Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3447624" data-attributes="member: 3608">&quot;No plan survives contact with the enemy.&quot; --Murphy's Rules of CombatThat things might not go as planned is not a reason to not plan. The considering of all the things you list happens without the DM present. Only the &quot;vetting&quot; itself requires the DM.Unless the player or the DM are complete jerks or seriously mismatched in their approach to the game (with no effort to reconcile that), not every player idea is going to get outright veto'd. Rather (IME) little will, though the results might not be exactly what you expect, but that's part of the point of playing the game with other people, right?If it is an issue of jerkitude or mismatched approaches, then you've got a much bigger problem than how involved the players can be.Some players put just as much effort into their PC's backstory, personality, &amp;c. as DMs put into their campaign settings. &amp; many DMs will welcome their world being partially shaped by the players. Sometimes as far as letting them develop portions of the setting.Of course, there's also the argument that the DM's job was easier, so that lowers the bar for players being as involved as the DM. (^_^)I wanted 1e to be humanocentric &amp; was always annoyed that it wasn't. I can enjoy a game that isn't, but I don't want that all the time.This is one of the things that I really enjoy about Moldvay/Cook/Marsh D&amp;D. As written, the limited range of non-human PC choices &amp; their increased XP cost tends towards more human PCs but still with the occasional demihuman. &amp; I have plenty of resources (from oD&amp;D through the Gazs &amp; Crucibles plus pretty good fan-made class creation rules) to make doing things different pretty easy when I want to.(Although, for the &quot;any race goes&quot; kind of things, I think I'd prefer Gurps, Hero, Risus, or something else to anything D&amp;D.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RFisher, post: 3447624, member: 3608"] "No plan survives contact with the enemy." --Murphy's Rules of Combat That things might not go as planned is not a reason to not plan. The considering of all the things you list happens without the DM present. Only the "vetting" itself requires the DM. Unless the player or the DM are complete jerks or seriously mismatched in their approach to the game (with no effort to reconcile that), not every player idea is going to get outright veto'd. Rather (IME) little will, though the results might not be exactly what you expect, but that's part of the point of playing the game with other people, right? If it is an issue of jerkitude or mismatched approaches, then you've got a much bigger problem than how involved the players can be. Some players put just as much effort into their PC's backstory, personality, &c. as DMs put into their campaign settings. & many DMs will welcome their world being partially shaped by the players. Sometimes as far as letting them develop portions of the setting. Of course, there's also the argument that the DM's job was easier, so that lowers the bar for players being as involved as the DM. (^_^) I wanted 1e to be humanocentric & was always annoyed that it wasn't. I can enjoy a game that isn't, but I don't want that all the time. This is one of the things that I really enjoy about Moldvay/Cook/Marsh D&D. As written, the limited range of non-human PC choices & their increased XP cost tends towards more human PCs but still with the occasional demihuman. & I have plenty of resources (from oD&D through the Gazs & Crucibles plus pretty good fan-made class creation rules) to make doing things different pretty easy when I want to. (Although, for the "any race goes" kind of things, I think I'd prefer Gurps, Hero, Risus, or something else to anything D&D.) [/QUOTE]

Verification