Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?All they know for sure is that a lot of players really want warlords and it's stupid for those who don't want them to think their preferences override those who do.
Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?All they know for sure is that a lot of players really want warlords and it's stupid for those who don't want them to think their preferences override those who do.
Would you prefer if "selfish" was used instead?Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?
Are those my only 2 choices?Would you prefer if "selfish" was used instead?
Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?
Sure, there are various ways to phrase it. Let's not use "stupid", okay? I think "stupid" and "selfish" are like gateway drugs.I don't know what the word is, but "not magnanimous" is getting close.
Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?
I think your statement is unnecessarily polarizing. First of all, it depends on the context, and it's not arbitrary. If a new player wanted to create a halfling called Clint Eastwood wearing a cowboy hat, it's not stupid or arbitrary for others to express discontent. If a new player wants to create an evil torturer PC, it's not stupid or arbitrary to complain. What's happening is that the other players are feeling threatened by an element that is dissonant with the shared narrative. Sure, it's not mature or generous to want to exclude everything you don't like from a system at the expense of others, but it can work the other way around with the tyranny of the minority so to speak. So it really depends on the context, and I'm not sure that your blanket statement and your choice of words are all that helpful.I think anyone who puts their opinions on a pedestal and degrades those of others simply because they're different is being an ignorant jerk, because they're operating from the position that there isn't another way of doing things.
Again, I don't think that what these people want to include is a bad thing. I just think that their desire to exclude things on the arbitrary basis that they weren't always there is stupid.
I think your statement is unnecessarily polarizing. First of all, it depends on the context, and it's not arbitrary. If a new player wanted to create a halfling called Clint Eastwood wearing a cowboy hat, it's not stupid or arbitrary for others to express discontent.
If a new player wants to create an evil torturer PC, it's not stupid or arbitrary to complain. What's happening is that the other players are feeling threatened by an element that is dissonant with the shared narrative.
Sure, it's not mature or generous to want to exclude everything you don't like from a system at the expense of others, but it can work the other way around with the tyranny of the minority so to speak. So it really depends on the context, and I'm not sure that your blanket statement and your choice of words are all that helpful.
Because you are either with us or against us?![]()
I guess rangers would be fighter/rogue/druids and paladins fighter/cleric/warlords, and having a single class for such builds doesn't seem like a bad idea.
But assassin? That would be just plain rogue.
You have the freedom to come up with an alternative. We risk trying to make our game desires universally applied, but in so doing, denying other people what they may want out of the game.Are those my only 2 choices?
It doesn't, but that's not what I dispute. I dispute that it's stupid or arbitrary or being an ignorant jerk to simply desire to exclude subjectively dissonant elements from a story.Again, I ask: why should D&D only support one style of play and atmosphere?
Separate optional adventure modules and optional sidebars was exactly the correct approach for dealing with robots and psionics at that time.That's never been the idea behind it. The very first versions of the games had adventures with robots and spaceships and a sidebar for psionics was in the Player's Handbook.
Dissonant for whom? That's the issue. You acknowledge that it's subjective. You can easily say as a DM "no warlords in my campaign," but it's much harder for others to say "warlords are a playable class" when they are not included in the rules.It doesn't, but that's not what I dispute. I dispute that it's stupid or arbitrary or being an ignorant jerk to simply desire to exclude subjectively dissonant elements from a story.
Assassin
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Illusionist
Monk
Mystic *
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard
No, my issue exactly is using the words "stupid" and "arbitrary" and "ignorant jerk".Dissonant for whom? That's the issue. You acknowledge that it's subjective. You can easily say as a DM "no warlords in my campaign," but it's much harder for others to say "warlords are a playable class" when they are not included in the rules.
No, my issue exactly is using the words "stupid" and "arbitrary" and "ignorant jerk".
For example, with the poll "Would you like to see Healing Surges in the next edition of D&D?", over 50% votes "No, I don't want Healing Surges". Is it helpful for us to start calling the OP or the voters "stupid" and "arbitrary" and "ignorant jerks"? Nivenus thinks his use of words is honest. I think it's inflammatory, period.
Nivenus, I've become confused by exactly what you're saying. Regarding these atttitudes, I think the difference between 1e and 2e, and 2e and 3e, and 3e and 4e, and 4e and 5e -- they're all lines in the sand. There are no objectively right or wrong rules for a right or wrong story. Neverthless, the desire to draw a line in the sand is not any more stupid or abitrary than the impetus that caused 5E to see the light of day.
The 5e Assassin will probably look much more like the 4e Executioner than the base 4e Assassin class. The Executioner was created with the stated intent of being a 4e re-imagining of the 1e Assassin, after all.
If that's the case, we'll see a class much like the rogue but more focused on poisons and lining up a death attack and less emphasis on exploration.