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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3483362" data-attributes="member: 22779">I was asked for examples where a DM's love of a setting got in the way of fun.  I provided examples.  Apparently, that isn't good enough.  If the setting was cave man days, then I could instantly grasp why there would be no plate mail.  However, given that the setting HAD all the elements of early Renaissance technology, complete with crossbows (the weapon specifically designed to defeat plate mail), I am left with the assumption that the DM is passing off lame house rules as setting flavour.  Why is it so important to you and to others what I have posted in other threads?  Is it not possible to discuss what I have said here without bringing up past discussions?  Should I be forced to now go through and edit every post I make to make sure that every post I make is completely in accordance to how you interpret my past posts?In other words, could we keep the discussion on THIS discussion please.And that's fine, for you.  The fact that your players come back seems to jive with that idea.  My point isn't that you should NEVER say no.  I've never said that.  My point is that there is an apparent double standard.When a player asks for an element which differs from the DM's setting bible, he's accused of all sorts of things, from entitlement issues, to not being creative, to being disruptive and not playing well with others.When a DM refuses to change an element of his setting bible, he gets a big old pat on the back for preserving his vision against the slathering hordes of entitlement minded players out there.  It almost seems like the fact that someone sits in the DM's chair automatically confers the idea of infallibility.  In the examples I gave, you brush them off, despite any knowledge beyond what I've said.  These issues bothered me as a player.  But, the DM is ALWAYS RIGHT.My point is, sorry, no that's not true.  Sometimes the DM's ideas blow.  Sometime's the players ideas suck.  However, a DM should never place his campaign bible up on some sort of pedastal and never change it to accomodate a player.Something that I have realized in this thread though is a new form of Godwinning.  Any mention of Tolkien automatically ends all possible lines of communication as any criticism, no matter how valid or invalid, will lead to automatic dismissal by those who believe that the Professor is the second coming to literature.On another note:QFT</blockquote>

Verification