Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8111761" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>For the first two points, if that's what you took from what I've said, then either I was not clear or you misunderstood.</p><p></p><p>To make my point clearer hopefully... I have no issue and do not think a person is in any way stubborn for not using an optional rule. In point of fact, I think everybody SHOULD make their own individual choices on whether or not to incorporate those optional rules. That's the point of <em>having</em> optional rules... so you can choose to use them or not use them.</p><p></p><p>However, if you don't like an optional rule... you don't get to demand that WotC NOT PUBLISH said rule in one their books. That's the point and has always been the point. Even if you think it ruins the game... the rule can be published, probably will be published, and then you have to make the CHOICE not to use it.</p><p></p><p>Now that being said... one of the "reasons" some people were giving as to why the optional rules should not be published at all is because if they were... then their players would expect to be able to use them. Understandable... BUT NOT WOTC'S PROBLEM. That is YOUR issue as a DM. If you have rules you don't want to use and you have players that do... then YOU have to choose what is more important... your choices, or your players.</p><p></p><p>Quite frankly... I don't care either way. If you inferred from my posts that I would side on the players on this choice and that a DM should acquiesce to their demands and allow the rules they don't like to be used... in truth it's the exact opposite! I am <em>entirely for</em> DMs picking and choosing which rules they wish to use for whatever game they are running... whether than be any of the "optional" books like Tasha's and Xanathar's... <strong>and even</strong> rules within the Player's Handbook. You want to run a game composed entirely of dragonborn? Go for it! And if a player comes to you asking to play a gnome, then you are more than within your right to say "No. Dragonborn only for this game."</p><p></p><p>But apparently some of the people in this thread have a hard time making that decree. So rather than THEY make the decree of "No, you cannot use the Tasha's rule of placing your ability scores wherever you want"... they want WotC to a NOT PUBLISH that optional rule so that they don't have to.</p><p></p><p>And I will reiterate again that that is a <em>ridiculous</em> reason to give for why WotC should or shouldn't include a rule in the game. And thank goodness WotC has the good sense to not listen to that kind of reasoning.</p><p></p><p>And finally... as far as your third point is concerned... you and I will just have to disagree on what is an actual "meaningful choice". Because I don't think keeping a demi-human's ability score bonus to only what is printed in the Player's Handbook is in any way, shape, or form... <em>meaningful.</em> Why? Because rather than a Dwarf from the PHB starting a new game using Point Buy to get an INT of <strong>15</strong> (<em>which they can have)</em>... Tasha's now will allow them to start with a <strong>17</strong> instead. A single, one point difference in modifier.</p><p></p><p>Like I said... not <em>meaningful</em> in way, shape or form. A point better? Sure. But not meaningful. And I don't believe WotC needs to worry about that... and by all accounts, WotC doesn't.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8111761, member: 7006"] For the first two points, if that's what you took from what I've said, then either I was not clear or you misunderstood. To make my point clearer hopefully... I have no issue and do not think a person is in any way stubborn for not using an optional rule. In point of fact, I think everybody SHOULD make their own individual choices on whether or not to incorporate those optional rules. That's the point of [I]having[/I] optional rules... so you can choose to use them or not use them. However, if you don't like an optional rule... you don't get to demand that WotC NOT PUBLISH said rule in one their books. That's the point and has always been the point. Even if you think it ruins the game... the rule can be published, probably will be published, and then you have to make the CHOICE not to use it. Now that being said... one of the "reasons" some people were giving as to why the optional rules should not be published at all is because if they were... then their players would expect to be able to use them. Understandable... BUT NOT WOTC'S PROBLEM. That is YOUR issue as a DM. If you have rules you don't want to use and you have players that do... then YOU have to choose what is more important... your choices, or your players. Quite frankly... I don't care either way. If you inferred from my posts that I would side on the players on this choice and that a DM should acquiesce to their demands and allow the rules they don't like to be used... in truth it's the exact opposite! I am [I]entirely for[/I] DMs picking and choosing which rules they wish to use for whatever game they are running... whether than be any of the "optional" books like Tasha's and Xanathar's... [B]and even[/B] rules within the Player's Handbook. You want to run a game composed entirely of dragonborn? Go for it! And if a player comes to you asking to play a gnome, then you are more than within your right to say "No. Dragonborn only for this game." But apparently some of the people in this thread have a hard time making that decree. So rather than THEY make the decree of "No, you cannot use the Tasha's rule of placing your ability scores wherever you want"... they want WotC to a NOT PUBLISH that optional rule so that they don't have to. And I will reiterate again that that is a [I]ridiculous[/I] reason to give for why WotC should or shouldn't include a rule in the game. And thank goodness WotC has the good sense to not listen to that kind of reasoning. And finally... as far as your third point is concerned... you and I will just have to disagree on what is an actual "meaningful choice". Because I don't think keeping a demi-human's ability score bonus to only what is printed in the Player's Handbook is in any way, shape, or form... [I]meaningful.[/I] Why? Because rather than a Dwarf from the PHB starting a new game using Point Buy to get an INT of [B]15[/B] ([I]which they can have)[/I]... Tasha's now will allow them to start with a [B]17[/B] instead. A single, one point difference in modifier. Like I said... not [I]meaningful[/I] in way, shape or form. A point better? Sure. But not meaningful. And I don't believe WotC needs to worry about that... and by all accounts, WotC doesn't. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins
Top