Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7334433" data-attributes="member: 6785785">It really does depend on the elements in question. But, I'd personally tend to worry more about the game that is happening now rather than a possible element for a later game. Especially when whatever future element might be at risk can be reworked in whatever way needed. Sure, but most likely such a character isn't actually promoted by the rules, so I don't even know if that constitutes a veto. The rules already don't allow such a character. Well, ultimately, it's actually everyone's game. I know we tend to attribute some level of ownership to the game on the DM....but it's still everyone else's time to have fun too. And yes, the DM may put more into the game, so we kind of default to him having final say or veto or whatever you want to call it. I get that, and it's pretty much how my group handles things because everyone's okay with that. But if the DM isn't doing all this work ahead of time and is instead playing along the lines that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is advocating, then it's even less the "DM's game", isn't it? This is probably where a big part of the disconnect is coming from. I mean, if you had friends over to watch a movie and they made a choice, you probably wouldn't veto the choice and say "well it's my Blu-Ray player". So it's a bit odd to do that in an RPG. I don't think the DM needs to be neutral about the party when designing adventures and so on. I think it's probably best if he designs things with the specific players and characters in mind. I get your approach. It's a bit more classic in that you have an idea for an adventure and it's the same no matter who comes to try it. Much like the old modules. Nothing wrong with that. I think I lean toward Pemerton here, even if we approach it differently, in that I prefer a game where the story and the characters are more connected. The story I tell must be about those characters...it's their journey, not anyone's who happens to come along. That's very possible. Who knows? We're all here discussing it at length, so it seems that we all at least assign some importance to it. What I would say is that Pemerton and his players have a play style that involves creative collaboration more so than yours, which is a more relaxed "beer and pretzels" type of game. Sure....some players can try and make it all about what they want. I find that annoying, too.I think that for Pemerton, that same annoyance applies to the GM wanting to do that. Your playstyle requires the DM to take the reins and do the bulk of worldbuilding, so you don't even see how that could be an issue. But in his game, worldbuiling is split more evenly among all parties, so any single party trying to control the game is seen as a negative. At least, that's my take on the things.</blockquote>

Verification