NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9251552" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I just don’t differentiate between a GM who doesn’t want to listen to the players or a player who doesn’t want to listen to the GM/other players.I think that, as [USER=7025176]@grankless[/USER] suggested, if we remove some kind of malice as a motive and assume participants of good faith, then I really don’t get the objection.If I proposed the suggested game and a player said they wanted to play the last mage, I’d not assume “oh, Nick’s being a jerk”… I’d assume “Nick seems to have a strong idea based on the premise of the game”. And I’d want to discuss it and examine it.I’d argue that the character does fit the campaign. Uniquely so. The character would not fit in a standard campaign.Because the player isn’t refusing the premise. The player is challenging it… and doing so through their character concept. That’s an expression that engages directly with the premise and one that comes loaded with conflict. That seems far more desirable for a game than generic, interchangeable characters.  Ummm… so be it? What’s the problem?No, not really. It was suggested that all the characters be as connected to the central premise as this. That they all be uniquely tied to the setting… and one another… as possible. Most seem to be ignoring that suggestion in an attempt to paint the hypothetical player as problematic.It’s all made up. We can come up with any rationalization for the inconsistencies as we like. Feeling beholden to them, though? That feels like maintaining the status quo simply to do so. What’s the point in that? I’d much rather have characters and situation for play that are more rife with conflict. More unique to the point where this world and the characters are inseparable.</blockquote>

Verification