Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 7318134" data-attributes="member: 22424">Yep. And it's only because it's such an extreme example that it's on my 'banned' list.(I should also probably note: I have no problem with stories featuring that material, and I have no issue with DMs or groups that want to include it. I'm just choosing to opt out, not passing any sort of judgement. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )The notion that the DM has to let the PCs do (or at least try) anything they want was one it took me a very long time to get rid of. But I've found that I get much better results if I simply discuss campaign expectations with the players ahead of time. That may mean some people don't play together, or may mean that some players don't play in some campaigns (indeed, sometimes it has meant that a campaign I wanted to run didn't get played, since people weren't interested).But it also means that the at-table experience for the people who do play tends to be better - you don't have players constantly butting up against a DM saying &quot;no&quot;, and you don't have the DM running a campaign he's really not enjoying.Incidentally, as regards &quot;evil campaigns&quot;: I don't have a problem with those, if that's what the group wants. It's about setting expectations and then working accordingly - the shining-knight Paladin is as out-of-place in an evil campaign as is the murderous Assassin in the Big Damn Heroes game.(That said, with only a very few exceptional cases, agreed well in advance, the &quot;Lord Foul's Bane&quot; scenario remains banned even in an &quot;evil campaign&quot; I'm running. That's because of the potential for it to have a real-life impact on people around the table, which I'm not going to risk without very clear agreement up-front.)But, as you say in a later post, to each their own. I'm not preaching any one-true-way here... just explaining what I do and something of why. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 7318134, member: 22424"] Yep. And it's only because it's such an extreme example that it's on my 'banned' list. (I should also probably note: I have no problem with stories featuring that material, and I have no issue with DMs or groups that want to include it. I'm just choosing to opt out, not passing any sort of judgement. :) ) The notion that the DM has to let the PCs do (or at least try) anything they want was one it took me a very long time to get rid of. But I've found that I get much better results if I simply discuss campaign expectations with the players ahead of time. That may mean some people don't play together, or may mean that some players don't play in some campaigns (indeed, sometimes it has meant that a campaign I wanted to run didn't get played, since people weren't interested). But it also means that the at-table experience for the people who [i]do[/i] play tends to be better - you don't have players constantly butting up against a DM saying "no", and you don't have the DM running a campaign he's really not enjoying. Incidentally, as regards "evil campaigns": I don't have a problem with those, if that's what the group wants. It's about setting expectations and then working accordingly - the shining-knight Paladin is as out-of-place in an evil campaign as is the murderous Assassin in the Big Damn Heroes game. (That said, with only a [i]very[/i] few exceptional cases, agreed well in advance, the "Lord Foul's Bane" scenario remains banned even in an "evil campaign" I'm running. That's because of the potential for it to have a real-life impact on people around the table, which I'm not going to risk without very clear agreement up-front.) But, as you say in a later post, to each their own. I'm not preaching any one-true-way here... just explaining what I do and something of why. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification