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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Belen" data-source="post: 1477224" data-attributes="member: 1405">Whew...it has been busy since I left for the holiday.KM: You seem to be making a very circular argument.  While I agree that a GM should work with his group in order for them to have fun, I disagree that a player must be able to play class x or race y in that particular campaign just because they want to play that archetype at the moment in time.  In my experience, if a player wants to play a particular class that is banned, it comes from either of the following:A: I have found a particular nasty combo and I need this class to qualify for certain pre-reqs as soon as possible.B: I want to play that class because it does not fit with the theme of the campaign.  (ie.  Some people just have to be an outsider.)I think that it unreasonable to get huffy about one missing class or race when you can choose from 10 other classes and 6 other races for the game.  If you really want to play that class or race, then you can find another game in order to play that combo.  Or just wait until the next campaign!In my world, I use none of the PHB races.  I have been playing DnD so long that I am tired of the stereotypes, so I redesigned the culture etc of each race.  IMC, Elves are gypsy rogues, Halflings are uber-mages, dwarves are nature-loving druids, and I have a humanoid bear race to replace half-orcs.If someone asks about half-orcs, then I say "I am tired of the stereotypical dumb half-orc barb who says Me this, Me that, and I really did not want an entire race of rape-get."  In my next campaign, I have 15 total classes available.  However, fighter, wizard and Paladin are banned.  It is a nature-based campaign set at the dawn of time.  No one has had time to spend their life training with weapons, or dedicate their lives to good or study when they are just learning to grow food etc.Next campaign?  Those classes with be back, and I let my players know it.  The thing is, I am not willing to spend 10-20 hours a week outside of the game session to run a game that will not interest me.  In fact, when I ran a game that was for the players, then I burned out.  Why? Because the more you give, the more a player expects and wants.  If they know that can get it, then they will make sure to go after it.  I got taken, and I know that I got taken.Guess what?  It was not their fault.  I should have placed restrictions on them no matter how much they complained that this rule was written in WOTC Book 10 etc.In fact, the more options I allowed, the more I let the players advance their "concept" the more generic, flavorless, and crunchy the game got.The problem is that the current 3e culture is centered around providing more and more crunch to the players, while not according the same level of support for the GM.Heck, the culture would rather say "create a half-dragon fiendish Minotaur (WTF?) than a villain that has a true agenda and personality.  Why?  Because crunch is king!Why do I dislike your argument?  Because it is a gimme argument.  You want the GM to justify why a certain amount of crunch is not allowed.  However, a flavor reason is not acceptable.  You really want a crunch reason (ie.  You want the GM to come up with a crunchy combo that it just as good as the denied crunchy combo.)That is the type of flawed culture I find in 3e.Do I love the ruleset?  Yes.Do I hate the mindset? Yep.</blockquote>

Verification