D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[GMforPowergamers]

Because you hear negative stories more than positive ones, because human nature. It's human nature to complain loudly when you don't like something or attack that which you don't like. It's not human nature to tell stories of good things nearly as often. So the much smaller numbers of anti-inclusive people get the lions share of the spotlight. It's like stories of murder in the news vs stories of people saving lives. If the difference in the numbers of each of those stories was truly representative of how life is, it would be foolish to walk out of your door in the morning, and you'd probably still die that day to someone breaking in.

that may be it... maybe I just notice more jerks

 

[Maxperson]

that may be it... maybe I just notice more jerks

Everyone does. Jerks stand out more.

 

[Azzy]

Everyone does. Jerks stand out more.

I think it's been amplified since Covid.

 

[Parmandur]

You know, rewinding a bit on the original topic...

It strikes me that the Background Feat combined with latter dependent Feats could replace 3E style Multiclassing pretty effectively. Have a Background like "Esotericist" or something that grants the Eldritch Adept Feat from Tasha's, and have that be the "recommended" Background for a Warlock to create an extra Warlock-y Warlock, or let another Class dip into Warlock flavor a bit. Same with giving Fighting Initiate to Soldiers or something, and so on and so forth. Create Level 4 Feats or higher that tie into usual Class Features, and you can have a more 1E or 2E style Multiclass option via these Feats.

 

[Azzy]

You know, rewinding a bit on the original topic...

It strikes me that the Background Feat combined with latter dependent Feats could replace 3E style Multiclassing pretty effectively. Have a Background like "Esotericist" or something that grants the Eldritch Adept Feat from Tasha's, and have that be the "recommended" Background for a Warlock to create an extra Warlock-y Warlock, or let another Class dip into Warlock flavor a bit. Same with giving Fighting Initiate to Soldiers or something, and so on and so forth. Create Level 4 Feats or higher that tie into usual Class Features, and you can have a more 1E or 2E style Multiclass option via these Feats.

I'm here for it.

 

[cbwjm]

It's a weird juxtaposition to see people complaining about others who say "Try another system" when I have also seen multiple times on these boards people lamenting the fact that people don't want to try other systems. My own thoughts on the matter is basically, if you're in the middle of a DnD game, being told to try another system for something like a heist, isn't useful. But maybe before a campaign begins, suggestions for systems that might work well for heist game you want to run might be useful. Of course, people saying to "Just play another system" without actually providing a system and why it would be a good choice are equally unhelpful.

 

[cbwjm]

You know, rewinding a bit on the original topic...

It strikes me that the Background Feat combined with latter dependent Feats could replace 3E style Multiclassing pretty effectively. Have a Background like "Esotericist" or something that grants the Eldritch Adept Feat from Tasha's, and have that be the "recommended" Background for a Warlock to create an extra Warlock-y Warlock, or let another Class dip into Warlock flavor a bit. Same with giving Fighting Initiate to Soldiers or something, and so on and so forth. Create Level 4 Feats or higher that tie into usual Class Features, and you can have a more 1E or 2E style Multiclass option via these Feats.

I've been thinking that for a while as well, though back when I was considering it, I was only thinking of a single feat. Something like the sorcerer's metamagic feat or the battlemaster's battlemaster feat. Fighting styles are also an excellent feature for a feat and I'd like to see more. These level 1/level 4 feats are hopefully going to be expanded upon because they are great for providing another avenue of character customisation.

 

[Parmandur]

I've been thinking that for a while as well, though back when I was considering it, I was only thinking of a single feat. Something like the sorcerer's metamagic feat or the battlemaster's battlemaster feat. Fighting styles are also an excellent feature for a feat and I'd like to see more. These level 1/level 4 feats are hopefully going to be expanded upon because they are great for providing another avenue of character customisation.

Yeah, it is definitely a power bump, but if it handled systematically, I think it can enhance character representation without creating overwhelming options.

 

[Jaeger]

While I would not want to play in a game without the possibility of death, others do want that and they are still playing D&D. They shouldn't be told that D&D is not for them.

Except that by definition they are not.

It's like playing a game of "chess" where you use the board and pieces but you are outright ignoring any rule you want during play, and still calling it "chess".

You might be using the chess board and pieces, but by any objective measure you were not playing a real game of chess.

They may call what they are doing "playing D&D", and say how much fun it is for them.

I will never tell someone that they are not having fun. They may be having an outright blast. Good for them.

But when you are no longer playing the game as intended; you are literally not playing the same game as people that are.

They may claim that it the same thing, but they are just using its trappings to wrap their new apple in the peel of the orange they started with.

if you're in the middle of a DnD game, being told to try another system for something like a heist, isn't useful. But maybe before a campaign begins, suggestions for systems that might work well for heist game you want to run might be useful. Of course, people saying to "Just play another system" without actually providing a system and why it would be a good choice are equally unhelpful.

This is legit. However...

The problem is that many would rather use the trappings of the #1 rpg and change the paradigm of play by just ignoring rules/ dice results during the game, rather than really outline what type of play experience they are after so useful suggestions can be made of RPG's or storygames to suit.

Poster1: "I don't want PC death due to some random dice roll in combat."

Poster2: " Well Maybe you might be better served by another RPG other than D&D, because it is literally not designed for that paradigm of play; maybe a storygame or other rules lite RPG?"

But instead of: "What would you suggest then?" The immediate and all too predictable reply goes something like:

Poster1: "But we play D&D! Your one true wayism is hating my fun!"

And so one gets the experience of stating a neutral fact, and being responded to as if there is an underlying, unspoken antagonism in one's statement.

No, you seem to be setting up a stance that isn't actually reflected in what other posters have said. Have fun with that.

I quoted posters where they explicitly said that they were/would ignore dice results for purely narrative/story based reasons.

And in other threads where game lethality has come up, similar posts about ignoring mechanical results are posted regularly.

No one was taken out of context.

Now you CAN just switch ideas, but at that point why not just make a new world and start over?

Why should the surviving PC's players have to stop playing their characters?

Why would you make them do that? My players would revolt.

where it is an option why not just stop this game and MAKE a pirate game at that point? even if Pirate was an option 6 months ago, why would all of these characters choose and work together to change so much? Why not just start over (even in the same world if you can't make new ones quick) and just fully do pirates?

Why would I stop the game when there is no justifiable reason to do so?

The game flows from the choices of the players make with their PC's. I'm supposed to say: "Stop dudes, seems you want to be pirates now... so let's start over!"

My players: "Why? What's wrong with you?"

Why would I take away player agency like that? That's just silly.

that premise already sounds more like a pre set story

No it's not. That's not what a story is at all.

No path is planned out. Once the PC's begin interacting with the game world they can do anything they want to.

I don't see how that isn't a story line

again you are describing a story line

you have gone on to describe story lines saying they aren't story lines...

Adventure hooks that they players may or may not react to is a story line?

Describing examples of possible in-game events that might unfold are examples of story lines?

Those are not story lines.

There is no 'story line' because the whole point of such a set up is that I don't know what the PC's will do next, or which direction they will decide to go.

Story line noun
Definition of story line:
- The plot of a story or drama

There is no 'Plot' or 'narrative', because nothing is prewritten. No one knows what will happen until things unfold in the game during play.

You are using the word 'storyline' wrong. It is making your counterargument incomprehensible.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Except that by definition they are not.

What definition?

And how do you define this for a game where the first rule is you can change anything about the game?

This is really just the lowest form of gatekeeping right here: not even knowing where the gate is in the first place.

Edit:

Also, improvised and unscripted media have storylines all the time!

 

[Maxperson]

Except that by definition they are not.

It's like playing a game of "chess" where you use the board and pieces but you are outright ignoring any rule you want during play, and still calling it "chess".

Show me where death must happen. I see combat. I see rules for death under certain circumstances. But you know what else I see? Multiple places in the DMG stating that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. Changing a rule and removing death does not turn the game into anything other than another version of D&D, like the 10's of thousands of other versions out there with various house rule combinations.

You might be using the chess board and pieces, but by any objective measure you were not playing a real game of chess.

You are when the game of chess says that the rules serve the players, not the other way around and they alter it. That's a really bad analogy.

They may call what they are doing "playing D&D", and say how much fun it is for them.

I will never tell someone that they are not having fun. They may be having an outright blast. Good for them.

But when you are no longer playing the game as intended; you are literally not playing the same game as people that are

Most people aren't playing the same game as other people are. If you put in a fumble chart, you are changing the game the same as the no death folks are. If you ban Counterspell, you are changing the game the same as the no death folks are. Are you arguing that people who ban Counterspell or use fumble charts are not playing D&D? That anyone who doesn't play the game exactly as written isn't playing D&D? Because if you aren't, then you should also not be saying that people who take death off the table aren't playing D&D.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Except that by definition they are not.

It's like playing a game of "chess" where you use the board and pieces but you are outright ignoring any rule you want during play, and still calling it "chess".

I mean isn't EVERY RPG just useing the rules you want and ignoring or changing the ones you don't?

what definition of D&D do you have that discounts all homebrew?

Why would I stop the game when there is no justifiable reason to do so?

The game flows from the choices of the players make with their PC's. I'm supposed to say: "Stop dudes, seems you want to be pirates now... so let's start over!"

My players: "Why? What's wrong with you?"

Why would I take away player agency like that? That's just silly.

okay dude... you have a stragne group... first they lose half the players then they are trying too find a new direction but the mear IDEA of just making new character offends them?!?!

Why should the surviving PC's players have to stop playing their characters?

to make new ones to start a new game and have fun?

Why would you make them do that? My players would revolt.

do they often revolt at the end of one campaign and begining of another? have you only ever run 1 campaign sence you started?

No it's not. That's not what a story is at all.

the adventure of 3-5 player characters where they make choices and those choices effect the world and they enjoythemselves... that ISN'T a story? what is a story then?

No path is planned out. Once the PC's begin interacting with the game world they can do anything they want to.

yes that is everygame I play and run too... that is an RPG and they still make up stories.

Adventure hooks that they players may or may not react to is a story line?

yes.... the totality of the chosen and unchosen hooks form togather into a storyline...

ex: Antra fought his way out of the underdark and found a fellow wizard who both nursed him back to health and helped him into the above world... the mage's daughter was part of an adventureing group (really kids who WANTED to adventure) and he joined them. He brought up the treasure hoard he knew of, but before they did that they decided to go to the mountains and fight the ghoul lord. on the way to the ghoul lords 2nd layer they found a map to a secrete anctiant site with lost lore... they stopped heading toward the 2nd part of the ghoul king and went in search of this site... but it was a trap set by a group of magic easting alternate world mindflayers... during that fight when 1 of the characters died the group got some good xp and treasure... but the brother of the dead character wanted to bury him at home... so the whole group went to there town. on the way they met a monk with a secrete and they found out he was FROM the alternaite world the mindflayers were and planned to use that knowladge to go back and avenge there fallen brother... but first they got side tracked by a gang war in the home town. During that gang war the monk died...and so too did the orginal mage's daughter.

the group decided that was it. There was no story forward without the monk FROM the alt world, no one cared about the ghoul lord anymore and down 2 of the orginal 5 characters (4 only wanted exceitment and now see how deadly that is, and 1 antra was really in this to find a new home and he had...with them) so we retired and started a new game,

the story was every choice made and every adventure gone on, and every hook used or not.

Describing examples of possible in-game events that might unfold are examples of story lines?

describing them, no, useing them (by taking them or ignoreing them) is.

Those are not story lines.

yes they are

There is no 'story line' because the whole point of such a set up is that I don't know what the PC's will do next, or which direction they will decide to go.

not knowing what coomes NEXT doesn't make something not a story
by that train of thought Game of Thrones wasn't a story becuse everyone watching didn't know what would come next.

Story line noun
Definition of story line:
- The plot of a story or drama

There is no 'Plot' or 'narrative', because nothing is prewritten. No one knows what will happen until things unfold in the game during play.

nothing says PREwritten though... you added that.

You are using the word 'storyline' wrong. It is making your counterargument incomprehensible.

becuse there IS no counter to my argument that the game makes a story. the story will have a begining, a middle and an end. It might be an end at a great heroic retirement. It might be an end at a TPK. it might end someway between those. You more likely then not will not know the middle until you are well past it (maybe even not knowing where the middle WAS before you end).

NOBODY is prewriting a story and forceing there players to watch the show. (atleast no one here)
NOBODY is suggesting (that I have seen) that my warlock could not have died a dozen different ways at a dozen different times.

The game with my warlock had a (mostly) good ending. It had a GREAT story... a few years ago (more then I want to admit) my Hobgoblin Warblade had a JUNK ending... He watched his two closest friends die, got turned into a frog just to force himself back... but not before the thing they were fighting got away with the ring they were all after. He was ready to push on for revenge, but the only other 2 living members of his group were not. that was an annoying ending. BUT IT WAS AN ENDING.

what i didn;t do was throw a fit or 'revolt' as you put it becuse a game ended. I sighed and drew up my next character (a psion I think if I have the order of campaigns right)

 

[Azzy]

I quoted posters where they explicitly said that they were/would ignore dice results for purely narrative/story based reasons.

And you created extra baggage to go along with that and insist that it's fighting the system when you also fight the system for other, "okay" reasons.

 

[Jaeger]

And how do you define this for a game where the first rule is you can change anything about the game?

This is really just the lowest form of gatekeeping right here: not even knowing where the gate is in the first place.

"Gatekeeping" invoked. Check.

News flash: I cannot stop you from having fun any way you want.

I am gatekeeping nothing.

And invoking 'Rule Zero' is a total strawman because it has nothing to do with my objective statement how outright ignoring certain rules or fundamentally changing them transforms gameplay as intended to the point that an entirely new play paradigm has being established.

And if that new paradigm is your jam; your gameplay goals might be better served by a different game that embraces that play paradigm within its game system from the jump.

You literally just all but repeated the example I gave in my last post of one getting the experience of stating a neutral fact, and being responded to as if there is an underlying, unspoken antagonism in one's statement.

Also, improvised and unscripted media have storylines all the time!

Not while they are being improvised or performed.

The full 'story line' only emerges as a single narrative at the end of the performance.

okay dude... you have a strange group.

Reverse "one true wayism" for the win!

do they often revolt at the end of one campaign and begining of another? have you only ever run 1 campaign since you started?

Creating nonsense scenarios is not an argument.

the adventure of 3-5 player characters where they make choices and those choices effect the world and they enjoy themselves... that ISN'T a story? what is a story then?

Story is emergent from gameplay as past events of what happened in the game are told or recounted after play has concluded.

During play you are not "telling a story"; you are playing the game.

because there IS no counter to my argument that the game makes a story.

Not your original question:

how do you run a game that doesn't have a line?

You questioned how do you run a game without a 'story line'.

So assuming you were using the word 'story line' in the standard (dictionary) way, I elaborated.

nothing says PREwritten though... you added that.

The words used to define a 'story line' depending upon your dictionary of choice, pre-suppose a series of connected events that must be pre-planned / written, or a recounting something that has already happened.

Specifically referencing a story or drama, both of which are recounting of pre-existing narratives.

There is no 'story line' for an RPG that can be devised ahead of time unless the GM is railroading.

There can only be a pre-existing plot/story line for an RPG if the GM has a pre-planned plot/story line for an "adventure/campaign" that the players walk through, often with the GM engaging in rules manipulation shenanigans to ensure that it ends as intended.

The only 'story' and 'story line' that can come from RPG gameplay are emergent in the retelling of the PC's adventures.

This is all straightforward.

Not knowing what comes NEXT doesn't make something not a story

In the context of someone listening to a story being told, you are correct.

In the context of acting and reacting to real-time events in life or RPG gameplay; that not a story by definition.

Words have defined meanings for correct usage.

If you continue to use words like 'story line' and 'story' wrong, I can hardly be blamed for your confusion with my replies.

And you created extra baggage to go along with that and insist that it's fighting the system when you also fight the system for other, "okay" reasons.

The posters I quoted could have corrected me if I misrepresented their positions. Posters have not been shy in their replies.

You are tilting against a windmill that isn't there.

 

[Maxperson]

And invoking 'Rule Zero' is a total strawman because it has nothing to do with my objective statement how outright ignoring certain rules or fundamentally changing them transforms gameplay as intended to the point that an entirely new play paradigm has being established.

Yes. Changing rules objectively makes things different. Your problem is that such a change doesn't objectively make something not dungeons and dragons. You are literally claiming that any game that doesn't follow the rules as written isn't D&D, despite D&D being all about changing the game and making it your own from day 1. D&D per RAW is that D&D = rules as written plus changes made by the table.

Your subjective opinion that any change to the D&D rules makes something not D&D is yours, and it is wrong................per RAW.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"Gatekeeping" invoked. Check.

Due to gatekeeping detected.

News flash: I cannot stop you from having fun any way you want.

That is not what 'gatekeeping' means.

And invoking 'Rule Zero' is a total strawman because it has nothing to do with my objective statement how outright ignoring certain rules or fundamentally changing them transforms gameplay as intended to the point that an entirely new play paradigm has being established.

And if that new paradigm is your jam; your gameplay goals might be better served by a different game that embraces that play paradigm within its game system from the jump.

You literally just all but repeated the example I gave in my last post of one getting the experience of stating a neutral fact, and being responded to as if there is an underlying, unspoken antagonism in one's statement.

You are ignoring Rule Zero.

Therefore you are not playing D&D.

Not while they are being improvised or performed.

The full 'story line' only emerges as a single narrative at the end of the performance.

This is also not what 'storytelling' means.

An arc is an arc regardless of whether it is planned or not.

 

[Jaeger]

Most people aren't playing the same game as other people are. If you put in a fumble chart, you are changing the game the same as the no death folks are. If you ban Counterspell, you are changing the game the same as the no death folks are. Are you arguing that people who ban Counterspell or use fumble charts are not playing D&D? That anyone who doesn't play the game exactly as written isn't playing D&D? Because if you aren't, then you should also not be saying that people who take death off the table aren't playing D&D.

I never made that claim.

I have not once referenced playing RAW.

I specifically and intentionally use the words: Gameplay as intended.

Which is why Appeals to the authority of Rule Zero are irrelevant to what I am talking about.

See my post replies #344 and #347. Wherein I make such extreme RAW authoritarian pronouncements like: "A simple homebrew hack or two is not the end of the world for sure." and "You can house rule a system - adjusting the dial up and down a few places to better tune in to what you want to do at the table. "

The Horror.

The typical house rules you mention do not sufficiently change things to where gameplay as intended is fundamentally changed.

Yet we see with the '5e compatible' Dark souls RPG that was sadly shipped with many error's, that it does change things to the point that no one will claim that they are 'playing D&D" when they play Dark Souls. Even though both games started with the same underlying mechanics; Dark souls, with the way is uses "position" vs HP has moved the dial to where you are now in a different play paradigm than gameplay as intended in original 5e D&D. It is no longer "the same game".

Even the IP holder of D&D ran into this effect with 4e. The paradigm of play was so changed between 3 and 4e that for a great many payers 4e was "not D&D" to them. In fact it prompted an early edition change that move the core paradigm of play back to one that "felt more like D&D" to draw those players back.

The 'no death' folks are not just mechanically tweaking the game. They are literally setting aside the dice/system altogether, because 'reasons'.

Such a solution is not just another 'house rule' making the game system mechanically harder or easier. It is fundamentally altering the intended play paradigm of the game.

Once game play is sufficiently altered to where you are engaging in a different play paradigm than gameplay as intended. Then yeah, you just might be playing a different game than everyone else that still is.

Due to gatekeeping detected.

That is not what 'gatekeeping' means.

Actually, that is exactly what gatekeeping means:

Gatekeeping
noun
1. The activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.

Nothing I have said here controls or limits your access to any RPG, or to do anything you want with your RPG's.

It is literally impossible for me to do.

And opinion you disagree with is not gatekeeping. Words you disagree with do not control you. You have to actually be in a position to control or limit something to gatekeep it. And I am not.

The meaning of words do not change based upon how you feel. You are using the word wrong. Your accusation of "gatekeeping" is baseless.

This is also not what 'storytelling' means.

An arc is an arc regardless of whether it is planned or not.

You didn't use the word 'storytelling'. You are invoking a different word that does not mean the same thing as the one you used in the point I responded to. You are conflating things now and using words wrong again.

You specifically said:

Also, improvised and unscripted media have storylines all the time!

Story lines are an aspect of storytelling. They are not the act of storytelling itself.

In non-improvised media they are pre-written ahead of time. While the performers are improvising, they are not working with a storyline by definition. Because they are literally making it up as they go along. In improvised media the storyline is not fully formed until the end. Only then are you able to look back and see the beginning to end "story line" of the performance.

This is a simple and straightforward explanation of how 'story lines' are created.

Just because story, storytelling, and story line all have the same root word does not mean that they can be used interchangeably.

Words have definitions for a reason. I should not have to be explaining what they mean. You are literally arguing against the dictionary at this point.

 

[Maxperson]

I never made that claim.

I have not once referenced playing RAW.

I specifically and intentionally use the words: Gameplay as intended.

Gameplay is either intended to be RAW, or intended to involve changes to RAW made by the DM/Group. This is true dichotomy. It's either intended to be changed or it isn't. Which is it?

Which is why Appeals to the authority of Rule Zero are irrelevant to what I am talking about.

It's not an Appeal to Authority.

See my post replies #344 and #347. Wherein I make such extreme RAW authoritarian pronouncements like: "A simple homebrew hack or two is not the end of the world for sure." and "You can house rule a system - adjusting the dial up and down a few places to better tune in to what you want to do at the table. "

Removing death from the table is just a simple homebrew hack, though. You may not like playing the game that way(and neither do I), but that's all it is.

The typical house rules you mention do not sufficiently change things to where gameplay as intended is fundamentally changed.

Neither does the removal of PC death. There's nothing different about removing that than adding in a critical hit table or removing Counterspell.

Yet we see with the '5e compatible' Dark souls RPG that was sadly shipped with many error's, that it does change things to the point that no one will claim that they are 'playing D&D" when they play Dark Souls. Even though both games started with the same underlying mechanics; Dark souls, with the way is uses "position" vs HP has moved the dial to where you are now in a different play paradigm than gameplay as intended in original 5e D&D. It is no longer "the same game".

I don't know that RPG, but if it's just a 5e compatible RPG, then of course it's a different RPG. If it's a new 5e homebrew setting, then it's probably D&D, but one with a lot of fundamental changes to things like Dark Sun did to 2e.

Even the IP holder of D&D ran into this effect with 4e. The paradigm of play was so changed between 3 and 4e that for a great many payers 4e was "not D&D" to them. In fact it prompted an early edition change that move the core paradigm of play back to one that "felt more like D&D" to draw those players back.

But it was in fact D&D, regardless of the changes.

Here's the thing. It can "feel" like a game other than D&D to you, but your feelings don't change anything. They're just your subjective feelings about the subject. A game with no PC death is D&D, just like a game with no Counterspell is D&D.

The 'no death' folks are not just mechanically tweaking the game. They are literally setting aside the dice/system altogether, because 'reasons'.

No. No they in fact are not setting aside the dice system altogether. I showed that a few posts ago. Combat still matters, dice and all. They can fail without dying and suffer serious consequences. They still use dice for skills, saves, exploration and more. You are grossly exaggerating what the removal of PC death means, which really isn't all that much.

Such a solution is not just another 'house rule' making the game system mechanically harder or easier.

Yes it is in fact just another house rule. It can be nothing else. Any change to the rules, no matter how drastic, is a house rule.

It is fundamentally altering the intended play paradigm of the game.

For you. I'm not sure how you answered(if you answered) my first question in this post, but the game is in fact intended to be played with changes, both minor and major, made by the DM/Group.

We can see that from the 5e D&D which says you can play the game almost entirely diceless, which is your incorrect position about what the removal of death does to the game. So even if you were correct about what removing death does, a intended playstyle of D&D involves removing the dice almost completely from the game, so it would still be D&D.

We can also see that from the myriad of instances where it tells the DM that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around, as well as the multitude of optional rules, many of which drastically alter fundamental aspects of the game.

Once game play is sufficiently altered to where you are engaging in a different play paradigm than gameplay as intended. Then yeah, you just might be playing a different game than everyone else that still is.

Until you can show objectively where that line is, the above is an irrelevant statement. You don't get to decide for someone else whether they are playing D&D or not based on your personal opinion that the line was crossed.

 

[Maxperson]

Gatekeeping
noun
1. The activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.

Nothing I have said here controls or limits your access to any RPG, or to do anything you want with your RPG's.

It is literally impossible for me to do.

And opinion you disagree with is not gatekeeping. Words you disagree with do not control you. You have to actually be in a position to control or limit something to gatekeep it. And I am not.

The meaning of words do not change based upon how you feel. You are using the word wrong. Your accusation of "gatekeeping" is baseless.

What Does 'Gatekeeping' Mean in RPGs? - Dungeon Mash

Have you ever heard someone accused of Gatekeeping or being a Gatekeeper? It certainly sounds very ominous and the type of thing where you might…

www.dungeonmash.com

 

[Jaeger]

What Does 'Gatekeeping' Mean in RPGs? - Dungeon Mash

Have you ever heard someone accused of Gatekeeping or being a Gatekeeper? It certainly sounds very ominous and the type of thing where you might…

www.dungeonmash.com

From the dictionary:
Gatekeeping
noun
1. The activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.

From the article: "What Does ‘Gatekeeping’ Mean in RPGs?"

Hot Tip: It means the exact same thing as it does everywhere else: Because Dictionary.

The author "Dan" then writes:
"One fun thing about gatekeepers is that they don’t all agree with each other. But the most consistent thing about them is that they are very adamant about their opinions."

He is premise seems to be that people with opinions that say things you disagree with are "gatekeeping", because said opinions are somehow on others gameplaying buzz. By magic or something.

Opinions are not gatekeeping by definition. "Dan" should learn to crack a dictionary.

He is intentionally trying to redefine the term with a purely emotional appeal to the desire of not wanting to be judged because feelings, or something.

He is committing intellectual fraud.

This fraud goes on to actually try to redefine the term into something entirely different that its actual meaning: "But Gatekeeping is actually a bit more mundane. It simply means someone who feels as if they can judge the right or wrong way to do something."

He evidently correctly believed that most of his readers wouldn't look up the actual definition of the word gatekeeping...

Gatekeeping already has a definition. "Dan" does not get to redefine it to mean whatever he wants it to mean.

Citing his article is a joke. You are using the words of an pseudointellectual huckster to literally argue against the dictionary.

I just posted about this.

And the response was to do it. Again.

Amazing.

Until you can show objectively where that line is

Your whole argument is about showing you a hard line...

Where I am talking about paradigms of play. Concepts.

This has shown me that you obviously don't accept even the premise of my argument - you could have just led with that.

No point in continuing as obviously no headway will be made either way.

You don't get to decide for someone else whether they are playing D&D or not based on your personal opinion that the line was crossed.

?!? I am deciding for no-one.

I claim no psychic powers, or control over the thoughts of others.

Am I strident in my opinion? Sure.

That hasn't stopped you from completely disagreeing with me.

You certainly seem to be fully capable of deciding things for yourself.

That extends to everyone.