Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9829246" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Precisely."You can only be an X, Y, Z, or W. Also, classes L, M, and N are banned, and O/P/Q are only available by request.""Uh...why?""Because that's the world I built.""Oh. I was kinda hoping to play <class L> and <race V>. Could we work something out?""No. If you want to play that, you'll have to play in someone else's game. My worldbuilding cannot include them.""That seems pretty inflexible.""I prioritize setting consistency. If you don't like that, this won't be a game for you, so...you'll just have to take it or leave it. It's not like I have a shortage of interested players."Do you not see how "my way or the highway" that looks, [USER=6906980]@AlViking[/USER] ? And I'm not even adding anything that hasn't been said in this thread: claims that collaboration will always completely and thoroughly destroy setting consistency; claims that players cannot be trusted; claims that, because there's an endless supply of players, GMs can do and say whatever they want so long as a handful of people will still accept it.Like...how is that not "the GM is always right and if you don't like it you're the problem"?</blockquote>