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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 1478878" data-attributes="member: 2067">The problem is the question itself. There's no reason to ask it, because no one was saying you should, and the answer is obvious (as you pointed out). It's just detracting from both of our actual arguments.Well, if I've given that impression, I've surely misspoke. "They don't fit", to me, as a player, is a cop out answer, just like saying "Cuz I'm the DM." If you explain *why* they don't fit, then I am more likely to accept your judgement. If there is no reason beyond "They Don't Fit," then I am not, because that is too heavy handed and aparently arbitrary to me. I, personally, need a better answer than that. It's like the argument against Paladins in Dark Sun -- saying "they don't fit" as the only reason is not good enough for me. Tell me *why* they don't fit (no non-elemental clerical magic, you can play a noble psywarrior just as easily, etc.), and I can accept it.As is usual, I think we're both storming at the different sides when we, at a baseline, agree, because I'm pretty sure you'd help people in general play what is fun for them (as long as what is fun for them meshes with what is fun for your group).Well, it's been my stance all along (my opinion hasn't changed), but perhaps I did get more than a bit reckless when I was being called a hypocrite and a whiner and shooting down straw men arguments while being written off as a bad player. Funny how that can happen. <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=";)" />And as for specific settings that are not homebrews, in general, no, I don't find the decisions unreasonable. Because, say, to play Conan, Testament, or Dragonlance, you're not playing D&D. You're playing a game that specifically emulates literature or movies or history, and because you're having fun emulating that, you don't need the 'extra baggage.' If someone has fun emulating that, then they don't need it; if someone needs it, they don't want to emulate that. By saying "I'm playing a Final Fantasy d20 Game," I've also in essence said that I'll be obeying the general tropes of the world (no horses, philosophical metaplots, characters with spikey hair, etc.) Just like by saying "I'm playing a D&D game," by standard, refers to a game using the core three rules (and perhaps non-setting-specific supplements). People use it for other things, but people call all sodas "Coke," sometimes too. People have played Amber Diceless on D&D night, I'm sure.For a setting that's not emulating something else, it's still mostly a matter of just establishing a flavor, and that *is* a good reason. From what I know, Midnight is a game where evil wins (more often than not), so having a champion of Good would not easily mesh with the flavor of the world. The Scarred Lands is gritty mytho-fantasy, so playing micheif makers for a laugh would not easily mesh with the flavor of the world. People who want to be moral warriors in Midnight have other viens to persue, just as people who want to make mischief in the Scarred Lands can do so and still survive with the right take on it. In this case, it's not so much the DM's job to allow everything wholeheartedly (again, a strawman argument), but to help the player play something that's fun. If someone really wants to play Midsummer Night's Dream Puck in the Scarred Lands, though, it is an immutable issue of styles not meshing, and you can part ways. This isn't the player being stubborn and storming off home, nor is it the DM being iron-fisted and arbitrary.That said, there are some published settings that I feel are too narrow in their definitions. OA, for one, identifying many of the D&D classes as "western," (which is kind of insane since we're not supposed to identify the Monk as "eastern," for instance) has got the wrong of it, and while it is in almost all respects a stupendous and useful supplement, that's one of the chioces that I deeply disagree with, and it would lead me to not playing an "OA" game, in all likelihood. Of course, that doesn't preclude including what's in it in an otherwise 'normal' D&D campaign, or in even having an 'oriental feel' to a D&D campaign.</blockquote>

Verification