesn't happen GMs don't all go around banning species for the sake of it, but they have a premise and cut away the things they feel don't fit the vibe, GMs aren't usually trying to quash options they're just trying to shape an idea into more tangibility and to that purpose what you don't include is often just as important to that effect as what you do.as for the harpies well, i feel like nowadays players quite often are walking around as monstrous species without expecting anyone in-universe batting an eye so seeing as i felt that they fit the aesthetic yeah i'd probably include them as an option.also the fact this is happening in session 0 is a factor, if charlie had wanted to introduce dragonborn halfway through the campaign then IMO the GM may have had more grounds to reject their addition even if there is potential appropriate myths to justify them being on-theme, i don't really believe that 'over the horizon' is a space of infinite potential to continuously dripfeed untethered people and ideas into the campaign.i forgot to comment on this previously but i'd rather not include an option at all than say 'only one of you can play this' that just feels like favouritism and, i think it's [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] who says it, if they die then you're faced with the dilemma of making this supposedly very rare species weirdly frequent or putting your foot down and saying 'no you can't play another we established they were rare'.</blockquote>

Verification