Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4656485" data-attributes="member: 22779">Mandated?&nbsp; That's a bit strong dontcha think?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I'm not mandating anything.&nbsp; The problem is, people keep exploding my position to include all sorts of things it shouldn't.&nbsp; Most of the time, we'd likely agree, I think.99% of the time, the conversation will likely go something like this:DM:&nbsp; I am running a new campaign.&nbsp; You can have options A, B, and C.Player:&nbsp; Hrm, I don't really like those, can I try D?DM:&nbsp; Well, no, I don't think so for these reasons...Player:&nbsp; Ok.or DM:&nbsp; I am running a new campaign.&nbsp; You have options A, B and C.Player:&nbsp; Hrm, I don't really like those, can I try D?DM:&nbsp; Ok.IMO, that's what's going to happen 99% of the time.With Oryan and his player, apparently we've strayed into that 1%.&nbsp; Now, this is where my &quot;mandated&quot; style comes in.&nbsp; When you reach and impasse and neither the DM nor the player wants to budge.&nbsp; Apparently, there are a number of DM's out there, who have chimed in on this thread, who think that booting the player out of the game is the better option.&nbsp; That maintaining their vision of the campaign is more important than the player.&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; I think, at this point and ONLY this point, the DM should step back, really look at what's important and probably back down and let the player have what he or she wants.I mean, apparently in this case we're talking about a Planescape campaign.&nbsp; Complaining about silly names in a PS campaign seems a bit strange considering the whacked out crap that the setting is filled with.&nbsp; All sorts of anachronisms and steampunkesque bits.&nbsp; A pet named Fluffy doesn't seem like a big deal to me.&nbsp; Certainly not something to get into this big of a fight over.((Now the other issues, like a diety possession and whatnot, I am NOT going to comment on))So, yeah, I do think that in those very rare situations when there is an absolute impasse, where you have tried to compromise and nothing seems to fit with both the DM and the player, giving way to the player is the better option.&nbsp; Note, this is only my opinion and should not be seen as anything other than my opinion.&nbsp; If you want to wear the &quot;viking hat&quot; more power to you.&nbsp; I've certainly been there in the past.&nbsp; I used to agree with GregK and S'mon 100% about this sort of thing.&nbsp; I don't anymore because I find it works better the other way.&nbsp; YMMV and all that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4656485, member: 22779"] Mandated? That's a bit strong dontcha think? :p I'm not mandating anything. The problem is, people keep exploding my position to include all sorts of things it shouldn't. Most of the time, we'd likely agree, I think. 99% of the time, the conversation will likely go something like this: DM: I am running a new campaign. You can have options A, B, and C. Player: Hrm, I don't really like those, can I try D? DM: Well, no, I don't think so for these reasons... Player: Ok. or DM: I am running a new campaign. You have options A, B and C. Player: Hrm, I don't really like those, can I try D? DM: Ok. IMO, that's what's going to happen 99% of the time. With Oryan and his player, apparently we've strayed into that 1%. Now, this is where my "mandated" style comes in. When you reach and impasse and neither the DM nor the player wants to budge. Apparently, there are a number of DM's out there, who have chimed in on this thread, who think that booting the player out of the game is the better option. That maintaining their vision of the campaign is more important than the player. I disagree. I think, at this point and ONLY this point, the DM should step back, really look at what's important and probably back down and let the player have what he or she wants. I mean, apparently in this case we're talking about a Planescape campaign. Complaining about silly names in a PS campaign seems a bit strange considering the whacked out crap that the setting is filled with. All sorts of anachronisms and steampunkesque bits. A pet named Fluffy doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Certainly not something to get into this big of a fight over. ((Now the other issues, like a diety possession and whatnot, I am NOT going to comment on)) So, yeah, I do think that in those very rare situations when there is an absolute impasse, where you have tried to compromise and nothing seems to fit with both the DM and the player, giving way to the player is the better option. Note, this is only my opinion and should not be seen as anything other than my opinion. If you want to wear the "viking hat" more power to you. I've certainly been there in the past. I used to agree with GregK and S'mon 100% about this sort of thing. I don't anymore because I find it works better the other way. YMMV and all that. [/QUOTE]

Verification