Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9251669"><p>On the topic of players having input in the campaign setting or campaign premise, for example the GM saying they want to run a no magic setting and the player proposing being the last mage, or a player proposing some kind of tweak to the concept itself....I think that is a preference thing. If people want that it is fine. I think it is just important to keep in mind for some groups, they want the GM to setting that stuff up (maybe with players saying what they like or asking questions but not expecting to shape the premise itself). There is a range of styles in between. I have no issue with the player doing something like that when it is something that peopel are on board with. I do have an issue with an argument that either says everyone really should do this, or that a player should push GMs and players who don't want it initially. One of the key terms mentioned in the OP, not by the OP but in a quoted section, that for me is a bit of a red flag is the word 'conflict'. Obviously that can mean different things. But I don't think conflict or debate are a good foundation for a functioning campaign personally. I, like a lot of people I think, game to relax. I don't game to have to fight for what I want at the table. This is why I think finding players and GMs who fit your style is important.</p></blockquote><p></p>