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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6342433" data-attributes="member: 6689464">(emphasis mine) You wrote this as if it was an anathema, such a concept isn't exactly outrageous. But in a way limiting what players can play is taking away player agency. In this case is pretty mild, but extreme cases this can turn ugly, DMs forcing players to rebuild their characters to suit their personal tastes, or arbitrarily deciding player A has to play the cleric, are glaring examples of denial of player agency.   As I was telling it is ok for the DM to establish boundaries for characters, some concepts just don't fit in certain worlds, but it is ok  as long as the chance for something else presents itself at some point down the line. A DM  monolithically stuck on a single snowflake world with a limited scope on  character concepts is doing a disservice to her players, why not allow a  few one-shots or minicampaigns outside this comfort zone to allow players to have some enjoyment? sometimes you  just have to scratch an itch and play something not as ordinary or not regularly allowed. Of course players have to adapt to what the DM is happy running, but if the DM has a lot of fun running a special world that the players are bringing to life, it is a good idea to allow players to play sometimes on a more open one so they can have fun playing the characters they always wanted to play in return. I agree that it is a matter of equivalent exchange, but would amend this to say players will be happy compromising a lot if the result is fun for everybody. The moment players start having to put up with something is more a sign of the DM turning tyrannical and detracting from the fun than actually contributing to it. More a sign of players wishing to make it work because most of the time an awful game is better than no game.</blockquote>

Verification