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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8789293" data-attributes="member: 7023887">"Normally"? Maybe normally for you, but unless I'm playing a pre-written adventure, I literally always wait for the PCs to be made until I make the adventure. Because I want to involve the players in what the campaign will be. I know some DMs that even make entire new homebrew worlds based around which races/classes the players choose. I gave multiple examples (Locathah in Desert Campaigns, non-aquatic races in an Elemental Plane of Water adventure). Can I not give more? A DM has to adjust encounters and campaign based on the mechanical capabilities of the party members. I opposed a hostile view towards players. [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] was saying that rangers should suffer if the DM didn't tell them what terrains the campaign would take place in. That's not neutrality. And if it is, then I do think that type of "neutrality" is bad DMing. I think it's a valid choice that the players should also be involved in. An absurd strawman of what? What exactly do you think I was saying? A) I was talking about that the DM should consider their choices and meet them halfway. B) I was listing that as an example of failed communication and cooperation between the DM and player. It's bad if the DM plans on the campaign going to the Underdark early on but doesn't tell that to the Ranger that chose the Tundra as their favored terrain. That is bad DMing.</blockquote>

Verification