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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?
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="Elf Witch" data-source="post: 6399854" data-attributes="member: 9037"><p>First of all I think I see the disconnect here. You seem to think we are saying no you can't question the DM. That the DM should never be willing to talk to his players over things. That is not what I am saying and I don't think it was what anyone else is saying either. What we are saying is that that final say after the discussion comes down to the DM and the player then has a choice to stay and play or leave. Do one is saying the DM has the right to force things on anyone. If the player does not like what the DM is doing then they should not play in this campaign. </p><p></p><p>I would not want to play with a DM who would not talk and listen to me and then explain why he is saying no. Because he has the rigid an attitude I know I am not going to like how he adjudicates the rules. I also know that if a player is so rigid that they can't enjoy the game unless they can play exactly the character they want even if the DM would rather they didn't and offers them 400 other choices I don't want them at my table because they are going to be a headache and argue over every ruling that they don't like.</p><p></p><p>What I allow or ban changes with every campaign I base it on if it fits the world. In Vanderhelme the reason I discourage warlocks is because of the history of the world. The world was almost destroyed in a great war the world lost its access to the gods because of it. Tiamat made a pact with devils to grant her followers powers that is where the original warlocks came from. Warlocks are hated by not only the churches, the wizard guilds but the common people. If caught using their dark inherited powers they are burned at the stake.</p><p></p><p>Now if a player says to me I really want to play it and I explain what could happen and they say fine and since it can have an impact on the other players they get a say too if they are also fine with it and the risks involved then I will allow it. But with the understanding that if they are careless on who sees them using their powers I will not pull my punches just because they are PCs. </p><p></p><p>The reason it would piss me off is if you did it as a way to do and end round around me as a DM. If I say there are no holy warriors/paladins in my world and you think well fine I will play a cleric fighter and that way I can get around the DM that would be an issue to me. Because that would make me wonder what else you are going to try and get around me. Now if it was okay I understand no paladins but I want to play a more warrior style cleric then yes I would allow it and a compromise to the no paladin. </p><p></p><p>Race is not a small issue. If in my Vanderhelme campaign dwarves are an evil race they were tainted by their betrayal to their god and causing his death. They worship devil and demons. They are cannibalistic to other sentient races and have enslaved many races. There is no way I would allow a PC to play one even one who has turned on his people because of the conflict it would cause when he went into any town or city. They would be killed on sight. I don't think I or the other players would enjoy this kind of conflict. That does not mean that I ban dwarves in every campaign. </p><p></p><p>What I consider a whiny entitled player is one who after I have listened explained why I don't allow something and I may even have offered a compromise and the player won't budge because there is no way they will have unless they play the dwarf warlock.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Elf Witch, post: 6399854, member: 9037"] First of all I think I see the disconnect here. You seem to think we are saying no you can't question the DM. That the DM should never be willing to talk to his players over things. That is not what I am saying and I don't think it was what anyone else is saying either. What we are saying is that that final say after the discussion comes down to the DM and the player then has a choice to stay and play or leave. Do one is saying the DM has the right to force things on anyone. If the player does not like what the DM is doing then they should not play in this campaign. I would not want to play with a DM who would not talk and listen to me and then explain why he is saying no. Because he has the rigid an attitude I know I am not going to like how he adjudicates the rules. I also know that if a player is so rigid that they can't enjoy the game unless they can play exactly the character they want even if the DM would rather they didn't and offers them 400 other choices I don't want them at my table because they are going to be a headache and argue over every ruling that they don't like. What I allow or ban changes with every campaign I base it on if it fits the world. In Vanderhelme the reason I discourage warlocks is because of the history of the world. The world was almost destroyed in a great war the world lost its access to the gods because of it. Tiamat made a pact with devils to grant her followers powers that is where the original warlocks came from. Warlocks are hated by not only the churches, the wizard guilds but the common people. If caught using their dark inherited powers they are burned at the stake. Now if a player says to me I really want to play it and I explain what could happen and they say fine and since it can have an impact on the other players they get a say too if they are also fine with it and the risks involved then I will allow it. But with the understanding that if they are careless on who sees them using their powers I will not pull my punches just because they are PCs. The reason it would piss me off is if you did it as a way to do and end round around me as a DM. If I say there are no holy warriors/paladins in my world and you think well fine I will play a cleric fighter and that way I can get around the DM that would be an issue to me. Because that would make me wonder what else you are going to try and get around me. Now if it was okay I understand no paladins but I want to play a more warrior style cleric then yes I would allow it and a compromise to the no paladin. Race is not a small issue. If in my Vanderhelme campaign dwarves are an evil race they were tainted by their betrayal to their god and causing his death. They worship devil and demons. They are cannibalistic to other sentient races and have enslaved many races. There is no way I would allow a PC to play one even one who has turned on his people because of the conflict it would cause when he went into any town or city. They would be killed on sight. I don't think I or the other players would enjoy this kind of conflict. That does not mean that I ban dwarves in every campaign. What I consider a whiny entitled player is one who after I have listened explained why I don't allow something and I may even have offered a compromise and the player won't budge because there is no way they will have unless they play the dwarf warlock. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?
Top