Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elf Witch" data-source="post: 6400005" data-attributes="member: 9037">prosfilaes In my campaign which is a 3.5 we have dragonborn but not what came out in 4E but from Races of the Dragon so they are very different than 4E because they start out as a different race and go through a ritual to become dragonborn. As I said before dwarves are evil they are born that way now because every dwarf gives their unborn babies soul in payment to devils and demon lords. Now since the start of DnD dwarves have been a player class but I have run six people through this world and every last one of then said cool how original about dwarves. It is nice to see things shaken up and changed now and then. You are reaching no one is saying players who vote with their feet are bad people. I have voted with my feet and I don't think I was a bad person for doing so. Once I did it because I wa not enjoying the game. The DM was heavily into hack and slash and that is not my playstyle. I didn't think he was bad DM and I didn't go around telling people so. I was upfront and honest and said it was a difference in playstyles. Another time I walked because the DM was an unreasonable controlling jerk. He lets his wife have all the spotlight and of course she never came close to dying. He got mad at me because my PC got killed he thought I did it on purpose but no I didn't. I had no clue that he would choose to have his town guard use lethal force to kill my PC when she tried to bluff and feint to escape. He choose to have them all be armed with swords and to have six attacks on me all using lethal force  instead of subdual damage. As the DM he controlled the NPCs and he made the decision to what they did. Then he veto every character I tried to make. He wanted to me play a carbon copy of my dead player and I didn't want to. The party had a bard, sorcerer, wizard and druid I had been playing a warlock so I thought a fighter was what we needed. Which was not an unreasonable request. So see I know what it is like to play with an unreasonable unfair DM.Why do people take things to the extreme there is a difference between trying to build a gaming world that is  not the same as every other freaking world out there and being over protective off the world. I kind of resent the implication that as a DM when I make decisions to make my world have some interesting differences that means I don't want the players to come in and change things or blow my world up. That is not true not allowing dwarves or warlocks is hardly the same as treating the PCs like they are pawns with no say. I talk to my players before a game starts I am open about what I want to do and you know what if they said no not interested I would pitch another idea because I have many. If a player comes into my game where I want heroes and wants to play evil I ask why. If it because they want to play a redemption story like say Xena then I will usually allow it with the understanding that if they stay evil and become a problem at the table then the PC becomes an NPC and they get to make a new character. Your comment of I will talk to the other players and take them with me almost sounds like blackmail the my way or the highway that you say you dislike so much. And if the players walk then that frees the DM to find a group of players who are more suited to his DMing and the players who walked can find a DM more suited to them. I would not want to play with a group of players who would force me to deal with an unreasonable player who was ruining my fun at the table to the point that I would want them to leave. Hussar I have never met a player who throws tantrums who became fully engaged with the world to make it worthwhile dealing with the tantrums. That is the difference. A player who comes to you with an idea and says I know you don't normally allow this but what if we did this with the character and they had good ideas and showed a willingness to work with me to adapt their idea then I am usually willing to work with them. I want my players to have fun But that is not the same as digging their heels in and saying I have to play a dwarf this time if I don't I won't have any fun in the game and how dare you say no to a core class. That is being unreasonable that is being what I consider a whiny entitled player. Come on are you telling me that you can only have fun in a game if you can only play one race or class when there are so many others being offered. I have had DMs say human only I understand some payers don't like that but then they don't need to play in that DMs campaign. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to ban classes and races from settings they don't feel fits in their setting. I don't allow Eberron races when I run a Kingdom of Kalamar game. I don't think they fit well.  I have a Xena/Hercules style campaign and the only races available as player characters are human, dragonteeth, satyrs,  dryads and merfolk. If you think that is to limiting then maybe this campaign is not for you  and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. I would not be insulted if a player was upfront with me and said that. But what would bother me is them knowing this ahead of time agreeing to my play in my campaign then pressuring me to allow them to play an elf. No one here is advocating for unreasonable rules and draconian DMs. Every one of us has said yes you talk and listen to your players that you are upfront at the very beginning on what you want to do in this game and what we don't want. That if you can you try and work with the players. But we also ask that the players work with is and be upfront with is as well. Tell me upfront that you don't like my restrictions don't tell me this sounds good and then try and make a character that you know I have banned. Communication is a two way street and players need to communicate and be upfront the same as DMs. This whole idea that a DM has to allow everything is why people don't like splatbooks and don't want them published because they don't want to deal with players who can't take no.</blockquote>

Verification