Search results

Who in here said they don't allow a race that actually exists in their world, especially a friendly race. If they did, I think they are wrong. Now, if the lizard folk are cursed carnivores that are under the control of an ancient evil god who insists they eat human meat once a wekk, and the DM...

Please, dig them up. I do not think they exist. No. The DM pitched the campaign. The players accepted to have a look. Session zero had the DM outline the dos and don'ts. The player immediately jumped to the don't side. Most DMs have lore as to why they say no. (And I said this before, if they...

If we have a session zero, I heard the pitch from the DM, and the DM said, "All elves are dead. They've been dead for a thousand years. But everything else is on the table." And I say, "I want to play a wood elf?" I would certainly expect the DM to question why. Same thing if they banned the...

I agree with you. But my gut still tells me their adventure path would be set up differently. And again, it is all hypothetical. I could be really wrong. But it is my guess.

See how you say "it's not massively preplanned." See how the other side is saying: It took a lot of work and tons of preplanning. Which one should have to compromise? As for your question, I would expect an answer. A conversation to happen between to people who want to game together. One has...

I agree with that. Although I have never seen someone on here state the how part. In the end, everyone has limits. Just because one DM's limits are more restrictive than another's, does not make them wrong. It doesn't make in inflexible. It doesn't mean they can't compromise. It doesn't mean any...

Because it's very short, which is the opposite of an adventure path. It is also keeping the rulebook formulaic, similar to other rulebooks. This way, the GM and players can decide to try it without a lot of research or deep understanding. Again, that is the opposite of an adventure path, which...

For someone that doesn't want to misrepresent people, you are doing an extraordinary job of it here. Almost every single person arguing for a DM set limitation has done so with an understanding they will try to meet a person in the middle, i.e. "have an adult conversation." If laying down the...

It would be different for a couple of reasons. The rules are very different in DH. I mean, the players create much of the lore and add to the setting often. That nullifies (or at least makes it difficult) to create a scene by scene paced adventure, which is what APs do. The second reason they...

The 3-18 scale has an extremely difficult time capturing what people feel is believable. I'll go to my grave that the best scale they have ever produced was the 3-18 100/100. The reason is this: When it comes to higher levels (which is all that really matters in a game like this), you need to be...

Reynard, how was your play experience. I have found it to be fun. But, at least in my opinion, it is fun because of our table, not the game's mechanics. There are some rough patches, but that has more to do with playstyle than actual mechanics. I could summarize the game like this: It is an...

We're running a DH campaign right now, and to be honest, if they made an Adventure Path, I would pick it up just to see its set up. I think it would be very interesting to see how the writing, events, and plot look in a DH adventure path. I picture the plot as being vague, with a lot of NPC...

Again, trying not to bait the whole alignment argument. However, orcs in the LOtR movies are evil. They are depicted as evil through their actions. They follow a leader who is evil incarnate. And they are explicitly designed to look evil. So go ahead and compare them to whatever you want, but...

Like I said, alignment discussion aside, you find it to be unacceptable for orcs to non-playable races. It doesn't matter what year we're in. You find it unacceptable. But for someone to say, "No, they're evil," has nothing to do with the era we're in, yet has everything to do with the way the...

Not to @TwoSix . You see, at his table, world building is of lesser importance. He just can't understand (or refuses to acknowledge) that at some tables, it is actually of greater importance, because it is the glue that holds the story together. To each their own. You will never convince him...

100% they could. They could also erase the ten pages they have on demons and devils. They can erase the hundred pages they have on the world's cultures, civilizations, regions, and races. They could do all that - to allow one player to play a PC they were asked not to. You see, you come off as...

Wrong, I have lore because my players like the internal consistency of my world. They have liked exploring my world. Learning about my world. And gaining an understanding of why things are the way they are. My dungeons have lore, and that lore is integrated into the lore that exists elsewhere in...

Congrats, you play in the cantina and that is your jam. That is how I run my D&D games as well; multiverse, FR, Eberron, astral planes, Feywild and Shadowfell, everyone from everywhere, with nary an eyebrow raised. It is a fun way to run. Very free. But sometimes there is story in constraint...

Let me fix that for you - "The setting simply isn't that important for my games." The fact you can't reciprocate and say, "Settings are very important for other people's games, players and DM's alike" speaks volumes.

See the bold. That is your answer, and it is a good one. There is no other reason to have lore other than that right there. That is the reason gamemasters create lore - to have an impact on the player. And if the player respects that - then they won't insist on going against the lore. Your...