Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6463164" data-attributes="member: 6677017">This wasn't said to me, but it is something I'd like to comment on (without specific context).I would say that they shouldn't get to build their character if it interferes with the overall fun of the group--or if it creates one type of fun at the expense of another type of fun, when the latter type of fun is the intended goal of the session/game/campaign, etc. For instance, let's say that at a planned D&D session one player pulls out his MtG decks while the DM is away from the table and they all start playing. I think any player (including the DM) can rightly expect that they put the cards away once it is time for the game to start. It may be fun, but it isn't the fun that was planned, intended, and expected for the evening, and it is unfair to anyone who is actually there to play D&D to have their rightly expected fun replaced by other fun they may or may not be interested in, because a few other people didn't stick to the plan. If everyone is super excited to play MtG, then sure, put off the D&D. But most of the time at least one person is going to be rather disappointed, even if they pretend they're fine with it.People keep saying that DMs should look for a way to say yes in character creation, or that during play you should always say, "yes, and," or that the DM is supposed to be giving the players what they want, etc. I disagree.The DM (or GM) of any role-playing game is primarily responsible to provide the players (including himself) with the experience of fun, mystery, horror, reflection, or whatever else, that is planned, intended, and expected. Each player has a secondary role to support the PIE. The assumption is that everyone has agreed to the same PIE. If that is the case then all other assumptions must of necessity be based on the PIE. If it is a campaign where you are fighters with randomly rolled races and stats in a savage land where you are likely to die before you hit 2nd level, and you start off by auctioning off pre-made fighters with chocolate chips at the table, that's what you're all there to play, and if you eat all your chocolate chips before bidding begins you can't bid for your first preference in fighter. (Maybe I need some dessert...) Plus, PIE implies that you want the challenge of trying to survive to make 2nd level, and dying before then isn't going to detract from your overall enjoyment of the experience.If you a playing a game where the PIE is that each character takes narrative control of the story at certain points and advances the plot, then if you don't do that you are ruining the experience for everyone else at that point.If you play a game where PIE says that each player attempts to make the most wacky and broken character out there, and you refuse to min-max (or to let anyone help you do so), you are in violation of the PIE, and probably need to be kicked out of the game. No PIE for you.There are a lot of different RPGs out there with a variety of different assumptions, but most of them have their assumptions fall within a defined set of parameters. On the other hand, D&D has been around long enough to have its own large variance in play styles, and so people can have extremely different expectations of what D&D is about and what a campaign is going to be. Much more so than with other games, it is vital that everyone understands what they want out of the game and are on the same wavelength. They agree on what they are going to play (often by means of the DM inviting people and informing them of what to expect, and then those people indicating they are interested), and then, in order to make sure everyone gets what they are there to get, should probably stick to PIE (or agree as a group to change PIE).The idea that certain role-playing techniques which support specific playstyles are a better or worse way of creating that sort of enjoyment isn't true. They are better or worse at creating that sort of playstyle. Enjoyment is based on everyone getting their piece of the PIE. (Preferably pecan or french silk.)Ah...I see the character concept. I wouldn't allow that concept at all, because it isn't part of the classic D&D experience I intend in my campaigns. My formative D&D began in the AD&D era, and while I don't like the rules of those editions, that basic world assumptions are what I want out of my D&D. That sort of character wouldn't even exist in that framework, and therefore isn't a good fit for a campaign I'm DMing. No offense to the character concept itself, though. I have fantasy character concepts of my own that I wouldn't let myself play if I were DMing myself in D&D, because they aren't a part of my D&D expectations, and playing such a character (much as I might enjoy it) would detract from my overall D&D PIE. For instance, I love spellcasters with pretty much all at-will spontaneously created spells they can keep casting all day long (and I mean powerful spells, not cantrips). It has no place in my D&D, however.</blockquote>

Verification