Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7491504" data-attributes="member: 6919838">The answer i have to give is "no" not because i do not understand the difference you are wanting to portray as so very distinct and clear but because you yourself have muddied the waters more than a bit.You have already stated that part of your "character side" would be fluff that establishes a tie between the wolf-sex-thingy and the barbarian rage feature (i do not mean you tie that toe every barbarian, but you establish for this game a link between those two elements as a possibility) and to the extent that it triggers your jerk/irrational and intrusion position. To me, that tie is a world setting and while as a Gm i would almost always be fine with it... i do NOT agree at all that adding that is clearly and distinctly a player-side GM has no say purview.Additionally, when i ready your statement above i see what seem to be "traps" for the broader statement that i would NEVER EVER AGREE TO in a mutal agreement for a collaboration or negotiation.Look at the player rights section - what I see as the player's purview (idea, choice of race/class/background already allowed by the DM, fluff to explain the crunch) Thats pretty broad for the player side - only things outside the limit are classes/races/background already forbidden expressly.Look at the GM right section... the DM's purview (necessary adjustments to better fit into the DM's campaign, messing with the DM's actual adventure/plots/game world politics), as illustrated by the fact that the only thing I feel I need the DM's permission for is the 'Feywild time dilation' aspect because the adventure will be set in the Feywild?See the bolded limits all thru the Gms rights? Any GM side purview must be necessary (not just preferred, but necessary), must be better (not just as good or equally good but better) and (i assume you meant" NOT messing up already planned politics world adventures etc.You are defining a set of conditions which - very consistently to your previous positions I might add - seem to view the Gm as being the party which needs to be limited, restricted etc and the player to have a wide latitude when it comes to this "fluff".What **seems clear** is that you still want pretty high degree of carte blanche for the player and very limited ability for the GM and a lot of tools  to push back with (Justify how its really necessary? justify how its better better? justify how it messes with?) and that is a far cry from a collaboration especially when it comes to the ties between your character and the world.Thats not a collaboration or chargen campaign  process i would sign myself up for as Gm and frankly, as player because it really seems to set an adversarial tone towards the Gm. it really screams "we do not trust you as our GM" to me. First rule of my games is "this game will run very well if we trust each other. and play together."I know some Gms are of the "its my game and you can play in it" variety. I know i am more of an "its our game lets play together" variety but this seems to be moving very heavily towards "its the players game and if you are nice we will let you Gm it - with restrictions and a probationary period."not my thing.YFMV</blockquote>

Verification