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="Elf Witch" data-source="post: 6399817" data-attributes="member: 9037">transtemporal I agree that the DM needs to be clear about what he wants to run and the tone and what he is going to allow. When I ran my Vanderhelme campaign which is a homebrew I wrote up a one page history of the world. I explained to my players that there would be low divine magic because the gods have been kept out of the world and that the main divine magic was from the druids.Anyone playing a cleric would be the first cleric in hundreds of years who cast spells. I told what races were allowed and what classes were banned. I banned as PCs warlocks,  half ocs and dwarves but allowed spellscales, Irda, drow ( in my world they were not evil and they were called twilight elves). Elves an half elves were the only race who could have psionic abilities but the full elves could not do arcane magic. I asked that the PCs be either good or neutral no evil and I asked them to answer this question why would Bahmut call you to serve him in a war to bring the gods back. This was not a typical DnD world. I wanted to try something different. And my players were on board and enjoyed it. But I was upfront about what I wanted to do. Sailor Moon Thank you because so many people think compromise means giving in or worse everyone gives and no one is happy but hey as long as they are equally miserable then it is okay. The DM does have the right to say what is allowed in his world if he doesn't want a class or race because he feels that they don't fit then why should he have to compromise. I have to wonder why with all choice available some players feel if I can't play X then my fun is ruined. Again if the player does not like and thinks he won't have fun why does the DM have to change unless he wants to he is not obligated too. I played in a AD&D game that came to a crashing halt because the DM would not compromise and allow evil PCs, he said bluntly that he hated running those kind of games and he would not do it. The game ended and some of us went with him to play a game that had no evil PCs the rest started an evil campaign. In the end there was no compromise other than split up and have separate games. We all stayed friends and played other campaigns together. BryonD You summed up that very well I wanted to add that sometimes it is best for the players and DM to part not that anyone is bad or wrong but because their playstyles don't mesh.HardcoreDandDGirl I think you are missing what some of are trying to say. We are not saying that compromise is not a good thing but we are saying that you can't always reach it in away that keeps the game fun for everyone and it is naive to think you can. Some playstyles don't mesh well. Again if the players and DM can't come to something that works for all of them then compromise is not the answer not playing together is the answer. And here I am thinking that these threads have the assumption that not being able to always come to a compromise is a bad thing. A compromise that makes people unhappy is not a good thing. I like players who add to the world too as long as it does not conflict in a major way with the world I have designed. As a DM I tend to be a yes DM and do everything I can to make a player happy with his PC but there are times I have to say no. I have designed prestige classes made exceptions to classes to bring their PCs closer to what they want. But sometimes there is no way and I think players need to accept that with good grace.  billd91 I have played in games where the DM caved and did things that he didn't want to things that really changed his world and not one of those games ended well. You could tell the DM was not happy. He stopped prepping he often canceled games and in one game in the middle of the session he just stopped and said sorry I can't do this anymore and packed up. If one player is unhappy that is more manageable than if the DM is unhappy. Hussar I do think it is bad faith when a DM says no evil and a player goes ahead and makes an evil character. I also think that it is whiny behavior when they moan and complain about it when the DM says no. I have seen players act like children throwing a tantrum over things like this. Go back and read that one reason many don't want splatbooks is because they don't want to deal with the players who get pissy when they are told things like core and X books only. HardcoreDandDGirl example of how a DM said no paladins in his world and instead of accepting it and finding another class to play out of the other choices instead tried to do an end round the DM by making a fighter cleric that for all intent purposes a paladin.  That would royally piss me off as a DM and a player. Now I don't what else went on and why the other players walked as well but on the surface I think it was wrong if that was the only thing the DM was banning.</blockquote>

Verification