Recent content by Minigiant

The concept that is he is suggesting is that some people don't like the idea that somebody would opt out. That their setting is good enough that a player should be able to find a character that day would like playing in it or the inspiration for the setting is so good that a player one find a...

Thank you for saying it. I didn't want to be the one. I think a lot of DMs do not fully explain or describe their personal project settings out of fear of rejection or to get yeses from specific potential players. Then they get rejected anyway. And then you have people who post online the...

Again I think posters are posting past each other. I think we are all agreeing that restricting a few classes or races is fine. There shouldn't being argument between the DM and the player since the player most likely will have other concepts in their head besides the banned ones. The DM bands...

Again I don't think we're actually talking about the real situation that causes these arguments and are using a settings with moderate restrictions as a proxy where they don't belong. Because for the most part most players come to the table with multiple characters in their head. Especially in...

Im not shifting goalposts People have mentioned human only low magic settings. Complaining about a single class removal especially in 5th edition is too much. But someone mentioned settings where 7-10 classes might be banned.

Brain: Don't say it. Don't Do it. Don't. They started off challenging each other out the gate. No wonder they... Brain: Shut up. Your team sucks too. :(

Allowed? There's no permission here. A DM can do whatever they want. But if you ban everything but fighters and rogues because everything else is too high magical fantasy, should you still adding a major rules variant or even be running D&D due to D&D having an extremely narrow mechanical...

The scope why didn't but it was still there. The blogger lamented how the game shifted into high fantasy. But as I and many other posters have said D&D has always been high magical fantasy. It typically eased its way there. However when it was going through the process of going from mundane to...

This is a D&D general thread about a blogger lamenting the changes in 5e 2024. So of all editions 5e 2024 does have special weight here

I'm not saying that there's a line that everyone should honor. I'm saying it is a line where you are comfort level designates you as extreme. There's nothing wrong with being an extremist. But if you only want to play a Dragonborn artificer or if you only want to run a fighter only campaign...

And really let's be honest. In 2024 race/species is a minor aspect of your characters. From the player side and the DM side race and species barely does anything. You don't even get ability to score increases anymore. Everybody gets a level 1 feet. It's really all humans with rubber hats now...

And I disagree. And you shouldn't. But on the other side like I said a player should not be forced to play the character designed by the DM. No one should be forced to do something they don't want to do and if there is no option for adaption on either side, the two sides should part ways.

And how many times I must say that is ridiculous and unreasonable to not accept any restrictions? That's not an discussion. Because most reasonable people who played a game believe that the player should make a character that is appropriate for the setting. This discussion should be on where...

No the discussion was around how much the DMS or Players should be accommodating with their preferences fore they leave. What should happen with a small restriction campaign like an Arctic campaign which still allows hundreds of options vs a high restriction setting like a low magic S&S...

Sure. But the discussion is on DMs creating personal settings that have ultra-narrow themes that might lock out types of PCs from creation.