It's from 4e D&D.Oh, I knew it was a very common and popular house rule. I just didn’t think it was a good one. BG3 changed my mind by showing me an example of it used to really good effect.
It's from 4e D&D.Oh, I knew it was a very common and popular house rule. I just didn’t think it was a good one. BG3 changed my mind by showing me an example of it used to really good effect.
Given the way people talk about it around here? Yeah, I really do believe most GMs who "curate" things are basically just kicking out the stuff they don't like.
I have yet to see a single person articulate actually good, serious reasons why things have to be diamond-perfect exactly their vision and nothing else. And yes, I am thinking of actual users on this very forum who have explicitly said that their "vision" is much more important than player choices.
Again, Consciously Useless Advice for 1000.
Telling someone to run a game when they want to play something is like telling someone to start their own basketball team if they want the home team to play well. It's completely pointless. I want to PLAY! How does RUNNING a game help me PLAY something?
Seriously. You are giving advice that is intentionally irrelevant and acting like it's somehow profound or useful or in any way revelatory. It's not. It never has been. You already know that.
So, no elves, dwarves, nor halflings? No magic of any sort? Because I find that extremely unlikely.
So it isn't actually "if it wasn't available in 432 BC." It's "If it wasn't available in 432 BC, and I haven't grandfathered it in."
I've seen plenty of historical-based D&D games that are humans only for PCs. As for magic, that was real to the people living at the time, so it would be strange to remove it.So, no elves, dwarves, nor halflings? No magic of any sort? Because I find that extremely unlikely.
If in the vast majority of cases, you are the one who is coming out on the wrong end, that might be something to think about and work on. Is it not possible that your 'opponent' might have a point?Except that I find that, in the vast majority of cases, the reason given isn't, "Because I have a really cool concept I want to express through this campaign and including the thing you mentioned isn't really compatible with doing so. Could we talk it out and maybe find something that works for both of us?"
Okay.Instead, it is, in almost every instance, "I just think <X> are stupid, so I don't let people play them in my games."
Maybe it's because this person has invested a lot of time into developing a campaign for the players and your immediate first step is to try to blow that up? If you consider the other person here, maybe both people win. What is it about your particular build that is so important that it's worth expending time and effort for the DM to change their game world to suit your needs (and not even the needs of the other players in this campaign)? If you clarify that for them, and it's worth everyone's while (not just yours), maybe it happens.And when I propose all sorts of alternative options--not just "a village a short ways away," but things like being a one-off (e.g. someone mutated by magic or alchemy, or an alien trying to get back to their own people, or the result of someone's efforts to bring two opposing entities closer together, or coming from a parallel universe, or...) I am shut down, every single time. Not because any of those options are incompatible--it is, in nearly every case, because the person simply doesn't like them and thus nobody should ever get to play one in their games. "My preferences are simply more important."
More than once... maybe you should take that as a clue.And yes, I have had people say something essentially identical to that. More than once. Because the poor, beleaguered DM with absolute power and zero accountability slaves so hard for their group, while the players who literally can't do anything without DM approval are living large doing only the things they're allowed to do, going to the places they're allowed to go, and (all too often) misled into believing they have any real agency whatsoever.
Someone goes 'viking hat' when they are confronted in a certain way. In general, the problem is not with the person being confronted, but in the manner in which they are being confronted.Edit:
Hence why I said in another thread that I find the pattern today is one of avoiding accommodation as much as humanly possible. It is viking hat all the way, my-way-or-the-highway, "no, hell no, and never darken my door again" (something someone actually said about a request for something not explicitly approved in their games, on another forum.) All shall love DM Empowerment, and despair.
It's worth noting, my "I find that extremely unlikely" was literally proven true later in that very same post. Elves, dwarves, halflings, and magic are all present in the game described. Exactly as I had predicted.I've seen plenty of historical-based D&D games that are humans only for PCs. As for magic, that was real to the people living at the time, so it would be strange to remove it.
Have you actually given me a reason to do so, or have you simply characterized me as a crazed extremist with no interest in discussion?I have been quite blunt in this post. Will you go 'viking hat' or will you consider what I said?
I have not done the latter.Have you actually given me a reason to do so, or have you simply characterized me as a crazed extremist with no interest in discussion?
How do you figure?I have little desire to discuss things with someone who won't do what he asks of me.
PHB races plus Githyanki only. DM changed them as well.
Well, let's see...I have not done the latter.
What am I supposed to get from this? Because the plain meaning of it is, "You can't see any value in the things someone who disagrees with you is saying." In other words, you don't believe I'm even capable of sincere discussion.If in the vast majority of cases, you are the one who is coming out on the wrong end, that might be something to think about and work on. Is it not possible that your 'opponent' might have a point?
Literally characterizing me as a terrorist bomber. How is that not painting me as an extremist before we even begin?Maybe it's because this person has invested a lot of time into developing a campaign for the players and your immediate first step is to try to blow that up?
"If you consider the other person" -> "You are not considering the other person at all, when you could be."If you consider the other person here, maybe both people win.
How can I do that if I'm not even able to have a conversation? If I'm not even able to propose options and discuss the situation? That's literally all I asked for. I explicitly said so, multiple times.What is it about your particular build that is so important that it's worth expending time and effort for the DM to change their game world to suit your needs (and not even the needs of the other players in this campaign)? If you clarify that for them, and it's worth everyone's while (not just yours), maybe it happens.
Considering what the other person has to say. Not painting the other person as a crazy extremist. Not using ridiculous hyperbole. Not presuming that the other person is simply refusing to read and sincerely respond to what others say.How do you figure?