Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8306197" data-attributes="member: 22779">You guys have been very lucky then.&nbsp; I've seen it as a way to A. ignore the setting and B.&nbsp; not allow the DM any handhold over the character far more often than any other approach.And, it's this whole, &quot;Well, I'm the DM, so, I can control your patron and through your patron, control your actions&quot; schtick that has trained players to be so paranoid about it.&nbsp; And, yes, you can paint it as &quot;consequences&quot; all you like, but, the point from the player's point of view is that you are telling the player how to play the character.&nbsp; And not exactly subtly either.&nbsp; &quot;Do this or you're not a warlock anymore until you get with the program&quot; isn't exactly a light touch.It's such a pervasive attitude.&nbsp; I've mentioned on the boards a few times a mechanic I borrowed from a game called Chronica Feudalis called Backgrounds.&nbsp; It's not the same as backgrounds in D&amp;D.&nbsp; What it is, is a mechanic that allows players to wall off sections of their character sheet.&nbsp; They literally put it in the &quot;background&quot; so that it is there, but never a focus of the game.&nbsp; So, if I have a huge, extended family, but then put that in the Background, then that's a big sign telling the DM that I do not want that aspect of my character to be a focus of the game.&nbsp; It's there, we can role play it from time to time, but, it's never supposed to be in the foreground.&nbsp; Upon suggesting this, I've seen multiple DM's on this board recoil in horror.&nbsp; The players will abuse this!&nbsp; You are giving power to the players!!!&nbsp; You can't do this!&nbsp; There is virtually zero trust of the players despite insistence that players should trust the DM.Again, nothing I'm saying here should come as a surprise to anyone.&nbsp; It's hardly controversial.&nbsp; DM's being heavy handed and jealously guarding their control over the game has been part and parcel of the hobby since day one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8306197, member: 22779"] You guys have been very lucky then. I've seen it as a way to A. ignore the setting and B. not allow the DM any handhold over the character far more often than any other approach. And, it's this whole, "Well, I'm the DM, so, I can control your patron and through your patron, control your actions" schtick that has trained players to be so paranoid about it. And, yes, you can paint it as "consequences" all you like, but, the point from the player's point of view is that you are telling the player how to play the character. And not exactly subtly either. "Do this or you're not a warlock anymore until you get with the program" isn't exactly a light touch. It's such a pervasive attitude. I've mentioned on the boards a few times a mechanic I borrowed from a game called Chronica Feudalis called Backgrounds. It's not the same as backgrounds in D&D. What it is, is a mechanic that allows players to wall off sections of their character sheet. They literally put it in the "background" so that it is there, but never a focus of the game. So, if I have a huge, extended family, but then put that in the Background, then that's a big sign telling the DM that I do not want that aspect of my character to be a focus of the game. It's there, we can role play it from time to time, but, it's never supposed to be in the foreground. Upon suggesting this, I've seen multiple DM's on this board recoil in horror. The players will abuse this! You are giving power to the players!!! You can't do this! There is virtually zero trust of the players despite insistence that players should trust the DM. Again, nothing I'm saying here should come as a surprise to anyone. It's hardly controversial. DM's being heavy handed and jealously guarding their control over the game has been part and parcel of the hobby since day one. [/QUOTE]

Verification