Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Saying "no" and equality
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5444166" data-attributes="member: 38357"><p>That sounds like good advice, but I've had an issue, in the past, with players not being willing to participate in the game until I'm "actually ready to run". I suppose that would just put us into the later time, and there would at least have been the possibility of working something out...</p><p></p><p>Yeah, I've found that play balance can be a thorny issue. A lot of players I encounter, play balance issues are really the only thing they really think about or research regarding game design. Invoking "play balance" provokes arguments, which I could deal with, but in picking my battles I think it's better to go for what I really want, which is usually story stuff.</p><p></p><p>And lack of player interest in setting fluff is a decent part of the issue, certainly. What confounds me more is the seeming desire to have every option available, even though you can't use them all at once. It really seems to me that most players have their next character decided on and "on deck" in advance (otherwise why is it so hard for them to come up with something that actually fits the setting?), so it annoys me that I can't usually get them to give me that info. I'd be very happy to build a campaign setting around a set of character concepts, for instance...</p><p></p><p>As a player, I like a certain amount of limitation. I have dozens and dozens of character ideas I'd like to someday get a chance to try and I'm sure I can find something that fits or can be made to fit nearly any setting / campaign. What bugs me (as a player) is GMs who seem to try to enforce the double-blind, insisting that I should come up with a character concept on my own that "I really want to play" without any input from them... In D&D, at least, it's usually easy for me to just get ideas from the other players / "fill in the holes" in the party, but for some other games (WoD, frex) where you would not normally get to see the other players' characters, it's pretty maddening.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, that was pretty much exactly my issue and why I ended up backing down from placing limits on the PCs.</p><p></p><p>It also didn't / doesn't help that I think the second player was at least in part deliberately picking a more complex character type to prove that "he could do it". The results weren't really satisfactory for anyone, and he ended up dropping the character after only a few weeks anyway...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kaomera, post: 5444166, member: 38357"] That sounds like good advice, but I've had an issue, in the past, with players not being willing to participate in the game until I'm "actually ready to run". I suppose that would just put us into the later time, and there would at least have been the possibility of working something out... Yeah, I've found that play balance can be a thorny issue. A lot of players I encounter, play balance issues are really the only thing they really think about or research regarding game design. Invoking "play balance" provokes arguments, which I could deal with, but in picking my battles I think it's better to go for what I really want, which is usually story stuff. And lack of player interest in setting fluff is a decent part of the issue, certainly. What confounds me more is the seeming desire to have every option available, even though you can't use them all at once. It really seems to me that most players have their next character decided on and "on deck" in advance (otherwise why is it so hard for them to come up with something that actually fits the setting?), so it annoys me that I can't usually get them to give me that info. I'd be very happy to build a campaign setting around a set of character concepts, for instance... As a player, I like a certain amount of limitation. I have dozens and dozens of character ideas I'd like to someday get a chance to try and I'm sure I can find something that fits or can be made to fit nearly any setting / campaign. What bugs me (as a player) is GMs who seem to try to enforce the double-blind, insisting that I should come up with a character concept on my own that "I really want to play" without any input from them... In D&D, at least, it's usually easy for me to just get ideas from the other players / "fill in the holes" in the party, but for some other games (WoD, frex) where you would not normally get to see the other players' characters, it's pretty maddening. Yeah, that was pretty much exactly my issue and why I ended up backing down from placing limits on the PCs. It also didn't / doesn't help that I think the second player was at least in part deliberately picking a more complex character type to prove that "he could do it". The results weren't really satisfactory for anyone, and he ended up dropping the character after only a few weeks anyway... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Saying "no" and equality
Top