Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4117954" data-attributes="member: 710">I can somewhat get your point, but in my view, this is all fluff that I can add, change, modify or ignore (as neccessary). And my players won't whine if I don't let them play Dragonborn or Warlocks if my campaign doens't have it. As long as I give them cool alternatives, that's fine.But it defintely helps that our group isn't that limited in scope - and everyone is wearing the DM hat (round-robing DMing, each with his own campaign and even sometimes game system)But the question is: IF you're players would be whining if they can't play Dragonborn Warlords or Tiefling Warlocks, shouldn't you reevaluate your priorities? Shouldn't everyone get what he wants to play?What I find a lot harder to do is fixing a rule system that is broken, or overly complicated. If the tools I use to satisfy my fantasy needs don't work as good as they could, it sucks. My whole group is too much into the "gaming" part of RPGs that we can accept unbalanced, broken or overly complicated systems for too long. 3E was very good, but if there is something that promises to fix its mechanical problems, it is not good enough for us anymore. (At least not in the long run. I guess with enough adventure paths and modules still in progress, 3E campaigns might go on for a while...)</blockquote>