NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8434272" data-attributes="member: 6855114">I was about to reply to your other post but I saw this one and it now dawns on me.The problem we have is that you have a totally different play style from the average.You seem to expect that a player has total freedom in creating a character and that the DM is under the obligation to accept the what the player made as long as the player has some good background/justifications.From what I read of [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] posts history, we play a lot like the old school that 5ed is trying to emulate.1) A DM is the sole authority on his world campaign.2) A player has total freedom on his character creation as long as they are within the campaign's world parameters.3) No deviation from 1 or 2 is acceptable unless the DM approves it.4) Stuff from other books is not immediately integrated. Only parts of them are integrated if the DM deems it ok.5) A player can try to change something in the game world if the DM approves it for story reason. These are rare, but still possible. But they will never be imposed on the DM.There are more differences but that should be it for character creation.And this is what is tainting your argumentation. At least, this is what I believe. You fail to acknowledge that your playstyle is not ours (and in my area, you would be the only one doing this in about 50 other tables that I am aware of...) This means that a lot of what you consider normal and desirable at your table is outlandish and alien to us. This taint so much your argumentation that you can't see that, tough it can work from your perspective, it would not from ours.Yes some table will offer more leeways in character creation, but they're as RAW as you might think. I usually go for a strict interpretation of the rules and stay as close as RAW as possible because I do a lot of live play in our Fridaynight Dungeon (about once or twice a month depending on my work schedule). This means that I am used to be watch by quite a few people and If I do not stick to RAW, I have to explain why I do such and such at the end of the session. This taints my arguments as I try to stick to core books for argumentation simply because not everyone have the other books. This is helpful in reducing the learning curve to a more managable form as I have young DM in my area (12 is the youngest, but I have heard of a few of 11 now...) but since my Fridaynight Dungeon is usually ending around 10 pm, it does not leave time to discuss a lot beyound the rulings I made and a few rules in the core. Adding more than the core would be a nightmare. And this is tainting my way of discussing rules. We are probably victims of our playstyles contaminating our arguments.</blockquote>

Verification