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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6338749" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, if I don't like them, then I'm going to ban them.  The player's desires will be considered, but ultimately if I don't like it, the answer is, "No."  I think that I generally have a good reason for it, but I really don't have to prove anything to anyone.  You want to be a minotaur?  I don't care what you reason is, "No."  You want to play a wererat; I don't care why, but "No."   If that's really your heart's desire and you can't be happy any other way, then it's really not the table for you.  If that idea outrages you, then this is really not the table for you.I honestly believe that there is not a single DM in the world with a fundamentally different opinion, though I'm certain that there are a lot that will say that they have a different opinion.  They'll swear up and down that they have a different reason for saying "No.", altogether and the comparison is just "Not the same." We all have our opinions and we all feel that since it is our table, we ought to get what we want.For example, on some level I feel that is ridiculous or I'd make the same restrictions myself.  While, I can see where you are coming from on one level, but I feel pretty confident of the fact that some equally unbelievable leaps in skill acquisition go completely unquestioned by you.  For you, that's just a bridge too far.   For me, that's like, "If I didn't want you to multiclass into new careers, I wouldn't have made it an option."   For me the bridge to far is buried in the barbarian itself, which got banned - or more correctly reskinned - in such a way that the objection behind your objection to multiclassing into barbarian was rendered void.   Any of that extra baggage that compelled a player to drag a bunch of background into a character concept was removed from every class it occurred in.   So now there are literally far more examples of 'barbarians' in my setting that aren't natives of a remote and less civilized region than there are, while at the same time there is no real presumption that any native of a remote and less civilized region has the 'barbarian' class.   In fact, it's absolutely critical to my setting that there are elite bodyguards, beserkers, psychopaths, and Templars that have the ability to rage and much else that comes along with the class, but who are not in fact raised in the howling wilderness and initiated into secret warrior cults.  In my campaign 'monks' (that is sworn laity in the service of a religion) are known for there 'rage' powers, not for their ability to use their fists as weapons.But at your table, if you feel 'Rage = barbarian', and that it's ridiculous that I think 'Rage = monk' because that's my character concept, I would be totally ok with that.  In fact, seeing your rules had 'Rage = this guy who looks like a viking', I'd never even ask about 'Rage = monk'.   It's your table.   There are more PC's that I could play and have fun than I could ever actually play.  My enjoyment is never going to be based on playing 'this one guy'.   If you say, "No wizard after first level without talking it over with me.", I'd never imagine doing anything else.  It is after all your table.I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree.I've spent the last 14 or so years thinking really hard about what sort of rules I think would make the most fun version of D&D 3.X I can imagine.  If when I present to you this 600 page house rules document with its wealth of options and say, "If it's in there, it's legal.", and your response is, "Wow, this is way too restrictive.  I could never build a fun and enjoyable character out of this.", what you are really saying, "Is I don't trust you.  I don't believe you are working in my best interest."   If you think my character generation rules are crap, then you are pretty sure to think my on the fly rulings are crap as well.   If you tell a DM, "Your rules don't work for me.", then you are not starting in a place of trust yourself, so demanding the DM then trust you is pretty darn hypocritical.  My response is going to be, "You know, these rules have worked for a lot of people.  I think they are well thought out.  If they can't work for you, it's probably not the fault of the rules."But at an even deeper level, the fact is that if I'm getting into a new group, my fundamental attitude is going to be of humility and gratitude.  I'm thankful to the players and most especially the DM for trusting me to come to their table and share their game with them.  To the DMs who have in the past taken me in as a perfect stranger and said, "Yes, I'd game with you.", I have nothing but gratitude.   If I sense in a player that that isn't their attitude to my table, then yes, warning bells are going to be going off.</blockquote>

Verification