Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5822929" data-attributes="member: 22424">I can sympathise with this view, but this really does need to be a matter for the individual table. If the DM is looking for a &quot;predominantly human&quot; group, and his players want a &quot;Mos Eisley Cantina&quot; group, there's always going to be something of a disconnect, and there's really not too much the rules can do to prevent that.This I agree with. First in &quot;Complete Arcane&quot;, then on Wizards.com and then in the 4e core rulebooks, I started seeing some very questionable statements to the effect that if a player wanted to play a 'freakshow' character, the DM should always work with the player to make the character work. This advice invariably failed to address the four other players at the table and their preferences, nor the many hours of work the DM had potentially put into his setting.Simply put: some concepts just don't fit some campaigns.I'm not advocating a return to some sort of &quot;DM is God&quot; false-utopia. Yes, groups absolutely should work together to create a satisfying game for all. And, yes, the &quot;say yes&quot; advice is pretty good as a general rule of thumb.But late 3e, and all of 4e, did seem to swing too far towards player empowerment, at the expense of everything else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5822929, member: 22424"] I can sympathise with this view, but this really does need to be a matter for the individual table. If the DM is looking for a "predominantly human" group, and his players want a "Mos Eisley Cantina" group, there's always going to be something of a disconnect, and there's really not too much the rules can do to prevent that. This I agree with. First in "Complete Arcane", then on Wizards.com and then in the 4e core rulebooks, I started seeing some very questionable statements to the effect that if a player wanted to play a 'freakshow' character, the DM should always work with the player to make the character work. This advice invariably failed to address the four other players at the table and their preferences, nor the many hours of work the DM had potentially put into his setting. Simply put: some concepts just don't fit some campaigns. I'm not advocating a return to some sort of "DM is God" false-utopia. Yes, groups absolutely should work together to create a satisfying game for all. And, yes, the "say yes" advice is pretty good as a general rule of thumb. But late 3e, and all of 4e, did seem to swing too far towards player empowerment, at the expense of everything else. [/QUOTE]

Verification