Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GMforPowergamers" data-source="post: 6464529" data-attributes="member: 67338">I don't know... I guess I am just totally not understanding why anyone would tell someone that in there home game "No you can't play X because I said so" because this idea the player is pitching is using an optional set of rules (and in the real part of this it doesn't matter witch optional rule we just use multi class as the example) to create this character they want to play... I can't imagine why the default answer isn't "OK" unless you have a good reason to say otherwise... because that is what I want to play... but it does, it answers really easily... because that idea, my pitch... you on the other hand say no out of hand just because you say so..that's it... any optional rule "I want to use X rule, because it sounds like fun" that's the whole reason...yes because I could understand if you said "Here is a reason why you can't" but instead it keeps coming off as "Because I said so" and since this whole post is about why to allow things, my point of view is to allow anything that will make your game more fun for the players unless you have a good reason to stop it... just like your "Because I have the power as a DM to make arbatray discions for the whole group" isn't a good answer to me...once again, as a player someone approaches you with ANY optional rule... it is a rule that will not harm your game but will increase this players enjoyment... that is it. if applied for a reason that can be descused, not at all. If the group agrees no problem. If people disagree at the table a compromise must be meet.to try to get this back into a discussion, lets talk about the issue at one of my old tables... now I have very few hard coded boundaries, as a player or dm. most of my rules change from game to game when I DM and I am used to that with others as well. Often the answer in my experience to "No multi classing" (or any optional rule) is "Hey just this campaign, next time you can do that concept."  One of my few hard and fast rules is NO KENDERS... not in a game I run not at a table I play at. My friend Ross likes kenders (one of the very few in our group that defends the little... never mind this board doesn't like those words) He once wanted to run a game, and his then girlfriend was playing a kender.  I very politely said I would bow out. However, every other player said the same thing... his 7 PC party became just him and his girlfriend. He begged us to reconsider, and we explained the problem.  His girlfriend and my best friend came up with a comprmise the rest of us could live with... rewriting the fluff of "Everyone loves Kenders" to "No one trusts kenders, and there are big signs at towns and shopping establishments saying they wont serve kenders" But Ross would not go for it... finaly the girlfriend switched to being a half elf.I can list you a few times I have bent the kender rule (2 times as a DM and 4 as a player) 5 out of the 6 of them where in the 90's in 2e... I tell you that to explain that I understand limits. I understand there are points of no retun I just don't understand something like multi classing being it.</blockquote>

Verification