Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7334272" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think maybe as a default assumption, sure, but I don't see why it must be so. It could be something as simple as the player wanting to play a character from a far off land. I look at that and then ask for details about that land. Let the player provide them...if he doesn't want to, then I will. Honestly, I try to get my players to put as much into the world as possible. It helps invest them in the world and in the game. I suppose if a veto was necessary, then sure, the DM should have that ability. But I try to do everything I can not to have to veto things. That literally boils down to a player saying "hey this seems like it would be fun" and the DM saying "oh well, too bad". I mean, it would have to be a really compelling reason for me to want to deny a player of something they think would be fun. Especially when I most likely really can adjust whatever I have in mind to accommodate him. And by compelling I don't mean something like "There are no gnomes on Athas!!!!" and the like. Ultimately, just about anything we've been discussing becomes a non-issue if the GM and players are all on board. If the Gm has racial restrictions in place, and none of the players care, then there's no problem. Well here is where I think there can be an issue. It's a matter of what may be engaging and enjoyable for the players. I think Pemerton is saying that some players may not like if the adventure in question does not connect with the characters they've created. They'd like one to flow from the other....or at the very least for the two things to inform each other. Some players may be fine with a bunch of nature druids in the underdark. They may see it as a challenging adventure or whatever. Others may be annoyed that their group of players created characters with a very specific leaning, and then the DM went ahead and ignored that when designing the adventure. Especially when, with a little work, the DM can likely switch the underground catacombs to be a forest haunted by undead, or what have you. I think the attitude of "well this is what the DM came up with, deal with it" is what's being questioned a bit. And I can understand that. Again, as we said above, if everyone's cool with whatever is happening, there's no issue. But if there is an issue....I would wonder why a DM would rather play what he's made when the players would clearly prefer something else. Well in this case, sure, hard to think of a reason to veto it. And certainly the player didn't necessarily expect me to adopt the mercenary company to the extent that I did, so a lot of it was up to me....but again, why not do all I can to engage the players and get their buy in? I pretty much replaced one militaristic bad guy with the mercenary company, and then tied the company to another group I had in mind. They've become a significant source of conflict for the players, and the players have a vested interest in taking them down....so the hooks that I introduce involving the group appeal to the players.</blockquote>

Verification