Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hastur_nz" data-source="post: 7166093" data-attributes="member: 40592">I've run all sorts of different campaigns, in all editions, and I always just let the Players choose whatever they like from the edition we are playing; same goes for a fellow DM who runs a game I'm in.&nbsp; The outline of the campaign is clear before we start, so it's up to each player to make sure things &quot;make sense&quot;.&nbsp; Limiting people's choices might seem like a good idea to some DM's, but in my experience it's actually a bad idea.&nbsp; So for example...A player in my Curse of Strahd campaign wanted to be a Gnome with Green Hair, so I helped tweak it so that while functionally she was a gnome it turned out she was an ex-resident who on returning eventually found out she was the mutant offspring of a beserker and a shape-changed druid.&nbsp; Another player wanted to be a Goliath, kind of like an Ogre, so we made him the 'boogy-man from the woods', who was compelled to try and be Good by a magical sword he found, and hence got a reputation with the locals as being kinda nice.&nbsp; In both cases, the player got the mechanics they wanted, and together we made a fun back-story that also had relevance to the ongoing campaign.A fellow player in a Out of the Abyss meets Planescape plays a Dragonborn, which is totally not Munchkin BTW, and the campaign has always included all sorts of weird stuff so a draconic PC isn't terribly out of place.&nbsp; I recently swapped my Human PC Fighter for an Aasimar Warlock, simply because the race fitted the concept I had in mind the best (Hexblade i.e. fighter-type with a bad attitude).Personally, as a player I find DM's who impose all kinds of restrictions on their players, actually end up adding nothing to the game's fun factor, and very little added &quot;immersion&quot;.&nbsp; In return, they often risk causing a lack of imagination and/or outright resentment from people that feel they want to try something different for a change but can't - after all, it's Fantasy, and everyone's definition of what that is differs, so conforming to only one person's view of what is and isn't Fantasy, is quite blinkered.So to anyone who feels the need to impose all kinds of restrictions on their players, I simply say &quot;are you sure?&quot;, then, &quot;why&quot;, and &quot;are you sure?&quot; one more time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hastur_nz, post: 7166093, member: 40592"] I've run all sorts of different campaigns, in all editions, and I always just let the Players choose whatever they like from the edition we are playing; same goes for a fellow DM who runs a game I'm in. The outline of the campaign is clear before we start, so it's up to each player to make sure things "make sense". Limiting people's choices might seem like a good idea to some DM's, but in my experience it's actually a bad idea. So for example... A player in my Curse of Strahd campaign wanted to be a Gnome with Green Hair, so I helped tweak it so that while functionally she was a gnome it turned out she was an ex-resident who on returning eventually found out she was the mutant offspring of a beserker and a shape-changed druid. Another player wanted to be a Goliath, kind of like an Ogre, so we made him the 'boogy-man from the woods', who was compelled to try and be Good by a magical sword he found, and hence got a reputation with the locals as being kinda nice. In both cases, the player got the mechanics they wanted, and together we made a fun back-story that also had relevance to the ongoing campaign. A fellow player in a Out of the Abyss meets Planescape plays a Dragonborn, which is totally not Munchkin BTW, and the campaign has always included all sorts of weird stuff so a draconic PC isn't terribly out of place. I recently swapped my Human PC Fighter for an Aasimar Warlock, simply because the race fitted the concept I had in mind the best (Hexblade i.e. fighter-type with a bad attitude). Personally, as a player I find DM's who impose all kinds of restrictions on their players, actually end up adding nothing to the game's fun factor, and very little added "immersion". In return, they often risk causing a lack of imagination and/or outright resentment from people that feel they want to try something different for a change but can't - after all, it's Fantasy, and everyone's definition of what that is differs, so conforming to only one person's view of what is and isn't Fantasy, is quite blinkered. So to anyone who feels the need to impose all kinds of restrictions on their players, I simply say "are you sure?", then, "why", and "are you sure?" one more time. [/QUOTE]

Verification