Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5806827" data-attributes="member: 54877">We do group campaign limits via discussion--consensus when possible, voting when necessary.&nbsp; However, once the campaign limits are in place, and I start work on the campaign background, we are essentially locked barring agreement from me to change.&nbsp; That is, I get a veto at that point.&nbsp; I only use that veto if it is necesary to save me a lot of work already spent.&nbsp; And then once play starts, I'm also the lead person in charge of seeing that we stick with the agreed upon framework, since the players don't have as much information as I do.&nbsp;Certainly, if the limits are breached and the players are aware of it, they'll correct it themselves.&nbsp; And if a breach of any kind occurs, we might stop and collectively decide to allow it.&nbsp; &nbsp;If someone came into the game after the first session or two, it might very well appear to them that I had &quot;excluded&quot; things that might interfere with flags from the players.&nbsp; In the past, I've had to deal with &quot;player entitlement&quot; issues because the player agreed to limits upfront, but then wanted to renege or otherwise abuse the agreements.&nbsp; As point enforcer (and not afraid of confrontation), it has been my job to protect the other players from the &quot;entitled&quot; player.&nbsp; But I solved that problem a long time ago by refusing to run games with people that acted that way.&nbsp;Merely a note that the surface evidence of what is going on with &quot;entitlement&quot; may be at odds with the actual situation at the table. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5806827, member: 54877"] We do group campaign limits via discussion--consensus when possible, voting when necessary. However, once the campaign limits are in place, and I start work on the campaign background, we are essentially locked barring agreement from me to change. That is, I get a veto at that point. I only use that veto if it is necesary to save me a lot of work already spent. And then once play starts, I'm also the lead person in charge of seeing that we stick with the agreed upon framework, since the players don't have as much information as I do. Certainly, if the limits are breached and the players are aware of it, they'll correct it themselves. And if a breach of any kind occurs, we might stop and collectively decide to allow it. If someone came into the game after the first session or two, it might very well appear to them that I had "excluded" things that might interfere with flags from the players. In the past, I've had to deal with "player entitlement" issues because the player agreed to limits upfront, but then wanted to renege or otherwise abuse the agreements. As point enforcer (and not afraid of confrontation), it has been my job to protect the other players from the "entitled" player. But I solved that problem a long time ago by refusing to run games with people that acted that way. Merely a note that the surface evidence of what is going on with "entitlement" may be at odds with the actual situation at the table. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification