Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8120757" data-attributes="member: 22779">Sometimes.Right now, I'm playing an Anything Goes campaign and having a blast.&nbsp; I certainly can't complain about someone's character concept when I've explicitly stated that anything is on the table.&nbsp; Obviously.Again, people are presuming a lack of communication.&nbsp; That's never been the problem.&nbsp; Obviously if I'm pitching a game, it's going to be more than a couple of sentences that I jot off on a message board.&nbsp; Thankfully, most of the people reading this realize that this is the case and aren't getting too bogged down in minutia.&nbsp; The problem that I'm talking about is AFTER session 0.&nbsp; After you've handed your players your &quot;syllabus&quot; campaign document.&nbsp; After you've explained the campaign is pretty specific detail, why do players, who have said, &quot;Yup, this sounds like fun&quot; then come back with characters that are against what the DM has said?&nbsp; What do they get out of it?&nbsp; Sure, my Knights of the Round Table example wasn't very good.&nbsp; What I know about the Knights of the Round table probably couldn't fill a piece of paper.&nbsp; But, even then, two of the three examples put forward, Merlin and Morgana AREN'T knights.&nbsp; Even if I was wrong on Mordred, I was still right on the other two.&nbsp; Yet, for some reason, there are a significant number of players who will expressly take that &quot;special&quot; character EVERY FREAKING TIME.&nbsp; Just once, it would be nice to pitch a game and have five PC's put forward that actually were grounded in the campaign proposed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8120757, member: 22779"] Sometimes. Right now, I'm playing an Anything Goes campaign and having a blast. I certainly can't complain about someone's character concept when I've explicitly stated that anything is on the table. Obviously. Again, people are presuming a lack of communication. That's never been the problem. Obviously if I'm pitching a game, it's going to be more than a couple of sentences that I jot off on a message board. Thankfully, most of the people reading this realize that this is the case and aren't getting too bogged down in minutia. The problem that I'm talking about is AFTER session 0. After you've handed your players your "syllabus" campaign document. After you've explained the campaign is pretty specific detail, why do players, who have said, "Yup, this sounds like fun" then come back with characters that are against what the DM has said? What do they get out of it? Sure, my Knights of the Round Table example wasn't very good. What I know about the Knights of the Round table probably couldn't fill a piece of paper. But, even then, two of the three examples put forward, Merlin and Morgana AREN'T knights. Even if I was wrong on Mordred, I was still right on the other two. Yet, for some reason, there are a significant number of players who will expressly take that "special" character EVERY FREAKING TIME. Just once, it would be nice to pitch a game and have five PC's put forward that actually were grounded in the campaign proposed. [/QUOTE]

Verification