Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 7906135" data-attributes="member: 18182">None of my examples given allow the player's to &quot;browbeat&quot; the DM into playing whatever they want. In all of my examples the DM is going for a certain campaign feel, and works with the players to try to achieve that. Allowing an individual player to control a game doesn't sound like fun (I've been there). But neither does playing with a DM who is more about &quot;no&quot; and control than having collaborative fun with the group (been there too).I'll give an example from my own DM'ing experience. I enjoy running &quot;heroic&quot; games, I don't enjoy &quot;mercenary&quot;, &quot;evil&quot;, or &quot;amoral murder-hobo&quot; games. But I don't have any rules banning &quot;evil&quot; or &quot;mercenary&quot; characters. If a player wants to create a human ranger concerned about the increase of monsters in the forest, that's easy and we don't need to have a super in-depth convo about how that will fit into my campaign. But the other player wants to play a dark character obsessed with power who will do anything to achieve it. Do I say, &quot;Nope. Sorry, no evil PCs in my game!&quot; No, rather I have a more in-depth convo with that player, reminding them of the tone I'm going for, and how can we do this and allow everybody (me included) to have fun? Weis and Hickman managed it with Raistlin from the very heroic Dragonlance Chronicles. It might be a challenge to successfully pull that off in my campaign, for both me and the player, but I'm willing to say &quot;yes&quot; and give it a try. What's the worst that can happen? The campaign begins to derail a bit and I have another convo with the player on how we can all continue to have fun . . . worst case scenario, after a while the character is &quot;retired&quot; if not working out, and we try something new.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dire Bare, post: 7906135, member: 18182"] None of my examples given allow the player's to "browbeat" the DM into playing whatever they want. In all of my examples the DM is going for a certain campaign feel, and works with the players to try to achieve that. Allowing an individual player to control a game doesn't sound like fun (I've been there). But neither does playing with a DM who is more about "no" and control than having collaborative fun with the group (been there too). I'll give an example from my own DM'ing experience. I enjoy running "heroic" games, I don't enjoy "mercenary", "evil", or "amoral murder-hobo" games. But I don't have any rules banning "evil" or "mercenary" characters. If a player wants to create a human ranger concerned about the increase of monsters in the forest, that's easy and we don't need to have a super in-depth convo about how that will fit into my campaign. But the other player wants to play a dark character obsessed with power who will do anything to achieve it. Do I say, "Nope. Sorry, no evil PCs in my game!" No, rather I have a more in-depth convo with that player, reminding them of the tone I'm going for, and how can we do this and allow everybody (me included) to have fun? Weis and Hickman managed it with Raistlin from the very heroic Dragonlance Chronicles. It might be a challenge to successfully pull that off in my campaign, for both me and the player, but I'm willing to say "yes" and give it a try. What's the worst that can happen? The campaign begins to derail a bit and I have another convo with the player on how we can all continue to have fun . . . worst case scenario, after a while the character is "retired" if not working out, and we try something new. [/QUOTE]

Verification