Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8522410" data-attributes="member: 29398">Which falls perfectly under my mantra of "what happens in character stays in character"; and if it holds like this all is fine.  Yet from reading other posts you've made it seems you clamp down rather hard on characters acting like jerks even if the players aren't.  Which is it?The DM-hoggers are a nuisance, to be sure, but people scheming behind each others' back can lead to some excellent play*. I could bore everyone with a litany of grand stories about such things from games I've both DMed and played in; suffice it to say that as long as the players don't take it personally that sort of thing can be a blast. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />* - though the plot or story won't advance very much if at all during this; but if they're having fun, who cares?All it requires is that if my character was, say, a Thief; and after I've left the game the party looks to recruit a Thief, the DM either a) not use my Thief as that recruit and instead rolls up an NPC or b) ask me if it's OK that my character return to play without me.Hardly what I'd call gimping the game.More because if I don't hard-code them either someone will find a way to exploit the loophole or I'll forget my ruling and get it wrong sometime later.To me it all falls under 'just messing around', as does most of the game in general. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's fair.  If there's two who enjoy meticulous planning and two who don't*, however, then no matter what happens two people are going to be slightly annoyed: either the planners if the non-planners don't give them the chance, or the non-planners if they're made to wait for the planners to finish.  Tolerance is required both ways.* - I've been in this situation as one of the non-planners - we had two planners, two impatient types, and one who didn't care much either way.  What often ended up happening is that the planners would plan and then when the time (finally!) came to put the plan into effect the impatients would ignore the plan and just improvise instead.  It usually worked out OK... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification