Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1472840" data-attributes="member: 6398">Again, though, this is half the problem: some players don't think a &quot;themed&quot; campaign world should &quot;restrict&quot; what the Core Rules give the false impression of entitlement to unless it's in print (print=playtested and valid, houseruled=arbitrary and broken).&nbsp; Yes, I agree with your earlier statement that they should be told to go GM their own game (although I have, at times, told certain individuals to go do something else that I won't mention here).&nbsp; However, this isn't the entirety of the issue.&nbsp; For instance, my mention earlier about the way I handle Prestige Classes getting me ripped on in several threads.&nbsp; This isn't a case of not allowing a person join my table, but rather of being publicly prosecuted for being incompetant, fearful of PC empowerment, railroading, power-mad, and so forth, by several posters that have absolutely no idea what gaming it my table is really like.&nbsp; They didn't see &quot;campaign world conditions&quot; or &quot;playing style preferences&quot; being discussed; rather, they saw only &quot;restrictions&quot; that they don't feel are valid within the gaming community at all and did their (pathetically) best to make it look like I was some kind of villain that the 3rd Edition rules are designed to &quot;protect&quot; players from (and thus how it relates to this discussion).&nbsp;This is why, &quot;don't play with such people&quot; doesn't end the debate occuring here even though it seems like it should; The problem isn't isolated to the gaming table but is an attitude that has no hesitation to intrude into otherwise productive, meaningful message board and chat room discussions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bendris Noulg, post: 1472840, member: 6398"] Again, though, this is half the problem: some players don't think a "themed" campaign world should "restrict" what the Core Rules give the false impression of entitlement to unless it's in print (print=playtested and valid, houseruled=arbitrary and broken). Yes, I agree with your earlier statement that they should be told to go GM their own game (although I have, at times, told certain individuals to go do something else that I won't mention here). However, this isn't the entirety of the issue. For instance, my mention earlier about the way I handle Prestige Classes getting me ripped on in several threads. This isn't a case of not allowing a person join my table, but rather of being publicly prosecuted for being incompetant, fearful of PC empowerment, railroading, power-mad, and so forth, by several posters that have absolutely no idea what gaming it my table is really like. They didn't see "campaign world conditions" or "playing style preferences" being discussed; rather, they saw only "restrictions" that they don't feel are valid within the gaming community [i]at all[/i] and did their (pathetically) best to make it look like I was some kind of villain that the 3rd Edition rules are designed to "protect" players from (and thus how it relates to this discussion). This is why, "don't play with such people" doesn't end the debate occuring here even though it seems like it should; The problem isn't isolated to the gaming table but is an attitude that has no hesitation to intrude into otherwise productive, meaningful message board and chat room discussions. [/QUOTE]

Verification