Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 4765528" data-attributes="member: 54877">I generally don't have this come up, because our group discusses what is allowed and not allowed in the campaign before we start it. If I'm running it, and I usually am, then I do get considerable say, due to the greater effort that I am putting in.  This works, because all of us take the attitude that our include/ban stuff has to be prioritized, and has less weight the further down the list you go. So for example, if we've agreed on a campaign world/idea, and my number one priority is that bards make no sense in that world, then unless someone really wants a bard enough to make that there #1 priority, then there are no bards. If people have competing, equal weight priorities, we opt for inclusion. (And in that example, the player got his #1 priority, include bards, and my #2 priority moves up to #1.) Most people have no more than 1-3 things that they feel this strongly about, and probably half the group is usually in the zero to 1 range. And then the final rule is that people who didn't get what they want in the previous campaign deserve a bias in their favor. If we had a campaign where bards didn't fit, then the next campaign may or may not have a bard PC in it, but nothing in the nature of the setting will scream, "no Bards".</blockquote>