Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9001351" data-attributes="member: 29398">Which means you've given up your initial position of &quot;The cleric gets this benefit&quot;.&nbsp; But, though IMO the player is quite right in calling out what might be seen as favouritism, there's very little actual disagreement in this example.More relevant, what if someone in the group doesn't square with reworking characters at all; that the character's class and abilities etc. are locked in once chosen, and to change them that much all at once bends the fiction too far sideways.&nbsp; Now what?I've seen hours-long arguments over things just like this, and as it's all in-character there ain't nothing I-as-DM can do about it.&nbsp; Because yes, there is potential disagreement in allowing the character to take futures or pay it forward in that there's nothing stopping that character from leaving the party (intentionally or otherwise) and as some might not want to risk potentially losing that money if-when such an event occurs.&nbsp; And so, someone has to compromise or concede before things can move forward.Which raises the issue of things potentially affect the whole group being discussed or decided in secret rather than with the whole group at once; and while I understand the conflict-avoidance appeal of this, it's a breeding ground for resentment and distrust.&nbsp; It can also put you in a bind, if two players come to you individually at different times with opposing issues, e.g. (in an extreme case) one player comes to you and says they won't play if Johnny stays in the game and another comes and says they won't play if Johnny leaves the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9001351, member: 29398"] Which means you've given up your initial position of "The cleric gets this benefit". But, though IMO the player is quite right in calling out what might be seen as favouritism, there's very little actual disagreement in this example. More relevant, what if someone in the group doesn't square with reworking characters at all; that the character's class and abilities etc. are locked in once chosen, and to change them that much all at once bends the fiction too far sideways. Now what? I've seen hours-long arguments over things just like this, and as it's all in-character there ain't nothing I-as-DM can do about it. Because yes, there [I]is[/I] potential disagreement in allowing the character to take futures or pay it forward in that there's nothing stopping that character from leaving the party (intentionally or otherwise) and as some might not want to risk potentially losing that money if-when such an event occurs. And so, someone has to compromise or concede before things can move forward. Which raises the issue of things potentially affect the whole group being discussed or decided in secret rather than with the whole group at once; and while I understand the conflict-avoidance appeal of this, it's a breeding ground for resentment and distrust. It can also put you in a bind, if two players come to you individually at different times with opposing issues, e.g. (in an extreme case) one player comes to you and says they won't play if Johnny stays in the game and another comes and says they won't play if Johnny leaves the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification