ForceUser
Explorer
A friend of mine of several years is getting ready to start a new 3E D&D campaign. He just canned his last one because he had too many players and decided the large group was too difficult to manage.
However, in his new campaign, he is giving his players almost no choice regarding what characters they can play. He has decided that he wants to press specific roles onto specific players. For the most part, he is choosing the race/class/level/starting stats/physical characteristics/personality/background of all the characters himself. I can't even pick my own character's name; he will be providing that too.
I must admit, I got mad and started an argument. There are all kinds of character concepts of my own I would like to try. He basically said "These are my rules, take it or leave it" and I said "I don't like all of your rules, I want you to change some of them before I'll play."
This is a longtime friend. Once, I enjoyed his campaigns. Lately, I have been more frustrated with his micromanagement than anything else. He is capable of running a great story, and I would love to play, but at the same time I want to scream and bang my head against the wall because of the impasse we have come to.
I could, of course, not play. I don't know what makes me angrier: the fact that he's not willing to compromise or the fact that he's willing to play without me rather than compromise. We've played in all of each other's campaigns for years now, and he's saying he's cutting me out of this one if I don't unconditionally acquiese and let him hand me a pre-made character that I may or may not enjoy!
Am I making too big a deal out of it? Should I just go with the flow or decline to play? I don't know. I don't want to argue, but I'm also tired of his bullheadedness. He, in turn, is tired of me questioning his decisions at every turn. We both just want to have fun. I'm also probably the only player who is making an issue of this. Most of his other friends just go with the flow no matter what he suggests.
What's more important: being satisfied with your character or enjoying the camaraderie of the game table?
Sigh.
However, in his new campaign, he is giving his players almost no choice regarding what characters they can play. He has decided that he wants to press specific roles onto specific players. For the most part, he is choosing the race/class/level/starting stats/physical characteristics/personality/background of all the characters himself. I can't even pick my own character's name; he will be providing that too.
I must admit, I got mad and started an argument. There are all kinds of character concepts of my own I would like to try. He basically said "These are my rules, take it or leave it" and I said "I don't like all of your rules, I want you to change some of them before I'll play."
This is a longtime friend. Once, I enjoyed his campaigns. Lately, I have been more frustrated with his micromanagement than anything else. He is capable of running a great story, and I would love to play, but at the same time I want to scream and bang my head against the wall because of the impasse we have come to.
I could, of course, not play. I don't know what makes me angrier: the fact that he's not willing to compromise or the fact that he's willing to play without me rather than compromise. We've played in all of each other's campaigns for years now, and he's saying he's cutting me out of this one if I don't unconditionally acquiese and let him hand me a pre-made character that I may or may not enjoy!
Am I making too big a deal out of it? Should I just go with the flow or decline to play? I don't know. I don't want to argue, but I'm also tired of his bullheadedness. He, in turn, is tired of me questioning his decisions at every turn. We both just want to have fun. I'm also probably the only player who is making an issue of this. Most of his other friends just go with the flow no matter what he suggests.
What's more important: being satisfied with your character or enjoying the camaraderie of the game table?
Sigh.