Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5584426" data-attributes="member: 27160">I agree with just about all of this. Both sides definitely need to be 'on the same page' and, in practice, the nature of the world setting is normally done by consensus. That being the case, I am very happy if the rules reflect that.If the DM has a clear and vivid concept for a game world, it can be useful for them to formulate it completely - but then they will, in practice, have to "sell" that vision to the players. The players always have the ultimate sanction of not playing; DMs have the final sanction of not running the game.As a general "default", though - and for D&D specifically, as opposed to the full range of roleplaying games - I think the advice in the original 4E rules to "say yes" is a good one. Thus I generally start from the base assumption that all items are present and available unless there is a specific reason for them not to be. This makes 'going down the checklist' a realistic option, I find.Here is where I disagree. It's not that I think that the "mother may I" problem arises only with DMs who do not understand or accept that the game is collaborative. I agree that this is actually rare, in any case. But even without it, the necessity to refer every thought, decision and desire - be it rationally considered or simple whimsy - concerning gear for their character is an unnecessary, burdensome and onerous imposition on players.When the play group comes to the table to actually play, the players bring a character - complete with their training, their 'characters' and their equipment. It therefore makes sense, to me, if the players are broadly in control of the item selection - within the rules of the game and the restrictions accepted by the play group for the particular campaign.Here, possibly, is the nub of the disagreement. Provided that the meta-gaming is done during "downtime", rather than during actual play, I don't mind this at all. If it means that players come to the table with a character that they are proud of, that they are comfortable to venture into ersatz "danger" with and that they are happy to play, then I positively encourage it."Optimised" characters are very often weak in specific ways; either they are vulnerable to specific challenges, or they are weak at specific levels, or they are boring or limited to play. As a result, the players I play with are seldom tempted to pursue an extreme course of "optimisation". If they do pursue such a course, they may pay for it in a variety of ways; I have no problem with that.</blockquote>

Verification