Players: How much control do you want in a campaign?

[Umbran]

Control? I don't really need it. If a DM wants some input, that's cool, but I feel no need for control over most of these things.

I prefer to take clerics of gods well-defined by the DM. Otherwise, I'm not guaranteed that the priesthood will be well-integrated into the setting. Who neeeds to be a priest fo a god that isnt' important to the world? Similarly with nations. There's darned little point to making up a hometown that won't be relevant to the game. If the DM puts it in, it's probably because he or she feels it is relevant or interesting. If I put it in, it may well end up as a tag end, a name on a piece of paper and nothing else.

I don't mind at all when a DM restricts races or classes or alignments. Deciding what fits the flavor of the game is a large part of the GMs job.

I don't mind preplanned adventures. I only feel railroaded when the DM preplans the end results, or when there's no logical connection between one adventure and the next, or if my character really wouldn't go on a particular escapade. In the best of all possible worlds, the DM lays out a number of plotlines, preps all of them, and allows me to deal with the ones I want to deal with.

 

[Umbran]

Control? I don't really need it. If a DM wants some input, that's cool, but I feel no need for control over most of these things.

I prefer to take clerics of gods well-defined by the DM. Otherwise, I'm not guaranteed that the priesthood will be well-integrated into the setting. Who neeeds to be a priest fo a god that isnt' important to the world? Similarly with nations. There's darned little point to making up a hometown that won't be relevant to the game. If the DM puts it in, it's probably because he or she feels it is relevant or interesting. If I put it in, it may well end up as a tag end, a name on a piece of paper and nothing else.

I don't mind at all when a DM restricts races or classes or alignments. Deciding what fits the flavor of the game is a large part of the GMs job.

I don't mind preplanned adventures. I only feel railroaded when the DM preplans the end results, or when there's no logical connection between one adventure and the next, or if my character really wouldn't go on a particular escapade. In the best of all possible worlds, the DM lays out a number of plotlines, preps all of them, and allows me to deal with the ones I want to deal with.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I prefer to take clerics of gods well-defined by the DM. Otherwise, I'm not guaranteed that the priesthood will be well-integrated into the setting. Who neeeds to be a priest fo a god that isnt' important to the world?

Well, since you ask...

I greatly perfer minority priests. While I don't try to dominate the campaign with it, its interestng to have a little side story about my cleric's religion and how it differs from the norm, introducing the other characters to new ideas, etc. I also consider religion to be better done as a personal thing, and don't really want a "well integrated" preisthood that will place my cleric in a heirarchy or make matters that could be interesting questions of conscience into an order from the high preist. As for my god being important to the world, I work under the assumption much of the time that the gods are irrelevant in a direct sense. My cleric's god (if she has one) is important to her, and thats all that matters. If that places her somewhat outside some great worldwide struggle and allows her choice of sides to feel meaningful, all the better.

Similarly with nations, I like having somewhat 'outsider' characters who are not automaticly loyal to one side in a war, and can look at the situations the characters are thrown into objectively. Such a character can still be serving in the army or hired as a mercanery and doesn't have to directly question every side the DM places her on, but since few DMs spell things out well enough in advance to make playing a local smooth and gentle, why not play an outsider and have all the questions I'll have to ask anyway make sense?

Kahuna Burger

 

[StalkingBlue]

I like to tie my PC in with existing NPCs and groups in the GM's world, especially for new PCs entering play in an ongoing campaign. Makes the GM's job easier, gives my PC a defined role from the start, helps other players/PCs relate to the new addition to their group, not to mention it can provide _the_ IC reason for the other PCs to accept and trust their new ally.
I don't tend to do a lot of location creating for character backgrounds either - I guess I use the same style here as when I GM: I'll have rough outlines in mind but leave most details until such time as they become actually relevant in play. You might say I have a 'world bubble' moving around and expanding with the PCs when I GM, and when IM a player my PC's background will take shape and accumulate detail as I need it to help define my PC further as I play her/him.

I'm no big fan of churches, so when I've played clerics I've liked to have the religion laid out and ready for me to step into.

With other types of PCs I'll be willing to explore and create stuff where the GM lets me. In that respect I'm more interested in flavour and culture stuff than in creating rules.

Can't say I hate it when a GM won't allow certain classes/races. I tend to restrict player options to some extent when I GM.

As to adventures, on average I'm probably better motivated when I've had a say in what mission we are to take on next - still, I like a mix of PC-initiated scenarios and NPC-initiated (GM-dictated) ones, it makes the world feel more 'real' to me.

 

[Nighthawk]

Currently, I prefer to GM with players who are interested in having a more active role in the campaign background. This rarely occurs, however, which is a bit of disappointment to me (minor, nothing more). I seem to be more inspired by player input for some reason.

 

[JDJarvis]

If i were playing a cleric I'd choose from the list provided by the DM but while playing I'd be likely fill in the details arround what the DM provided.

The DM has free reign to decide what classes and races to allow into the game. I like a flexible DM but I can respect boundaries the DM has set there for a reason.

If the DM is an obsessive control freak/super creative person i probably wouldn't bother making up places of my own but would draw from what the DM has provided and go with that. If the camapign was going to spend a lot of time in a fairly small area and the DM otherwise wasn't confining player creativity to natives of that small area I might indeed fill in a couple of character related details for what was off the map.

Preplanning doesn't bother me, there has to be some preplanning or adventures are off the cuff and maybe simply strings of random encounters.

 

[Umbran]

Just for clarification...

I greatly perfer minority priests.

That's cool. I sometimes play such myself. Relative numbers of priests/followers are not the issue.

I also consider religion to be better done as a personal thing, and don't really want a "well integrated" preisthood that will place my cleric in a heirarchy or make matters that could be interesting questions of conscience into an order from the high preist.

Similar to above - the detailed stucture of the priesthood has little to do with how well the god is integrated into the campaign world.

As for my god being important to the world, I work under the assumption much of the time that the gods are irrelevant in a direct sense.

Directness has nothing to do with what I meant, either. I also prefer that the gods don't directly muddle in mortal affairs. If they could do so, why would they need clerics? Nor do I mean that the PC's deity must be a central player in a great War of the Gods, or the like.

Hm. Perhaps I simply didn't get my point across at all well. Religion is one of the greatest movers and shakers of human history. If one is to role-play a cleric, one is investigating faith, the thing that has guided souls through all of history. If the which religion I choose is irrelevant, then I cannot really do that investigation very well, now can I?

Let me try this another way - would you prefer to play the priest of the Great God Shmuckety-Shmuck, that has domains of Law, Fire, and Laundry, and no other connection to or purpose in the campaign world, or a god with a solid and detailed history, mythology, and place and role (however small) within the society of the planet as a whole (even if that role is not well represented in the character's current location)? Religion is inexorably intertwined with culture. How can you fully play the one without connection to the other?

Even if one enjoys playing outsiders - the lone Buddhist in a Catholic town - you come across the fact that Buddhism did not actually develop in a vacuum. Even if the culture it came from isn't right here, that culture was a biggie, and has had it's influences on the religion. You still need the cultural connection to investigate the contrasts.

YMMV, of course. But I find that a religion that isn't part of the game world to be unsatisfying. It seems to me to be basically playing a cleric by choosing a couple of domains and an alignment.

Similarly with nations, I like having somewhat 'outsider' characters who are not automaticly loyal to one side in a war, and can look at the situations the characters are thrown into objectively.

As above, really. It doesn't matter if the nation the PC comes from isn't the one in which the game takes place. It doesn't matter if the nation isn't a major player in local events. But if the nation isn't worked into the world, you might as well just say, "I come from the west. Far, far to the west," and not mention nations at all.

On this note, it's just a general tenet of creating fiction - don't create facts that you don't have to, lest you write yourself into a corner. If all you really care about is that the character not be local, and not have ties to local problems, you don't need to specify the nation at all.

 

[Haradim]

If you are playing a cleric, do you want to make up the details of the god your serve and the religion (with the DM's approval) or would you rather choose from a list of gods and religions the DM has provided?

I'd rather choose, as the DM is likely to have a much better idea of what is supposed to be in their setting than I do. Gods and religions also tend to have a fairly large role within the game world, even if GMs often don't bring it into the game itself.

Do you hate it when a DM restricts or forbids certain classes or races in his/her world or does it not matter?

There is nothing I hate to play, nor must have. So I don't really worry about such alterations.

Do you like making up countries or cities for your character's background or would you choose from locations the DM has already created?

I would prefer to use a preexiting locale (as it then makes it easy to bring said location into play). However, I don't really worry about this too much, and often (by necessity, admittedly) leave such matters very general.

Does it matter to you that the DM has an adventure preplanned (I don't mean "railroading" here) or would you rather choose what to investigate from several plot threads?

Both. I'm a planner myself, so it doesn't bother me if there is something of a 'script', however loose it may be.

So in general, I don't put myself into the 'GM' role when playing, and would prefer to leave much of it to the GM (his 'vision', after all). I might if the GM specifically asked for it, but only for relatively small things, like cities, items, or other little things. Major setting sculpting is best left to the GM, though.

 

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

Every member of my group is continualy fustrated with the continual "resets" that my dm does. We accomplish something and "fast forward a few years" and things are back to normal. Our heroes are overshadowed in the history of the world by npc's. Now when were playing things are just the opposite. Were recognized, given benefits, etc. Once things stop though. Reset.
An example of it is the major city on the continent. It's always evil. We fight the BBEG change things for the better then fast forward. Evil. We have no permenant impact on the world. It's fustrating. DM's create the world and as things play out the world should be defined.

 

[Treebore]

I do not consider those to be control issues for a player. When playing, as long as I am playing a character I like then I have all the control I need. If I am playing a character that has been determined by the DM's "vision" then I am not happy. Let me create my character to my tastes and I'll let the DM create their world to their tastes. That way we will both be happier. If not we weren't meant to game together anyway.