Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[Acolyte of Zothique]

But what I was responding to is the "The DM has to justify their setting" idea. Maybe I'm confused - I'm starting to come down with cold/flu - but my point is that no, I don't think I need to justify every decision I've ever made for my campaign. I don't really care what other people decide or what published campaigns do.

This applies to @billd91 as well. Personally, I find FR to be kitchen sink garbage dump of a campaign. That doesn't mean it's not fun in it's own way, but I have a problem taking it seriously. The number of races already stretches credulity for me, I don't want to stretch it any further. While I play to have fun, my campaign has a serious side as well. I would have a hard time feeling that I could run a serious campaign with a kitchen sink campaign.

So I limit races and include that in my session 0/campaign invite posting. If anybody asks the reason is a simple "it doesn't make sense in my world".

On the other hand let's say you join my campaign and you want to play a Minotaur. I think about it for a bit and while they're traditionally a monstrous race I've never actually used them. So sure. Cow-boy it up. I come up with a story of how minotaurs were on an undiscovered island of Etrec and off we go.

But then you decide that minotaurs are a bunch of bull and instead want to play a Kenku. Again, I come up with a story of a hidden valley, a curse, whatever. Then you decide Kenku are nothing to crow about.

I could go on with the puns like there's something fishy about Locathah and so on but my point is that if I start allowing one new race I have less and less reason to ban other races. At a certain point, to me race just becomes a rubber mask and races have no meaning.

My limits and house rules are not arbitrary. That doesn't mean I have to justify it to anyone.

This all perfectly reasonable and I agree with you.

My issue is this as succinctly as I can make it: if someone puts forward an argument into the public domain and a member of the public disagrees and asks for a rationale for that viewpoint; the person should provide that rationale or expect their view to be ignored/not worthy of consideration. Don't want to be considered foolish/thoughtless? Then don't make public statements of your opinion presented as fact without being able to back that opinion up with thought out rationale.

This is how the real world works; you will be expected to defend viewpoints you put out into public arena/ social media. If you can't then you diminish yourself and people will no longer consider what you have to say.

 

[Oofta]

This all perfectly reasonable and I agree with you.

My issue is this as succinctly as I can make it: if someone puts forward an argument into the public domain and a member of the public disagrees and asks for a rationale for that viewpoint; the person should provide that rationale or expect their view to be ignored/not worthy of consideration. Don't want to be considered foolish/thoughtless? Then don't make public statements of your opinion presented as fact without being able to back that opinion up with thought out rationale.

This is how the real world works; you will be expected to defend viewpoints you put out into public arena/ social media. If you can't then you diminish yourself and people will no longer consider what you have to say.

I agree with taking issue with people presenting opinion as fact. If it happens now and then it's just something that's poorly phrased and intent or meaning was not properly conveyed. It happens. But when people double down on it, it bugs me a bit as well.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Do not confuse having a pleasant conversation about what people like, and dislike, about a game involving dragons and unicorns on the internet ...

with whatever super serious debate you think you're trying to win.

Not trying to win a debate around an Elf game; I am responding to someone who presents their opinions as fact and then can't explain why they think that way. It doesn't matter what forum I'm on, I will always call that out otherwise we end up with misrepresentation; misinformation or fake news.

It doesn't come across as a pleasant conversation actually; not engaging in discussion but just stating 'this is a fact' is not a conversation - it's just aggravating.

By the way, have you read many discussion threads on this site? Because a considerable number seem to digress into 'super serious discussions'. If you are looking for pleasant conversations about rpgs without argument or heated debate then you are in the wrong place.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

But what I was responding to is the "The DM has to justify their setting" idea. Maybe I'm confused - I'm starting to come down with cold/flu - but my point is that no, I don't think I need to justify every decision I've ever made for my campaign. I don't really care what other people decide or what published campaigns do.

This applies to @billd91 as well. Personally, I find FR to be kitchen sink garbage dump of a campaign. That doesn't mean it's not fun in it's own way, but I have a problem taking it seriously. The number of races already stretches credulity for me, I don't want to stretch it any further. While I play to have fun, my campaign has a serious side as well. I would have a hard time feeling that I could run a serious campaign with a kitchen sink campaign.

So I limit races and include that in my session 0/campaign invite posting. If anybody asks the reason is a simple "it doesn't make sense in my world".

On the other hand let's say you join my campaign and you want to play a Minotaur. I think about it for a bit and while they're traditionally a monstrous race I've never actually used them. So sure. Cow-boy it up. I come up with a story of how minotaurs were on an undiscovered island of Etrec and off we go.

But then you decide that minotaurs are a bunch of bull and instead want to play a Kenku. Again, I come up with a story of a hidden valley, a curse, whatever. Then you decide Kenku are nothing to crow about.

I could go on with the puns like there's something fishy about Locathah and so on but my point is that if I start allowing one new race I have less and less reason to ban other races. At a certain point, to me race just becomes a rubber mask and races have no meaning.

My limits and house rules are not arbitrary. That doesn't mean I have to justify it to anyone.

Yeah... I may be misinterpreting your post, but if your point is "My table, my rules, I can decide what I want even if it's arbitrary and don't need to justify it," then I totally disagree.

Now, you don't need to justify your decisions to us here on this forum; we don't matter to your table (and we shouldn't).

But there should be some justification made to your players.

Let's say one of my players comes to me and says "Hey I came up with this great idea for a centaur PC, I worked hard on it can I use it?" And I replied "Naw none of that weird s*it, bipedals only," I'm being a bad DM.

Now, I can justify my "no centaurs" rules by saying something like, "In the world I've already built and established, your bard centaur doesn't really work because centaur culture is no more advanced than chimpanzees." But I still have to make a justification.

If I'm not, I'm just treating my players like their contribution to the game matters less than my own, and that reveals a lack of respect, like their just actors in my game. Which I think misses the point of D&D entirely.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Nope. I thought this was for my fellow bronies. Fluttershy FTW!



Yeah, we should all be in agreement. I totally agree with you about Forgotten Realms; 4e and Dragonborn didn't ruin it.

Because as we all know, there was nothing to ruin. As is well-known and cannot be reasonably disputed, Forgotten Realms was already a dumpster fire long before 4e.

You probably could've taken all the genocided gnomes from Dark Sun and transported them to Forgotten Realms to save them (I'm sure Elminster would've been involved) and that might be the one situation where gnomes made something better, because .... how could you make the Forgotten Realms worse?*

I guess the gnomes might have turned the Forgotten Realms from a dumpster fire to a flaming porta-potty fire, but then they could always spellplaguesunder it back to normal.

So, yeah, pretty pretty pretty sure we are on the same page!




*I'm sure gyor's ears are burning right now.

I was about to say "it's genocidal halflings not gnomes," but honestly it just makes this post funnier...

Also, no paladins. Doesn't matter if related, but no paladins.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah... I may be misinterpreting your post, but if your point is "My table, my rules, I can decide what I want even if it's arbitrary and don't need to justify it," then I totally disagree.

Now, you don't need to justify your decisions to us here on this forum; we don't matter to your table (and we shouldn't).

But there should be some justification made to your players.

Let's say one of my players comes to me and says "Hey I came up with this great idea for a centaur PC, I worked hard on it can I use it?" And I replied "Naw none of that weird s*it, bipedals only," I'm being a bad DM.

Now, I can justify my "no centaurs" rules by saying something like, "In the world I've already built and established, your bard centaur doesn't really work because centaur culture is no more advanced than chimpanzees." But I still have to make a justification.

If I'm not, I'm just treating my players like their contribution to the game matters less than my own, and that reveals a lack of respect, like their just actors in my game. Which I think misses the point of D&D entirely.

My justification is that it's my world and I've made decisions over the years and here's the result.

I don't make arbitrary decisions but I don't feel the need to justify every decision. As far as players having an impact, their actions or lack therein absolutely matter. But the players aren't defining the world, I am.

Want to design a world? Go for it. It's called being a DM. Tell me up front what the parameters are and I'll decide whether it makes sense for me to join.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I don't make arbitrary decisions but I don't feel the need to justify every decision. As far as players having an impact, their actions or lack therein absolutely matter. But the players aren't defining the world, I am.

See here's my disagreement with you; they are, they're the players in it. If you make a king and they kill and overthrow him, they're defining the world. If you arbitrarily block that move, you're removing player agency, which to me defeats the whole point of why you're actually playing D&D.