Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMforPowergamers" data-source="post: 6465087" data-attributes="member: 67338">they do contradict each other, infact that is why I shared it, and the very next line explains why... that I am trying to build a bridge of understanding. Just like I could foresee myself not allowing multi classing in one game, and telling a player &quot;Don't worry you can play yur warlock/paladin next time&quot;&nbsp; yup... and the reason is given as well, the kender is detrimental to my and others fun... basicly the idea is &quot;Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins&quot;I also wont allow a character concept that is &quot;I work for the bad guys and will screw over the other players&quot; and hope neither would a DM I play under.I can express when pressed why though... it isn't a situation of &quot;Because I said so&quot; it also isn't because I am the DM... In my grouips it is a group choice, no one person gets to over rule the others...&nbsp; well the whole group was ready to walk because the DM wanted to enforce there idea on us against our will... in fact in allowing that optional rule (the same as disallowing one) he was making a choice that affects us all, and we will not stand for it.each DM has a built up amount of trust, some have very little some have a lot. When DMs propose things that go against what we want we have to decide to trust them or not, although I can't imagine any DM having enough trust to get me to play with a Kender again. I like introducing a new player to the game, but to be honest, If someone reads the kender description and wants to play one it would send up some red flags in my mind. In this case not only was she not a new player but she was one of the biggest problem players I ever meet. so it doesn't really count. If I could go back to that game knowing what I know now, I would have not played with her no matter the race...you are so close to seeing the point here.&quot;The DM should allow X inless they have a good reason to not allow it&quot; and &quot;Players and DMs are all part of a group and all have a say in what options should be used&quot; and the 3rd one &quot;If you really feel something is a make or break point, then you should let the group go on with out you if they want to use that option.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMforPowergamers, post: 6465087, member: 67338"] they do contradict each other, infact that is why I shared it, and the very next line explains why... that I am trying to build a bridge of understanding. Just like I could foresee myself not allowing multi classing in one game, and telling a player "Don't worry you can play yur warlock/paladin next time" yup... and the reason is given as well, the kender is detrimental to my and others fun... basicly the idea is "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" I also wont allow a character concept that is "I work for the bad guys and will screw over the other players" and hope neither would a DM I play under. I can express when pressed why though... it isn't a situation of "Because I said so" it also isn't because I am the DM... In my grouips it is a group choice, no one person gets to over rule the others... well the whole group was ready to walk because the DM wanted to enforce there idea on us against our will... in fact in allowing that optional rule (the same as disallowing one) he was making a choice that affects us all, and we will not stand for it. each DM has a built up amount of trust, some have very little some have a lot. When DMs propose things that go against what we want we have to decide to trust them or not, although I can't imagine any DM having enough trust to get me to play with a Kender again. I like introducing a new player to the game, but to be honest, If someone reads the kender description and wants to play one it would send up some red flags in my mind. In this case not only was she not a new player but she was one of the biggest problem players I ever meet. so it doesn't really count. If I could go back to that game knowing what I know now, I would have not played with her no matter the race... you are so close to seeing the point here. "The DM should allow X inless they have a good reason to not allow it" and "Players and DMs are all part of a group and all have a say in what options should be used" and the 3rd one "If you really feel something is a make or break point, then you should let the group go on with out you if they want to use that option." [/QUOTE]

Verification