Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7334833" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I'm trying to wrap my head around that....I mean, it's all made up, so I would think you can make it do whatever you want.....but, I'll take your word for it. This is true. But I also think that most games....even ones that allow a lot of leeway on the part of the players....still have some kinds of guidelines or requirements for character generation. Most instances of a GM not allowing a non-PC race to be used wouldn't be considered to be the GM abusing his power. Sure, you can sidestep the analogy, but I think you get the point, no? I can sympathize here. Our group is a longstanding group. We've been playing for decades. Players have come and gone due to family or work reasons, and then sometimes they come back. Just recently, a friend moved back to our area and rejoined our game after about 15 years and jumped back in. He made a new character for one group of PCs, and we'll recreate a 2E character of his for our high-level group of PCs. Having a bit of flexibility might help with it. I don't know if that's planning, but it can certainly facilitate the arrival of a new player or returning player. But I think the nature of your game (which in some ways sounds similar to mine; long standing, ongoing in the same campaign world) lends itself to your playstyle and the way you DM. Which is fine. But it doesn't mean that approach works for everyone. Some games will have players who want more input into the game. Some games will have the same 3 or 4 people no matter what. And so on. Sure, but this is how you've chosen to set things up. The story isn't dependent on any particular characters. It's mission based, in a sense....here's what's needed, here's who is going to go on the mission. Players having multiple characters at different levels is also a choice. I don't think most games work that way. So you've created a situation where you cannot really predict the party make up. For others, the story flows from the characters. The reason they are doing what they're doing is because one or more of the characters are invested in the adventure. My game is a mix of both of these things. I do have goals and problems that I introduce as the GM, and expect the players to get involved to some extent with them. But the players also have goals of their own that we've incorporated into the game. So there's almost always some personal connection to what they're trying to do. Yes, I understand that approach. I've played in many games like that, and they are perfectly fun. But others have a different view of the role of the DM and the players and how much they collaborate. The style of my game has a lot in common with yours. But there are also a few key differences, and in those cases, I think I lean more toward Pemerton's style, even if the methods we use might be different.</blockquote>

Verification