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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herschel" data-source="post: 4644914" data-attributes="member: 78357">I look at it from a slightly different angle: I do have complete ownership of the campaign from the beginning, but freely give out "shares" as needed. It is initially "my" vision when I run an adventure or campaign with (hopefully) the versatility and flexibility to incorporate most any character or player who wants to join. But I do reserve the right to nerf or nix, as needed, for what is hopefully the betterment of the game for all involved. As an example: A player can be a "lazy" player. His character died (rogue went scouting too far from party and walked right in to the waiting ambush). He comes back wanting to play a Battlerager or Tempest Fighter (he's on boards and people called them "broken") and didn't even pick his skills, just wanted combat stats and to "kill stuff". I nixed both (partly due to the Battlerager Temp HP math) because it would cause delays while he stopped the game to figure out what was going on.  He also has trouble playing within the party concept. He wants to "solo" things. Well, 4E doesn't work that way, at least how I run it. He went through a few characters because he didn't try to work WITH the group. I felt perfectly justified in limiting his options because I know the player and how it effects the group. I also was able to suggest a character he would still have fun with. This was a player who always refused to play a Cleric because he didn't ewant to be a "boring healbot". He was a bit surprised when I ran an NPC cleric that waxed baddies and nerfed Wizards like a madman.  And you know what? The game was still fun for everyone. All it took was a little time for the rant to get over and a little actual discussion.</blockquote>

Verification