Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1478220" data-attributes="member: 6398">This is strictly a problem with the player.  If the player insists that everything has to be explained, the player is a problem.  Really, why would I explain things time and time again when we are supposed to be playing the game? Which, as I said, is a player problem (in this instance, your problem as well). So partnership and teamwork are acceptable reasons to question every decision a GM makes?  And if the GM's answers aren't acceptable (in your opinion, that is), then he's not being a partner or engaging in teamwork? Damn, you make a game full of opposition and competition sound like fun. Actually, I would rather hope that the players are mature enough to believe that there is a valid reason for the decision.  The only reason for them not to believe it's valid is if they don't trust the GM, and I don't need such people at my table as they are most often disruptive. As for keeping the game to a simple dungeon crawl, we return to the question: Why should the GM waste his time prepping for a game he doesn't like?  I, for one, would rather leave the player without a game at all; it's what he deserves. Oh, yes...  The infamous "if you don't GM this way you won't have a group" statement. I can assure you, while I have rejected more players than I've accepted, good players are out there, I do find them eventually, and if our tastes click together then he's in the game. And you'd get a lot further in these discussion if you stopped assuming that such isn't the case. Ehr...  When didn't 2E have paladins? Actually, I've read a lot of fiction, and I can state for a fact that Halflings are practically non-existant, Elves only show up on occassion, and Dwarves are usually mythical and rarely seen.  Unless, of course, most of your reading is D&D based literature (the value of which is often dubious at best). Like I said, if a player is so unreasonable that he's insisting that a specific race or a specific class must be available, the door is down the hall on the left.  He won't be missed and my game will be better for his absence. As for the Druid thing...  Alright, it was an example, based on your post, and thus I don't have all the answers for it (it's not an actual situation and not worth the time to counter every point, although, in my campaign, he'd be best off playing a Shaman that venerates Nature Spirits and does their bidding).  However, it does come down to a player accepting campaign conditions or not accepting them, and, as stated a dozen times, those not accepting them are dismissed from the game. I mean, here's a question: What if, instead of a Druid, the player wanted to play a CE Black Guard?  Should I let such a character into a primarily Good-aligned group?  Should I have to supply reason after reason until I finally give one that the player will accept?  Would it be fair if said player went to other gamers whining about what a sucky GM I am for not allowing the character? Given the reasoning in this thread, I should "kowtow" to the player's demands, and that's not just wrong, it's petty and stupid. But this is side-stepping the issue, being that you are back-peddling from "Class A should be present" to "It's okay if Class B replaces it".  What's present is present.  It may be Core.  It might be Core minus a few things.  It might be Core plus a few things.  It might be Core plus a few things and minus a few others.  It might be completely changed, ala Arcana Unearthed.  Regardless, in the end, the player accepts it or takes a hike.</blockquote>

Verification