Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1475079" data-attributes="member: 6398">Can't remove what never was there.&nbsp;Don't know what book you've got. All I've got is 3 books of suggestions and ideas.&nbsp;Because the books aren't dogma. They're suggestions based on a single setting. One setting out of limitless possibilities.&nbsp;Gee... I'm glad I don't see the game through such a narrow view. I'd have had to quit playing.&nbsp;Well, duh... It's only common sense that I would tell the player what is available. Or do you think I'll just let him keep guessing until he picks something I'd like him to play for whatever arbitrary reason?&nbsp;The issue is about spoiled brats whining like a baby because what they specifically want isn't available.&nbsp;And if I'm lucky, you'll choose to like my answer and not call be a crappy GM.&nbsp;Yeah for me, eh?&nbsp;In the second Core Rulebook, it talks about removing races for specific campaign environments.&nbsp;Next time you cite a &quot;Core Rulebook&quot; to me, you better check to make sure another &quot;Core Rulebook&quot; doesn't contradict your stance.&nbsp;Than what the hell are you complaining about then?&nbsp;And again, OA's single explaination for no Bards, Paladins, and Wizards is simply, &quot;they don't fit.&quot; Sorry, but it seems you expect more from a homebrewing GM than you do from WotC.&nbsp;&quot;They don't fit.&quot; Good enough for WotC to use in Oriental Adventures, and therefore good enough for any GM.&nbsp;Which is a good thing.&nbsp;Wishful hypothetical theories aside: They didn't.&nbsp;My point remains: &quot;They don't fit the setting&quot; is enough reason. WotC has proven this, unless you no longer consider the writers of the &quot;Core Rulebooks&quot; you wave about like religious dogma to be a suitable model.&nbsp;Then what's the issue, then?&nbsp;How are your own posts a &quot;straw man&quot;? You complain about campaign conditions (or, to use your favored term, &quot;restrictions&quot;) and then back-peddle and say that you can work within them... So long as you choose to accept the reason for the conditions, which, appearantly, must be much better than WotC did for OA.&nbsp;Ah, yes, speaking of strawmen...&nbsp;&quot;They don't fit&quot; is good enough.&nbsp;If you don't like it, you can send an email to <a href="mailto:custserv@wotc.com">custserv@wotc.com</a> and complain about Oriental Adventures.&nbsp;Okay, so &quot;They don't fit&quot;, isn't good enough, but if the GM tries to reinforce &quot;they don't fit&quot;, they are prattling on and on about the precious campaign.&nbsp;See... You are a hypocrit. And a lousy one at that.&nbsp;No. It's representative of the spoiled brat syndrom of the &quot;3E culture&quot; that this thread is about and you have so wondrously illustrated for us.&nbsp;Thank you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bendris Noulg, post: 1475079, member: 6398"] Can't remove what never was there. Don't know what book you've got. All I've got is 3 books of suggestions and ideas. Because the books aren't dogma. They're suggestions based on a single setting. One setting out of limitless possibilities. Gee... I'm glad I don't see the game through such a narrow view. I'd have had to quit playing. Well, duh... It's only common sense that I [i]would[/i] tell the player what is available. Or do you think I'll just let him keep guessing until he picks something I'd like him to play for whatever arbitrary reason? The issue is about spoiled brats whining like a baby because what they [i]specifically[/i] want isn't available. And if I'm lucky, you'll [i]choose[/i] to like my answer and not call be a crappy GM. Yeah for me, eh? In the second Core Rulebook, it talks about removing races for specific campaign environments. Next time you cite a "Core Rulebook" to me, you better check to make sure another "Core Rulebook" doesn't contradict your stance. Than what the hell [i]are[/i] you complaining about then? And again, OA's single explaination for no Bards, Paladins, and Wizards is simply, "they don't fit." Sorry, but it seems you expect more from a homebrewing GM than you do from WotC. "They don't fit." Good enough for WotC to use in Oriental Adventures, and therefore good enough for any GM. Which is a good thing. Wishful hypothetical theories aside: They didn't. My point remains: "They don't fit the setting" is [b]enough[/b] reason. WotC has proven this, unless you no longer consider the writers of the "Core Rulebooks" you wave about like religious dogma to be a suitable model. Then what's the issue, then? How are your own posts a "straw man"? You complain about campaign conditions (or, to use your favored term, "restrictions") and then back-peddle and say that you can work within them... So long as you [i]choose[/i] to accept the reason for the conditions, which, appearantly, must be [i]much[/i] better than WotC did for OA. Ah, yes, speaking of strawmen... "They don't fit" is good enough. If you don't like it, you can send an email to [email="custserv@wotc.com"]custserv@wotc.com[/email] and complain about Oriental Adventures. Okay, so "They don't fit", isn't good enough, but if the GM tries to reinforce "they don't fit", they are prattling on and on about the precious campaign. See... You are a hypocrit. And a lousy one at that. No. It's representative of the spoiled brat syndrom of the "3E culture" that this thread is about and you have so wondrously illustrated for us. Thank you. [/QUOTE]

Verification