Which of the following is correct?
>The players should make their characters according to the type of campaign that the GM is running.
>The GM should run his campaign according to the type of characters that his players want to play.
>The GM should run his campaign however he wants and the players should play whatever they want.
All of them, they are not mutually exclusive
>fake choice made out of non-excluding options
pic related
/thread
The 1st mostly with a bit of the 2nd
This. The GM has final say, but checking the players for what interests them is always a worthwhile idea. Personally, I like the approach of pitching a handful of campaign premises at the players, and letting them pick one.
Assuming it is discussed beforehand, the first, for two primary reasons. The first is one of logistics - there are more GMs than players. The second is the fact that the more integration between system, setting, and narrative the better the outcome of the story will be.
You don't care about any answers.
The main point is that there has to be communication or it will all just fuck up big time.
All three, the gm should explain the setting so player can create characters that fit in, then the gm should run a game that caters to the types of characters that were made, and those characters, the setting, and the game have all be something that the person making them enjoys, at least ideally
>Which of the following is correct?
Coffee is good for you
What a dense, loaded question. None of them.
Ideally,
>The GM and players should come to an agreement in broad terms on what campaign to play (eg. 'intrigue-heavy low-magic fantasy'). This agreement may come either from communal brainstorming on the same footing, or from the GM pitching what he wants to run and asking approval from players, or from players pitching what they'd like and asking GM's approval, or anything in between. Then, the players should make characters fitting the campaign they agreed to.
Well said.
How about the players, discuss what kind of game they want to play including the setting and their expected roles, probably including one of them being the GM? Which might include agreeing that they don't want the same thing and compromising or not playing together at all.
Third case. If all at the table are functional adults there's no need for guidelines, the gm explains the setting in detail and the players make what characters they want fully aware of potential consequences.
All of them
But they should talk beforehand so everyone is aware
The first one. Don’t like it? Find a different GM.
>The players and GM should agree on what kind of game they want to run and play and proceed accordingly.
> player comes up with idea
> presents idea to GM
> GM approves, makes adjustments, or worst case scenario rejects character thus restarting step 1
Talking to people is apparently a foreign concept now a days
I reject your options and choose fourth.
>Elves are cute
Alright, completely unrelated but elves have that de caprio effect sort of deal. Like how he’s basically 50 and his girlfriend is 19. Like the age gap is creepy bro, almost predatory
please go back to wherever you came from you gay
>Like how he’s basically 50 and his girlfriend is 19. Like the age gap is creepy bro, almost predatory
> Use of "bro" with strangers
> Use of "creepy" by anyone purporting to not be female
> Describing a decision by an adult woman and an adult man as "predatory"
I'll be you liked Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Dicaprio would love elves.
He hooks up with an elf who's barely an adult, and she'll keep being barely an adult until long after he's dead.
>>The GM should run his campaign however he wants and the players should play whatever they want.
This. Sometimes it will mean character getting lynched in the first village but that's part of the game.
Those aren't mutually exclusive, you know.
Oh, right, you don't, because it's a spam thread and you don't care about any sort of answer
> OK everyone, we're playing a serious sci-fi game with criminal conspiracies, a tragic Earth-That-Was, and no interstellar travel
> But I wanted to play a like it was a Bruce Lee or Chow Yun Fat movie
> And I wanted to play a detective in a film noir setting
> And I wanted to play a tough but emotionally vulnerable girl in search of her past
> You told me I could play a whacky kid character this campaign, and that I could have a dog
> Fine, we'll work something out
>>The GM should run his campaign however he wants and the players should play whatever they want
That might work for drop in games but doesn't work for anything with any type of story.
Didn't read but elf girls are hot. I want to marry an elf.
The first one.
>The players should make their characters according to the type of campaign that the GM is running.
>The GM should run his campaign according to the type of characters that his players want to play.
These are both correct.
>The GM should run his campaign however he wants and the players should play whatever they want.
Madness! Madness I say!
A lot of this depends on the nature of the campaign, the group, and how it comes together. I recently started a campaign that I spent six months working on before recruiting players, and I very much expect players to create characters for the game I made because the whole reason they joined was to play the game I made.
At the same time, I'm playing in a campaign that started as a one-shot an anon just decided to run for shits and giggles, now its turning into a full campaign. That anon had no real concept of a world when we started because it was a bullshit one-shot. Now he's turning it into a real campaign, but rather than pull the rug out from under us, it's a collaborative process in which we have input.
I think (A) is most true when a GM announces a game and recruits players with a clear idea in mind, and (B) is most true when you are starting a new campaign with an established group, while (C) is your average 5E game.
Ideally you should be willing to compromise but at the same time I think you really shouldn't be playing with people you're in such tonal conflict with in the first place.
The players should make the kind of characters they want to play, within limits determined by the GM.
My approach is to first inform the players about the genre of the campaign and then simply ask them to give me a broad concept of what character they want to play and then sit down with them to make sure they fit my setting. Unless the idea is completely off-the-whack retarded (I want to be a cowboy robot in a high fantasy setting), it usually works.
The first one. Players can't dictate to anyone else anything about the world, they don't get to decide that there's suddenly airships in the setting or Atlantis or grafting parts of magical creatures onto yourself or whatever. They have total control of their characters, but they have to operate within the parameters of the world as it's described to them.
Everyone should make their campaigns and characters according to what *I* want.
There. That's the CORRECT answer.
Very well of wise one, what should be my next game about?
Rulesystem
Setting
Genre
Playstyle
>GM creates setting and explains it to players.
>Players, preferably working with the GM, create characters who suit the setting.
>GM makes touch-ups based on the characters and adds more specific obstacles that will challenge the characters both mechanically and personally.
That's the ideal situation.
But as long as communication is actually happening, you'll avoid most of the worst pitfalls.
before tard-validating internet came up there used to be this thing called COMMON SENSE I don't really know how to explain it, it was a magical force that made things work out unless you were a retarded autist thatguy and in that case you were talked to or kicked out
This is the most gorgeous elf I've ever seen. HNG