In my opinion a drider is a non-level appropriate character.
For any level? Interesting.
In other news, I've managed to play one game with an actual clown. That was ridiculous and I'm not interested in doing it again.How will you prevent this from happening, since saying no is 'bad'?
In PFS? I don't. In a campaign? Hey, maybe Jeff does it well. At the same time we'll just talk about during session 0 and handle it there. So if Joe wants to play a clown, he'll have to discuss it with Sarah, Jeff, and Jason as fellow players. A clown won't ruin my good time personally. I just thought it was silly. To be honest I find gimmicks like that lose steam over time if they don't fit and they sort of lose the clown-ness and adopt something closer to the campaign.
So it would seem.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS? I don't. In a campaign? Hey, maybe Jeff does it well. At the same time we'll just talk about during session 0 and handle it there. So if Joe wants to play a clown, he'll have to discuss it with Sarah, Jeff, and Jason as fellow players. A clown won't ruin my good time personally. I just thought it was silly. To be honest I find gimmicks like that lose steam over time if they don't fit and they sort of lose the clown-ness and adopt something closer to the campaign.In other news, I've managed to play one game with an actual clown. That was ridiculous and I'm not interested in doing it again.How will you prevent this from happening, since saying no is 'bad'?
If Jeff plays an awesome clown, I'm letting Jeff play a clown because it's awesome and the goal of the game is to increase awesome.
If Bill plays an annoying clown, I'm not letting Bill play a clown because it will probably suck.
If you bring anything that will likely make the game worse, I'm going to ask you what else you got.
If you bring anything that will likely make the game better, I'm happy.
In PFS? I don't. In a campaign? Hey, maybe Jeff does it well. At the same time we'll just talk about during session 0 and handle it there. So if Joe wants to play a clown, he'll have to discuss it with Sarah, Jeff, and Jason as fellow players. A clown won't ruin my good time personally. I just thought it was silly. To be honest I find gimmicks like that lose steam over time if they don't fit and they sort of lose the clown-ness and adopt something closer to the campaign.In other news, I've managed to play one game with an actual clown. That was ridiculous and I'm not interested in doing it again.How will you prevent this from happening, since saying no is 'bad'?If Jeff plays an awesome clown, I'm letting Jeff play a clown because it's awesome and the goal of the game is to increase awesome.
If Bill plays an annoying clown, I'm not letting Bill play a clown because it will probably suck.
If you bring anything that will likely make the game worse, I'm going to ask you what else you got.
If you bring anything that will likely make the game better, I'm happy.
So you will tell who can play a clown and who can not because you can see into the future possible time-lines and see how they will be played. Interesting.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line here is as a DM I can do what I want no matter how badly it may irritate someone, but the other side to that is people can always say no to my games and walk away.
I have the right to present a specific campaign that I want to run and you, as player's, have the right to refuse it.
What you don't have the right to do is strong arm me into changing the campaign around in order to fit in what "you" want. If I agree to the change is one thing but you can't make me do it if I don't want to.