Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 4643113" data-attributes="member: 58197">I think it's legitimately within the DM's purview to nix names and back stories that s/he feels are not appropriate.&nbsp; It is not, however, within the DM's purview to unilaterally edit the PC's back story. The PC's back story is for the player to write.&nbsp; The DM should specify which elements are not okay and why, then let the player come up with the alternative.That said, I also think a good DM ought to think carefully before putting the kibosh on a concept. The main reasons I'd nix a concept would be if I felt it was disruptive to the tone of the game - to the extent that it would bother me every time it came up - or if it required the existence of elements in my game world that I don't want my game world to contain.So I'm not going to allow a character named Tweedles the Dumb in an epic high-fantasy campaign, and I'm not going to allow a samurai in a Bronze Age Middle Eastern setting. On the other hand, if you can translate your samurai into a samurai-like concept suitable for ancient Babylon, go for it.To this specific case, in a campaign with active involvement of gods, it seems weird to refuse to let a character have been driven mad by one.&nbsp; I'd be leery of allowing a character who'd been driven mad, period, since I've had bad experiences with players who want to play CRAZY! characters; but if I'm allowing that, driven mad by a god doesn't seem unreasonable.On the other hand, I'd be pretty reluctant to tolerate Fido or Rex.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 4643113, member: 58197"] I think it's legitimately within the DM's purview to nix names and back stories that s/he feels are not appropriate. It is not, however, within the DM's purview to unilaterally edit the PC's back story. The PC's back story is for the player to write. The DM should specify which elements are not okay and why, then let the player come up with the alternative. That said, I also think a good DM ought to think carefully before putting the kibosh on a concept. The main reasons I'd nix a concept would be if I felt it was disruptive to the tone of the game - to the extent that it would bother me every time it came up - or if it required the existence of elements in my game world that I don't want my game world to contain. So I'm not going to allow a character named Tweedles the Dumb in an epic high-fantasy campaign, and I'm not going to allow a samurai in a Bronze Age Middle Eastern setting. On the other hand, if you can translate your samurai into a samurai-like concept suitable for ancient Babylon, go for it. To this specific case, in a campaign with active involvement of gods, it seems weird to refuse to let a character have been driven mad by one. I'd be leery of allowing a character who'd been driven mad, period, since I've had bad experiences with players who want to play CRAZY! characters; but if I'm allowing that, driven mad by a god doesn't seem unreasonable. On the other hand, I'd be pretty reluctant to tolerate Fido or Rex. [/QUOTE]

Verification