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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7174431" data-attributes="member: 6785785">As with most things, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Yes, there can be strong reasons to not allow a particular race or class into a given campaign. I think most players would recognize that fact and work with a DM to find something suitable that they would enjoy. Yes, letting people play the options that they'd like even if the DM does not can be good. It can open up game elements that were unforseen. It can open peoples' eyes about a particular race or class they had previously dismissed. And very often, the presence of a race or class doesn't have that big an impact on the setting or campaign as one might think. Both of those statements are true, and 90% of the time any conflict can be reconciled at the table through rational discussion. The DM and player talk about it and work it out.What doesn't seem rational is to always have blanket restrictions, and to never bend on them, or to insist such restrictions are applied due to the behavior of others. Nope....always banning Gnomes is a decision made by the DM. The fact that a d-bag player in the past had a gnome is a correlation but not causation thing. On the flipside, a player always insisting that any and all options be open to them no matter what is equally irrational. If the setting or campaign has elements that make a class or race ill-suited for it, then they should respect the work the DM has put in and see if they can find a suitable option. Both extremes seem like whiny narcissism. Luckily, anytime I've seen such a conflict come up in actual play, people work it out and everything's fine. Such steadfast stubborness seems more a by-product of internet discussion rather than any real human interaction.</blockquote>

Verification