Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4648212" data-attributes="member: 22779">I think there are two different issues being conflated here.One, people are talking about how they banned this or that, or use this or that book and their players are good with the decision.&nbsp; That's called buy in to the campaign.&nbsp; If the players agree with your decisions, then great, by all means, you have no problems.If you want to use pre-gens in your campaign, and your players say &quot;sure, that sounds cool&quot; then everything is fine.&nbsp; They bought into what you are selling.OTOH, if the player says, &quot;Hey, I've got a really cool concept that fits with how I understand your campaign to work, but it's not a pregen&quot; what do you do?&nbsp; For me, if the player is making an honest effort to meet the DM and create an enjoyable campaign together, then I think the DM should back off.&nbsp; I think that any DM so inflexible to new ideas is probably not a DM I want to play with.&nbsp; If the DM is so laser fixated on having precisely one sort of campaign with no other outside influences, then I'm not particularly going to enjoy that game.That your players do enjoy your game simply shows that tastes differ.GregK, you point to the opening pages of the 3e DMG.&nbsp; I'd point to the opening pages of the 4e DMG and the whole &quot;say yes&quot; movement that has infected game design in the years after the release of 3e.&nbsp; That's the whole point of &quot;say yes&quot;.&nbsp; When the player is making the honest effort to create an enjoyable game, I come down on the side of trusting my players.Again, this is 100% my view.&nbsp; It is not an I'm right and you're wrong sort of thing.&nbsp; I don't like forcing my personal preferences on others.&nbsp; Apparently some people have no problems with it.&nbsp; I do.&nbsp; I think telling new DM's that they have absolute authority over the game leads to poor DM's.&nbsp; I think telling DM's to trust their players and try consensus building is a better bit of advice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4648212, member: 22779"] I think there are two different issues being conflated here. One, people are talking about how they banned this or that, or use this or that book and their players are good with the decision. That's called buy in to the campaign. If the players agree with your decisions, then great, by all means, you have no problems. If you want to use pre-gens in your campaign, and your players say "sure, that sounds cool" then everything is fine. They bought into what you are selling. OTOH, if the player says, "Hey, I've got a really cool concept that fits with how I understand your campaign to work, but it's not a pregen" what do you do? For me, if the player is making an [u]honest effort[/u] to meet the DM and create an enjoyable campaign together, then I think the DM should back off. I think that any DM so inflexible to new ideas is probably not a DM I want to play with. If the DM is so laser fixated on having precisely one sort of campaign with no other outside influences, then I'm not particularly going to enjoy that game. That your players do enjoy your game simply shows that tastes differ. GregK, you point to the opening pages of the 3e DMG. I'd point to the opening pages of the 4e DMG and the whole "say yes" movement that has infected game design in the years after the release of 3e. That's the whole point of "say yes". When the player is making the honest effort to create an enjoyable game, I come down on the side of trusting my players. Again, this is 100% my view. It is not an I'm right and you're wrong sort of thing. I don't like forcing my personal preferences on others. Apparently some people have no problems with it. I do. I think telling new DM's that they have absolute authority over the game leads to poor DM's. I think telling DM's to trust their players and try consensus building is a better bit of advice. [/QUOTE]

Verification