Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2721842" data-attributes="member: 26473">Or is it that she can't find an illustration that matches DonTadow's vision of what is &quot;correct&quot; for the setting? He said she's come to him with four illos, I believe, but that they didn't have the right skin tone.Agreed - that's the issue that needs to be addressed, not the &quot;DM's vision v. player preference.&quot;Yes, and DonTadow has repeatedly bent his setting to fit this player's whims, but can't settle on an illustration, and sees that as interfering with his &quot;vision.&quot; Please forgive me if I see &quot;vision&quot; as being the least important issue here.It's funny that you picked the example of the &quot;not-a-short-dwarf,&quot; Jim Hague, because I encountered that exact situation many years ago - a player insisted that his dwarf was 5'6&quot; tall. I thought about it for awhile, then shrugged my shoulders and let him play his giant dwarf - and then proceeded to have just about every NPC in the setting mock the devil out of him. I treated his character as the freak it was. Did this break my &quot;vision&quot; of the setting? No - he was simply a Dwarf of Unusual Size, and I played the game-world accordingly.Is it possible, in the case of this dark elf that wants to have a spy/assassin background to still come from the setting-specific constraints of being a slave girl? Could there be no mentor, no opportunity to gain these skills in the service of her mistress, that would jibe with the setting conceits? Is there no way for the setting to react to this anomalous character that maintains the illusion of the game-world? If the answer really is no, there isn't, then THAT was the place to draw the line, not at the character portrait!Here's the part that just floors me...I'm sorry, but in every post it sounds like this is absolutely about her behavior, not the &quot;integrity of the campaign.&quot;Deal with the disruptive player, and the integrity of the campaign will take care of itself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Shaman, post: 2721842, member: 26473"] Or is it that she can't find an illustration that matches [b]DonTadow[/b]'s vision of what is "correct" for the setting? He said she's come to him with four illos, I believe, but that they didn't have the right skin tone.Agreed - that's the issue that needs to be addressed, not the "DM's vision v. player preference."Yes, and [b]DonTadow[/b] has repeatedly bent his setting to fit this player's whims, but can't settle on an illustration, and sees [B]that[/B] as interfering with his "vision." Please forgive me if I see "vision" as being the least important issue here. It's funny that you picked the example of the "not-a-short-dwarf," [B]Jim Hague[/B], because I encountered that exact situation many years ago - a player insisted that his dwarf was 5'6" tall. I thought about it for awhile, then shrugged my shoulders and let him play his giant dwarf - and then proceeded to have just about every NPC in the setting mock the devil out of him. I treated his character as the freak it was. Did this break my "vision" of the setting? No - he was simply a Dwarf of Unusual Size, and I played the game-world accordingly. Is it possible, in the case of this dark elf that wants to have a spy/assassin background to still come from the setting-specific constraints of being a slave girl? Could there be no mentor, no opportunity to gain these skills in the service of her mistress, that would jibe with the setting conceits? Is there no way for the setting to react to this anomalous character that maintains the illusion of the game-world? If the answer really is no, there isn't, then THAT was the place to draw the line, not at the character portrait! Here's the part that just floors me...I'm sorry, but in every post it sounds like this is [U]absolutely[/U] about her behavior, not the "integrity of the campaign." Deal with the disruptive player, and the integrity of the campaign will take care of itself. [/QUOTE]

Verification