Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9251713" data-attributes="member: 82106">To be super honest, I think the whole thing kind of reeks of GM privilege thinking. In my own experience, the greatest gold is the player who thinks beyond what is just laid out. This 'Last Mage' example is perfect. Sure, the player wants a character that has a purpose and who's existence and actions can have meaning in the world. That's the highest acknowledgement and engagement with that world and gift of meaning to it that any player is capable of. Now, some player might be pushy or selfish enough to only want to be the center of attention, and sure that's bad, but I think that kind of player is A) exceedingly rare, and B) deserves to be reasoned with, and C) could potentially still be exploited as a resource if the GM knows how to handle them correctly. I've had many sorts of players, some (always young ones) who fit that bill. I've also had some GREAT players who were a little more assertive and needed the GM to make sure they didn't push anyone around. I recall one in particular, very nice guy, who was in 2 of my 4e campaigns. He was a great asset, even if he was always inventing things and hamming it up or kind of stage managing the whole party at times. I just made sure the other players were getting equal say in things. Frankly nobody in that group was a shrinking violet anyway, but the one quiet player got focused on enough and it was all good.Obviously nobody can say there's no such thing as a problem with a player, but why does it always boil down to certain people having an issue with players? Could it be there are other issues? I think it's well worth considering, but gosh, dare to imply players might get their way once in a while and you're committing heresy.</blockquote>

Verification