Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 8120043" data-attributes="member: 18182">I can't imagine a Knights of the Round Table campaign (in a D&D game) without somebody wanted to play a priest of the holy church, or a sorcerous apprentice to Merlin . . . integral parts of Arthurian legend. An adventuring party made mostly of knights . . . and their companions . . . sounds like a great game. A game where the DM insists we are all knights . . . meh.Same with a "samurai" game, like Legends of the 5 Rings. The game is centered around samurai, but offers plenty of other options for players that fit right into the theme and setting just fine.Limits aren't inherently bad . . . but (IMO) are overused by DMs trying to create themes that are too tight and specific. But I think we are simply dealing with two schools of thought here in this thread . . . those who feel the DM not only can, but should set down strict limits to create a specifically themed campaign that the players either embrace or take a hike and find another game . . . and those who prefer a more collaborative and flexible approach where DM and players brainstorm, discuss, and agree on what type of game to play. I don't think we're going to convince each other to "switch sides".I'm okay with folks here saying things like, "Whelp, that's not the game for me then!" But I'm irritated with the incredulous cries of how "mind-boggling" it is when players express distaste for strict limits imposed by the DM.</blockquote>

Verification