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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 8191209" data-attributes="member: 22424">I'm almost exclusively a DM, and I prefer a collaborative approach - to a point.Typically, I'll work up one or a few campaign concepts, and put those to the players. Those concepts will generally have some guidance as to character concepts - which might range from "anything goes" to something very limited "all dwarves", with my default being "anything from the PHB" (and the main setting sourcebook if we're playing in a published setting). Once the players buy in to the concept, I expect them to live within that guidance. (The flip side of that being that if they prefer to play something else, that's absolutely fine. Not all my ideas are good ones, so if the players don't like an idea, I'm happy to let it go.)I don't mind a player asking for an exception to those guidelines, especially if he or she has a really good story in mind. But the key word there is ask - if there are agreed limits there may well be a good reason for those, so you can't necessarily assume they can be bent or broken.Unfortunately, I have found that there is a certain breed of player who will view any restriction as a challenge, no matter what it is. So once the party agrees "PHB only", they will immediately decide they have to play a Goblin. Or if you're playing Vampire, it'll be a werewolf. Or if you say "you can be anything other than a gnome", you can expect half a dozen character suggestions, all of which are gnomes. (Oddly, that player personality seems more likely to buy in to a campaign with limits than to "anything goes" - the attraction seems to be specifically about being somehow unique.) I'm afraid I've reached a point where I'm no longer as tolerant as I was, so I no longer play with such players.</blockquote>

Verification