Argyle King
Legend
How do you feel about AL games limiting player options?
I'm confused. I didn't see him instructed to leave the thread.Need I remind you that, before he was instructed to leave the thread,
Accidentally hit "post" because my phone is a jerk. See above.I'm confused. I didn't see him instructed to leave the thread.
Arguments from one person in the thread on a side do not apply to all on that side. If he wants to ask me a question about it, fine. If he wants to approach me that way, he's going to get that response as that is the response it deserves.Need I remind you that, before they were instructed to leave the thread, Pming said exactly this sort of thing? That non-humans were subjected to open and overt racist behavior until the player ceased to be a "problem"? Your sarcasm is a bit specious when we've had this exact attitude openly and earnestly expressed in this very thread.
I don't think it's a should, it's a must..I think this falls into the tone/playstyle, etc. As I said, though, in most cases the DM should explain, so we mostly agree here. I just don't view it as a player right.
That isn't a DM, it's an organization. By definition, the relationship is impersonal, and its requirements are expected to be unilateral, absolute, and (in general) obdurate. But an AL game is also one where almost nothing we've discussed applies. You don't get this incredible hard work invested by the DM because these are prewritten modules in extant settings. You don't get grand DM "vision" because the adventure path is already set. Many of these choices are, formally speaking, out of the AL DM's hands. E.g. I imagine Maxperson would actively avoid running AL games, because Dragonborn officially exist in the Forgotten Realms and thus it is impossible for him to truly enjoy himself when running that world "as written." Several other settings also officially include them or an equivalent (Eberron, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, obviously 4e's World Axis), so organized play is almost unavoidably tainted for Max.How do you feel about AL games limiting player options?
I would absolutely answer that question under those circumstances. The only time I wouldn't answer would be if there was some sort of secret that will come out during game play, but even then I'll let them know that there is a reason and to trust me.I don't think it's a should, it's a must..
If a player asks if its a genre/tone/playstyle/etc issue, the DM must answer. The DM does not have to elaborate but they must at least say yes or no.
For example, if the DM is running a mythic game and minotaurs are banned because the only minotaur is THE minotaur, then the DM, if questioned, must state if asked that there is a genre reason for the ban.
You called that one. I avoid AL like the plague. Both as a player and a DM. I don't want my hands bound that way, nor do I want any DM I play with to have his hands bound that way. And that's before we ever even get to the dragonborn issue.That isn't a DM, it's an organization. By definition, the relationship is impersonal, and its requirements are expected to be unilateral, absolute, and (in general) obdurate. But an AL game is also one where almost nothing we've discussed applies. You don't get this incredible hard work invested by the DM because these are prewritten modules in extant settings. You don't get grand DM "vision" because the adventure path is already set. Many of these choices are, formally speaking, out of the AL DM's hands. E.g. I imagine Maxperson would actively avoid running AL games, because Dragonborn officially exist in the Forgotten Realms and thus it is impossible for him to truly enjoy himself when running that world "as written." Several other settings also officially include them or an equivalent (Eberron, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, obviously 4e's World Axis), so organized play is almost unavoidably tainted for Max.
My point was not whether that position is widespread. My point was that dismissing the question out of hand, as though it is completely ridiculous and untenable, is inappropriate when we literally have had someone advocate exactly that thing here. Sarcastic "really now, let's not invent boogeymen" responses lose a lot of their oomph when the boogeyman has, in fact, actually popped up.Arguments from one person in the thread on a side do not apply to all on that side. If he wants to ask me a question about it, fine. If he wants to approach me that way, he's going to get that response as that is the response it deserves.
I can appreciate that.You called that one. I avoid AL like the plague. Both as a player and a DM. I don't want my hands bound that way, nor do I want any DM I play with to have his hands bound that way. And that's before we ever even get to the dragonborn issue.
I feel like we may be getting close to a breakthrough of understanding, even if we have differing opinions on specifics, so I'm going to speak to this a little farther.First of all, thank you. I don't know why, maybe it was the visual image I got, but I found this hysterical and laughed about it until I almost cried. Thank you.
I hear what you are saying. Thank you for taking the time to explain. It is appreciated. I can't speak for Oofta and his campaign, so I can't answer why. All I can say is thank you for taking the time to explain.
You don't have any in your game - except demons. That is the main concept I think everyone should take away - if a DM can accept demons as evil without a hint of good, it is not a far stretch to imagine any other thing as being outright evil. Including a DM saying drow.
If your true desire is to play a campaign exploring the "evil" of a race, then I would suggest DMing a campaign using only that race. WotC did it for 4e. An Underdark adventure where people played as one of the outcast houses in the drow sovereign. Your job was to either backstab your own house, raise one house so your house could become number 2, or try to bring down the other two houses. Great mini-campaign. I killed my entire party because I played a traditional drow - I backstabbed them all to increase my fortune. Even to this day, players mention it with laughs and pseudo-awe.
But to say I need to play this, bend your campaign even though you told me not to play this - eh?
No. Oofta, as the DM of his campaign, stated players are not allowed to play a drow. He stated specifically he would work with them if they wanted those mechanical benefits. But also clearly stated - you CANNOT be a drow.
And then your example is to - want to play a drow.
That is why one side is having such a hard time with this. Ask to play? Sure. Want the mechanical benefits? Sure. Always insisting on playing a character the DM has not listed? Not cool.