Rdm
Explorer
They are objectively a bad fit if they ruin the atmosphere for one of the participants.I made no claim that they're a good fit. I only explained why they're not an objectively bad fit.
They are objectively a bad fit if they ruin the atmosphere for one of the participants.I made no claim that they're a good fit. I only explained why they're not an objectively bad fit.
Particularly if that one participant is the DM. I try to do a lot of collaborative story telling (it's the big advantage of a DM vs software) but ultimately the DM has veto rights.They are objectively a bad fit if they ruin the atmosphere for one of the participants.
That's just wordplay. What you're essentially saying there is that anything that ruins the atmosphere for one of the participants in a TTRPG is objectively bad. Which might or might not be a reasonable argument to make.They are objectively a bad fit if they ruin the atmosphere for one of the participants.
Nope, the argument stays stronger than ever. True gods can do both. But if they don't want something, nothing a mortal can do can change their mind. It is not a matter of "if they want", but a matter of "not wanting". Continuity stays on.If you can use gods as an excuse to not allow races then you can certainly use them as an excuse to allow races. Which means that the continuity argument vanishes in a puff of smoke.
It absolutely is not ‘just wordplay’. The point of the game is the enjoyment of all of the participants, and if it harshes that then it is objectively a bad fit for that groups conception of the setting which is' in the end the only conception of the setting that really matters. What your group thinks about anthropomorphic bunny ninjas in Middle Earth is in all ways irrelevant to my game.That's just wordplay. What you're essentially saying there is that anything that ruins the atmosphere for one of the participants in a TTRPG is objectively bad. Which might or might not be a reasonable argument to make.
However, if that thing is a tabaxi in Barovia then it is nonetheless only an issue due to that participant's subjective preference. It isn't objective.
It's nonetheless a preference, and therefore subjective.It absolutely is not ‘just wordplay’. The point of the game is they enjoyment of all of the participants, and if it harshes that then it is objectively a bad fit for that groups conception of the setting which is' in the end all that really matters. What your group thinks about anthropomorphic bunny ninjas in Middle Earth is in all ways irrelevant to my game.
Now look who is trying to engage in semantics and wordplay and avoiding the essential points.It's nonetheless a preference, and therefore subjective.