Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="am181d" data-source="post: 6463125" data-attributes="member: 3576">The reason you're getting a lot of push back is that you keep saying things like the bolded paragraph above. You're not comfortable simply saying &quot;I think it's okay for DM's to place limits on their games.&quot; You feel compelled to take the extra step and say that any player who would want a particular option (here, multi-classing) is operating in bad faith. The obvious conclusion is that you simply don't believe the people who are telling you that they want to play (for example) the fighter who becomes a cleric because it sounds like fun. They must secretly be looking for a rules advantage!If you presuppose that the people you're talking to are liars, it's going to make conversations difficult. In an effort to steer this in a more productive direction:Even ignoring optional rules within a system, even the CHOICE of RPG is going to put limits on the type of characters that a player can create. (D&amp;D doesn't do a good job of modelling Iron Man or Doctor Who, for example.) And certainly I've run games where default assumptions 1-3 have been replaced with options A-C. In an ideal world, if a player comes to a DM with a character concept that's outside the scope of what they were intending (say, a Paladin in a game that's not using that class) they can talk about ways to do something close (or differently awesome) within the confines of what the DM has in mind. (This process should also include the DM *considering* whether she should just allow the thing the player was asking for in the first place.)I think this is something everyone can agree with?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="am181d, post: 6463125, member: 3576"] The reason you're getting a lot of push back is that you keep saying things like the bolded paragraph above. You're not comfortable simply saying "I think it's okay for DM's to place limits on their games." You feel compelled to take the extra step and say that any player who would want a particular option (here, multi-classing) is operating in bad faith. The obvious conclusion is that you simply don't believe the people who are telling you that they want to play (for example) the fighter who becomes a cleric because it sounds like fun. They must secretly be looking for a rules advantage! If you presuppose that the people you're talking to are liars, it's going to make conversations difficult. In an effort to steer this in a more productive direction: Even ignoring optional rules within a system, even the CHOICE of RPG is going to put limits on the type of characters that a player can create. (D&D doesn't do a good job of modelling Iron Man or Doctor Who, for example.) And certainly I've run games where default assumptions 1-3 have been replaced with options A-C. In an ideal world, if a player comes to a DM with a character concept that's outside the scope of what they were intending (say, a Paladin in a game that's not using that class) they can talk about ways to do something close (or differently awesome) within the confines of what the DM has in mind. (This process should also include the DM *considering* whether she should just allow the thing the player was asking for in the first place.) I think this is something everyone can agree with? [/QUOTE]

Verification