Do you trust the people you game with?

[Aloïsius]

As a DM can you say "Well, I'm allowing everything because I know that you all will not choose things based on power, but based on fun?"

But power is fun !
Some of my players create rather blands or "number only" PCs (no or little background, no explanations of weird combo...). It's not my problem, it's their problem, because :
*when the PC is dull, the story (and thus the DM) is the star
*when the PC is dull, the player have sometimes some surprises. ("You didn't made a background, not a problem, let me see your sheet... I will make this background, and Iwill explain how your wood elf became a monk...")

 

[John Smallberries]

I trust them to do the following:

1. Min/Max like mad.
2. Twist every rule, push every limit.
3. Blow holes in my stories and derail my plots.
4. Have a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

Therefore, they can trust me to:
1. Let them.

No heavy-handed DM control issues. Just fun.

 

[Aloïsius]

I trust them to do the following:

1. Min/Max like mad.
2. Twist every rule, push every limit.
3. Blow holes in my stories and derail my plots.
4. Have a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

Therefore, they can trust me to:
1. Let them.

No heavy-handed DM control issues. Just fun.

That's more or less my philosophy.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

I have only two concerns which create restrictions for the players:

1 -- That they remain more-or-less balanced amongst each other... Partly because I do uneven XP, and I want to make sure there is a reward for that. (At least in my table-top game, there is a slight competitive element between the players)

2 -- That I can accurately assess their power level, and that it is even enough that I can craft encounters for them which will be challenging, but not lethal for the less-powerful players.

Other restrictions may come up from campaign to campaign (such as "no evil characters" or "no such-and-such races") but those are usually created and resolved with the players when we start a new campaign and try to decide on a suitable flavor.

Outside of that, I'm pretty open. I don't look over anyone's shoulder when they roll, I typically don't audit their character sheets. See my sig thread for an example of this in action on the boards.

And, as always, there are exceptions to how open I am. But generally, nine games out of ten let's say, those two main rules are all I impose.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

My only restrictions are in regards to (1) setting flavor and theme and (2) keeping logical with regards to in-game events (Skills, Feats, Multiclassing, etc.). Beyond this, I trust my Players 100%. I wouldn't play with them if I didn't.

 

[8XXX{0}====>]

The people I game with are caniving, evil, powergaming hellions. I dont trust those guys one bit. Even today, one shot me in the shouler with a pellet pistol (the plastic kind that sting). Stupid www.airsoft.com

 

[s/LaSH]

I trust 'em. The question is, Do they trust me? They just know I'm hiding something from 'em by now. And that's true... I've done all sorts of unfair things to them, but strangely they seem to like it...

 

[dren]

trusting players

I voted #1.

They are honest with me in every aspect of the game. They may disagree or bring up a differing viewpoint, but they don't argue with me as a DM. Nobody cries or complains about character death or loss of an item. I sit ten feet away from them and don't see any of their rolls, but I've never had a reason to mistrust them.

 

[Thresher]

They pUt thingS in mY tEeth!

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Make it hard on me why don't you?

I think I'm going to have to puzzle out what my vote should be as I write this.

My gut reaction was to say that I trust my group 100%. After all, I wouldn't play with someone I don't trust. I don't need to check their rolls, I don't need to double check their inventory, or the results of a turning check. They're not cheaters. They're honest about this stuff even when it hurts.

But, on the other hand, "Do you trust them to create characters that will be fun for them and for everyone?" And while I want to say yes, that's blatantly false. The characters that this group played in my last session made me swear off DMing for 4 months.

We could probablly go by stat selection, and this group would work out ok. No one would play ridiculous games with it.

I trust them to be honest, but I don't trust them to play the game. They've got this issue where I have to get out and motivate their characters. The house rules have started coming in allready, no PH at the table, and each rule helps alot.

I trust them to be honest. I could give them a guideline for character creation, never see thier sheets and be fine. They could use online suppliments, and prestige classes, and it'd be ok they wouldn't choose anything too crazy. They could make their own spells and items without me involved, and it'd be ok. But I don't trust them to play a character, I have to have a whole series of "you're out of the campaign if you do..." threats lined up. I don't trust them to think on their own, I need guys around to give them orders to have them do anything. I don't trust about half of them to get any better, because the mere suggestion that they might have room for improvement ends up in an hour long argument.

Hm. Then theres the campaign I play in. I trust all but one of the other players. Again, he's fine on dice rolls, but he purposely designed a worthless character. He plays the character as worthless, and every time we get into a decent IC discussion he drops out of character, or makes a dumb joke.

The DM, I trust him to try his best, and not fudge any rolls to kill us. But I also trust that I'm going to get ripped off on what my skills can do. I trust that 40% of our sessions will be us wandering around in the desert walking back to civilization. And I trust that despite my best efforts to the contrary, the role-playing opertunities will stay few and shallow, and most of the decisions we're able to make (aside from purchases) will be moot.

So, where does that fall in?