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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1474626" data-attributes="member: 6398">Actually, dictating to the GM what archtypes must be available is heavy-handed.  While rules prevent the "bang, you're dead" syndrom that Firelance described, what I've found to have increased with gamers is the "play my way or I'm going home to play with myself" syndrom.  To which I'd be glad to see the person leave; he can play with himself all day for all I care. Check out your own term: Ditching.  I'm not "ditching" anything if it was never there.  Rather, "ditching" is a negative term that has only one purpose: to make the decision not to include something sound arbitrary.  Indeed, their inclusion in the game is equally arbitrary, and so including them or not including them requires no justification. I laid out the campaign, placed certain races in certain locations, and then realized I didn't have any Elves.  I made the (wise) decision not to shoe-horn them in. To which I ask, "why must there be any?" Hmmm...  This conversation is starting to take an interesting, existential twist, don't you think? See reply concerning the lack of Aedonian Elves above. No, including or not including a Race is not a rules change.  Removing Divine Magic, Arcane Magic, or something else that serves as a tool is a rules change, but not removing a race. The concept alone isn't the issue.  However, if someone's going to whine like a spoiled brat because a specific combination of the above concept isn't available, than he can go whipe his tears on his mommy's apron for all I care. Guess what?  I'm not a fan of heavy-handed players that are going to thump the rules at me as if it's some form of empowerment tool. That's dodging the question by adding a condition not present in your original statement. And Unearthed Arcana handles this quite well.  Unfortunately for your stance, they didn't do it by just changing the flavor text of the Paladin. What you want is to have an explaination that you may or may not choose to agree with.  And, should you choose not to agree with it, you'll call him heavy handed and his decision arbritrary.  Granted, you're free to make this choice, but don't confuse your choice with the facts. Yet the concept that Elves were never born/evolved on a world isn't enough?  That's the problem with your stance: It doesn't matter if there is a reason for it, it matters if you agree with the reason.  And that makes you just as heavy-handed as the GMs you are complaining about. Actually, yes, if you are the sort of player that is going to disect every world-condition and whine and cry like a spoiled brat if you choose not to accept the reason, than you are indeed unworthy of my table. Interesting.  Now take this sentance and compare it to your own posts.  If the term "hypocritical" comes to mind, don't be surprised. And as a GM, your kind of heavy-handedness is a waste of my time and will eventually grate on the nerves of the other players.  According to many posts around here, that would make you a trouble-maker. Except look at your post: You are complaining about GMs that won't bend to mesh with you.  This makes you a hypocrit.  And, if you did this at my table, you would indeed be deemed unworthy: Unworthy of our time, our effort, and our loss of fun, all of which would be caused by your hypocritical whining. I don't consider anyone "unworthy" because they like playing Half-Elves.  I do consider someone unworthy if they whine, cry, and prattle on like over-pampered spoiled brats about it. I only find resistance when seeking new players, and most often from those that have only played 3E. Take that as you wish.</blockquote>

Verification