Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8518685" data-attributes="member: 29398">Advocating means, in part, pushing the rules envelope for any advantages that might be hanging around.&nbsp; And I wouldn't call you a tyrant for pushing back against that advocation, I'd instead call you a DM who is doing his job.If you as DM say &quot;No evil PCs&quot; I walk out.Why?Because you're telling me how to play my character, and that just doesn't fly.&nbsp; Further, because you're willing to tell me how to play my character in this aspect it's clear I can't trust that you won't - then or later - tell me how to play it in other aspects. (examples I've seen posted by others in this forum include no in-character romances, character must be of the player's gender, etc.)Guidelines are fine.&nbsp; Hard rules are not; and the only way you-as-DM can turn my character into an NPC is if I willingly hand it over to you (and in my view this includes even if-when I-as-player have left an ongoing campaign; the character still belongs to me and you need my permission to do anything significant with it).If the other players don't want it that's one thing, but as a DM I've always seen it as my job to more or less run whatever the players put in front of me; and this can (and does!) include all kinds of left turns, unexpected actions, and plain ol' crazy ship.&nbsp; Sure, at session 0 I'll make a few preferences very clear as to what I don't like DMing (usually revolving around players trying to turn the game into Economics 101 by becomeing businesspeople instead of adventurers), but if a character and-or class exists as playable within the setting I don't restrict what a player can do with it.If game-element X works a certain way this time but a different way next time under similar circumstances, how are the players supposed to be able to make informed decisions?Even though it had bogged down as you say, I found myself even more disappointed with it once Sanderson took the helm.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8518685, member: 29398"] Advocating means, in part, pushing the rules envelope for any advantages that might be hanging around. And I wouldn't call you a tyrant for pushing back against that advocation, I'd instead call you a DM who is doing his job. If you as DM say "No evil PCs" I walk out. Why? Because you're telling me how to play my character, and that just doesn't fly. Further, because you're willing to tell me how to play my character in this aspect it's clear I can't trust that you won't - then or later - tell me how to play it in other aspects. (examples I've seen posted by others in this forum include no in-character romances, character must be of the player's gender, etc.) Guidelines are fine. Hard rules are not; and the only way you-as-DM can turn my character into an NPC is if I willingly hand it over to you (and in my view this includes even if-when I-as-player have left an ongoing campaign; the character still belongs to me and you need my permission to do anything significant with it). If the other players don't want it that's one thing, but as a DM I've always seen it as my job to more or less run whatever the players put in front of me; and this can (and does!) include all kinds of left turns, unexpected actions, and plain ol' crazy ship. Sure, at session 0 I'll make a few preferences very clear as to what I don't like DMing (usually revolving around players trying to turn the game into Economics 101 by becomeing businesspeople instead of adventurers), but if a character and-or class exists as playable within the setting I don't restrict what a player can do with it. If game-element X works a certain way this time but a different way next time under similar circumstances, how are the players supposed to be able to make informed decisions? Even though it had bogged down as you say, I found myself even more disappointed with it once Sanderson took the helm. [/QUOTE]

Verification