Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9546607" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Read my post again. I was responding to Swarmkeeper taking EzekielRaiden to task for assuming that no conversation would happen. ANd here you are, stating that basically no conversation would happen. You have plenty of players willing to play, so you don't need to compromise with someone who isn't invested. That doesn't mean that any and all restrictions are inherently evil and cannot happen, that means EzekielRaiden's assumption that them not being completely invested in your idea meaning no conversation will happen and you will move on to a different player were correct and taking them to task for making the assumption was wrong.Depends. What is meant by evil? I'm certain you have a very specific set of character traits you think of as &quot;evil&quot;. What if the player's character idea is evil to them, but you wouldn't define it that way? Then do we have a problem? Seems like that is a conversation that could possibly happen. Maybe there are specific abilities or story beats they want from being evil, and there is a way to work around it. For example off the top of my head, a cute little comic I know of is about a Demon Queen who is defeated by the heroes, and marries the hero, ending up having a family and being cute and lovey-dovey together. What if the player has an idea inspired by this? Maybe you could say &quot;well, you can't be evil and wanting to murder the party, but being a bit of a tyrannical bully with theatrics is fine.&quot; If you start from the position of &quot;it is impossible to find any compromise on this!!&quot; then of course it is impossible, but people don't always say what they mean. That's why one of the first things I do when I get a weird pitch from a player is ask &quot;what do you mean by that?&quot; or &quot;what do you want from that?&quot; because that is a more pertinent bit of information usually.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9546607, member: 6801228"] Read my post again. I was responding to Swarmkeeper taking EzekielRaiden to task for assuming that no conversation would happen. ANd here you are, stating that basically no conversation would happen. You have plenty of players willing to play, so you don't need to compromise with someone who isn't invested. That doesn't mean that any and all restrictions are inherently evil and cannot happen, that means EzekielRaiden's assumption that them not being completely invested in your idea meaning no conversation will happen and you will move on to a different player [B]were correct[/B] and taking them to task for making the assumption [B]was wrong[/B]. Depends. What is meant by evil? I'm certain you have a very specific set of character traits you think of as "evil". What if the player's character idea is evil to them, but you wouldn't define it that way? Then do we have a problem? Seems like that is a conversation that could possibly happen. Maybe there are specific abilities or story beats they want from being evil, and there is a way to work around it. For example off the top of my head, a cute little comic I know of is about a Demon Queen who is defeated by the heroes, and marries the hero, ending up having a family and being cute and lovey-dovey together. What if the player has an idea inspired by this? Maybe you could say "well, you can't be evil and wanting to murder the party, but being a bit of a tyrannical bully with theatrics is fine." If you start from the position of "it is impossible to find any compromise on this!!" then of course it is impossible, but people don't always say what they mean. That's why one of the first things I do when I get a weird pitch from a player is ask "what do you mean by that?" or "what do you want from that?" because that is a more pertinent bit of information usually. [/QUOTE]

Verification