NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6399811" data-attributes="member: 2011">Many of us play with friends. The point is that friends can add good suggestions and a DM often goes along, the line in the sand though is when the idea of friendship means that the DM has to go along with a suggestion, just because a friend said it.The crime is not wanting to have fun playing D&D. The crime is forcing one person's idea of fun onto other people, especially the DM.As for entitled, yes, that word is bandied about quite a bit. It does seem to suit the situation though. There's a lot of people whose expectations are that if it is written in a gaming book, then they can do it. That's not how I view the game. I view the game as a shared story where the DM does most of the work setting it up, so HE is entitled to make the rules. The players contribute a lot and the DM is expected to use common sense and make good adjudications, but the players are not entitled to make any of the rules, including which races/classes/spells/feats are allowed. Making a suggestion? Great. Deciding? No.Just the way I view it. Dragonborn are monsters in my campaign world. Not much different than Lizardmen. Half Orcs are allowed and only semi-montrous, but most players do not play them because they know that they are basically monstrous creatures that are often shunned by many civilized NPCs, especially in rural areas. I let my players know this ahead of time. Tieflings are monsters.I have the "good races" and the monstrous races. PCs are not allowed to be monstrous races.The majority of the races in the MM are monstrous and not allowed as PCs. Minotaurs. Were-creatures, etc.No, the "whiny self important/entitled person" is someone who wants to play a Dragonborn and makes a deal out of it when the DM says it's not allowed. And, I do not hate that person. You said that, not me.Wanting to play a given race is fine. Expecting to play a disallowed race or arguing about it? That's what makes someone whiny, self important, and entitled.Someone who does not believe that the DM should have the final world is also whiny, self important, and entitled. Now, DMs are human and can be heavy handed or make mistakes, but players can vote with their feet if a given campaign gets too overbearing. But most games where the DM disallows some aspects of the game are not heavy handed. They are just as envisioned by the DM.Nope. I am totally ok with anyone wanting to play anything they want. But they might not be able to play it exactly as they like in my game. In my game, I make the rules. I try to be fair, but I don't necessarily let a player come in and coerce me into doing things their way.I enjoy gaming with most gamers I have ever gamed with. I would game 2 or 3 times a week if the opportunity presented itself. I do not enjoy gaming with entitled people. Anyone who argues with the DM or thinks that everything in the PHB is fair game is not the type of person I enjoy gaming with.It really sounds to me that you feel entitled (there's that word again) to play any class / race in print at any DM's table and if you are not allowed, the DM is the one at fault. The fact that you do not like the DM making minor adjustments to your PC to fit his world is a bit telling.As for being fractured, we are no more fractured than any other group of people (e.g. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans). If we all thought the same, D&D would be a fairly boring game.Btw, I have a lot more leeway in my houserules if I am running a game at a FLGS, more than in a home campaign with close friends.Only if the DM disagrees and you push the issue. If the DM agrees, no problem. If the DM does not agree and you just drop it, again, no problem.</blockquote>

Verification