Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 1474413" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's heavy handed, and it doesn't give them a way to play those archetypes within your world. I mean, as a DM, you have reasons for ditching the races, ne? You have reasons why, in the creation of the world, these things weren't considered  and don't occur, and IMHO, a player deserves to know what these underlying reasons are, not just for this one character, but for the way they play in general. When there is an option to have artistic, magical forest people, or not have them, why choose not to have them? It's a "why can't there be any?" kind of thing. And IMHO, the reason should be deep enough to help the player not only accept it, but also to encourage them playing as a member of the world. Right now IMC, wizards -- there aren't any and never were. But because "no wizards" isn't exactly key to the conceptualization of my world, I can allow a PC who wants to be one to adopt it in the course of the campaign.Basically, this is "think long and hard about the changes you make, and why you are making them," odly enough, just like Monte says throughout the PHB when adopting house rules (which 'no elves and orcs' is). Players deserve to know the thought you put into the setting. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I dunno, it strikes me as more childish to aparently arbitrarily limit the setting, which is something I don't expect many DM's do. I mean, it's a game I'm playing to have some fun once a week. If my concept of 'fun' includes playing savage, half-blooded outcast barbarians who are not welcome in civilized society, either my DM can cater to that, or they can not, and if they don't, it's smell ya later. And if they don't give me a good reason they won't cater to that, even if that's *not* my current concept of fun, it makes me worried about the heavy-handed nature (which is not something I'm a fan of, YMMV, of course).It's not removing flavor, it's replacing it with flavor more suited to the setting.They could not be....they could be related to 'preserving the status quo.' Evil can be healed, could succumb to disease, could be too affraid to bear it's fangs...evil needs paladins, too. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />As a player, I'm not asking my DM to bend to my every whim, but simply to help me have fun in his world. If he's too defensive about it to be able to talk about it with me, that's too heavy handed for my tastes.Well, I just realized that once you 'ideally adapt' the Paladin, there's not a lot, mechanics-wise, distinguishing it from a healing psychic warrior. The main hinge is the 'loose your powers if you do evil' idea, which the organizations help to reinforce. That is the reason paladins "don't belong," but it doesn't say "PALADINS ARE FORBIDDEN FOR I AM THE DM AND I AM GOD MWAHAHAHA!" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> It says "we're not encouraging pure heroics." If, as a DM, you don't mind encouraging heroics (maybe you're playing DS more to change the world than to live within it?), then you can allow Paladins, and note the recommendations for a role within the setting. It makes the setting far more verstile when you give your reasons, and allow individual DM's (and individual players who now can understand the world better) to go their own route with it rather than "No paladins on Athas. Evar."And this is something that, as a player, is hard for me to live with. Because your game is no better for me than Bob the DM's Game down the street, and he allows half-orcs. There's nothing sacred or special about your table that I can't get somewhere else, and no reason for me to be "worthy of it," in my mind. We're playing a game, not taking a purity test. As a player, that kind of heavy-handedness grates on me, and there's no reason for me to enjoy that game if the DM thinks so highly of their own campaign that they aren't open to conversation about it's underlying philosophies.I guess this "sense of entitlement" is more a "desire for accomodation." I don't intend to speak for most people, but I don't personally think attending a game the DM thinks is somehow "better gaming" than someone else's, and thus can have "unworthies," (instead of just people whose styles don't mesh) is just not that fun. And since the point of the game is 'to have fun,' first and foremost, IMHO, this could be why you're seeing resistance to limitations. If someone has fun playing a half-elf, and the DM disallows half-elves, and won't even give you a reason (or worse, insults you for wanting a reason, and threatens your 'worthiness,'), well there doesn't, from my side of things, seem to be a lot of fun for me in that.Others may be okay, and that's fine. But I don't think I'm alone in my above opinion, and if there is resistance to the limitations in your campaign, this could be part of the reason. *shrug*</blockquote>

Verification