I'm hesitant to get judgy, but the latter approach seems a little on the selfish side. You want to play what you want and its up to everyone else to adjust to you and make what you want work, rather than considering the needs of the group. This is where I'm coming from, I'm sure there is a more positive spin on the latter view and I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
Only if you are the only one doing this. If everyone takes the approach of "let's make characters that are personally fun for us, throw them together, and live with whatever happens" then the needs of the group are being met. I have often told my group - "play what you want and I will roll a character to fill in gaps as needed, unless it's a paladin".
Does that attitude impose much on the needs of the DM? Maybe that's the role of the DM, but is there a point where that attitude does become a burden on them? Like maybe the party all independently decide they want to play pacifist support characters, or maybe the BBEG the DM has been working on has complex political and social webs but the party all want to play bruiser barbarians and fighters? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that is the burden a DM takes on.
Asking myself those questions, I'm now thinking how much should a player consider their DM when making character decisions? I hear recommendations to make a character that wants to adventure and be interested in story hooks, so it seems there is some sort of obligation on the part of players to consider their DM. So I expand the original question to include the DM along with the party.
Players should work with and not against the DM when it comes to making a character that's interested in doing stuff, whatever that may mean for a given campaign. This is largely what session 0 is for though. Everyone shouldn't show up for the first regular session without having talked about their characters, at LEAST to the DM. These sorts of kinks can all be ironed out in a good session 0 where expectations are laid out for what the game will be and the DM and players can openly communicate about their characters and role in the story.
I'm hesitant to get judgy, but the latter approach seems a little on the selfish side. You want to play what you want and its up to everyone else to adjust to you and make what you want work, rather than considering the needs of the group. This is where I'm coming from, I'm sure there is a more positive spin on the latter view and I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
Only if you are the only one doing this. If everyone takes the approach of "let's make characters that are personally fun for us, throw them together, and live with whatever happens" then the needs of the group are being met. I have often told my group - "play what you want and I will roll a character to fill in gaps as needed, unless it's a paladin".
Does that attitude impose much on the needs of the DM? Maybe that's the role of the DM, but is there a point where that attitude does become a burden on them? Like maybe the party all independently decide they want to play pacifist support characters.
We had a great game of CoC once because we all independently created our characters, and we had a group of 5 professors, all trying to prevent the great horror entering the world. We had a whale of a time on that campaign :-)
I'm hesitant to get judgy, but the latter approach seems a little on the selfish side. You want to play what you want and its up to everyone else to adjust to you and make what you want work, rather than considering the needs of the group. This is where I'm coming from, I'm sure there is a more positive spin on the latter view and I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
Only if you are the only one doing this. If everyone takes the approach of "let's make characters that are personally fun for us, throw them together, and live with whatever happens" then the needs of the group are being met. I have often told my group - "play what you want and I will roll a character to fill in gaps as needed, unless it's a paladin".
Does that attitude impose much on the needs of the DM? Maybe that's the role of the DM, but is there a point where that attitude does become a burden on them? Like maybe the party all independently decide they want to play pacifist support characters, or maybe the BBEG the DM has been working on has complex political and social webs but the party all want to play bruiser barbarians and fighters? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that is the burden a DM takes on.
Asking myself those questions, I'm now thinking how much should a player consider their DM when making character decisions? I hear recommendations to make a character that wants to adventure and be interested in story hooks, so it seems there is some sort of obligation on the part of players to consider their DM. So I expand the original question to include the DM along with the party.
Before the character creation starts, the DM should have informed the group of what the campaign will be like, the setting, the themes, what kind of environments will be involved, scope, etc. Everything they need to know to make appropriate characters. As the ideas form, the players should be checking with the DM that the ideas are appropriate. If their characters are going to be four Wizards, then as the ideamisnfloated, the DM should be consulted/speak up as to whether they'll actively make the effort to make it work (have more potions for healing, for instance), or whether the campaign is finalised and what will happen will happen. No healer? That sucks, how are you going to deal with it?
In short, the party can't and shouldn't expect the DM to change the world to make their idea work, but the DM should.be open and explaining if they're willing to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm hesitant to get judgy, but the latter approach seems a little on the selfish side. You want to play what you want and its up to everyone else to adjust to you and make what you want work, rather than considering the needs of the group. This is where I'm coming from, I'm sure there is a more positive spin on the latter view and I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
Only if you are the only one doing this. If everyone takes the approach of "let's make characters that are personally fun for us, throw them together, and live with whatever happens" then the needs of the group are being met. I have often told my group - "play what you want and I will roll a character to fill in gaps as needed, unless it's a paladin".
Does that attitude impose much on the needs of the DM? Maybe that's the role of the DM, but is there a point where that attitude does become a burden on them? Like maybe the party all independently decide they want to play pacifist support characters, or maybe the BBEG the DM has been working on has complex political and social webs but the party all want to play bruiser barbarians and fighters? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that is the burden a DM takes on.
Asking myself those questions, I'm now thinking how much should a player consider their DM when making character decisions? I hear recommendations to make a character that wants to adventure and be interested in story hooks, so it seems there is some sort of obligation on the part of players to consider their DM. So I expand the original question to include the DM along with the party.
Before the character creation starts, the DM should have informed the group of what the campaign will be like, the setting, the themes, what kind of environments will be involved, scope, etc. Everything they need to know to make appropriate characters. As the ideas form, the players should be checking with the DM that the ideas are appropriate. If their characters are going to be four Wizards, then as the ideamisnfloated, the DM should be consulted/speak up as to whether they'll actively make the effort to make it work (have more potions for healing, for instance), or whether the campaign is finalised and what will happen will happen. No healer? That sucks, how are you going to deal with it?
In short, the party can't and shouldn't expect the DM to change the world to make their idea work, but the DM should.be open and explaining if they're willing to do so.
I think the whole party has to decide how they like to play, how the DM's style and goals fit in, etc. As a DM, if you have already built out a campaign to the extent that you cannot change it to suit the desires of the players, you may have wasted a lot of time and effort. I know my campaign was getting pretty intense and the players wanted something more lightweight and fun, so I did a take off on Urbil's Fools, created a bunch of encounters, stole shamelessly from Monty Python (yes there was a watery bint in a well holding out a scroll as a way to determine the ruler of the village in spite of the fact that they were meant to be an autonomous collective), made up some riddles and puzzles, had a deck of many ridiculous things that messed with the party (wizard only spoke goblin for an hour, and the fighter had to rhyme everything, and the rogue doubled her gold) in a fun way and they had a blast! Because of that, I am thinking of scrapping some modules that are pretty intense which is a major effort at this point, as I have to work some major plot hooks into something new.
That is my job as DM, to run a campaign that is enjoyable for the players, not shoehorn their characters into my world.
If players want the campaign to include something specific in it, then they should have said so before, not when the campaign has been organised and we're starting it proper the next session. If I'm saying thst I'm running Curse of Strahd with full on horror, and then you wait until a week before to tell me you want Monty Python? You're having a laugh.
More to the point, it's about game design philosophies. It's very valid to hold that the characters are exploring the world that has been created, and if the players want to hobble themselves...then that's on them. I may not hold that philosophy, but it's a valid one to hold. The DM is the one putting in the work, and while there should be give and take...they call the shots. It's not fair to demand that a DM who struggles now has a week to rework their whole campaign to adapt for the whims of the players. No, the DM gets a say. They might be willing to adapt the campaign to those whims, or they may that they won't. Both are valid, and the DM's agency is important.
Players who decide that they're going to do something silly like all play as Wizards and then demand that I must adapt the campaign to make it easier for them will find that their DMing experience is about to improve. I'm happy to try and work with players, but they have to recognise that I'm doing them a favour and that they don't own me or my time. It's a request, not an entitled demand. As such, they need to get me on board just as much as any of the other players, if not more so.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If players want the campaign to include something specific in it, then they should have said so before, not when the campaign has been organised and we're starting it proper the next session. If I'm saying thst I'm running Curse of Strahd with full on horror, and then you wait until a week before to tell me you want Monty Python? You're having a laugh.
More to the point, it's about game design philosophies. It's very valid to hold that the characters are exploring the world that has been created, and if the players want to hobble themselves...then that's on them. I may not hold that philosophy, but it's a valid one to hold. The DM is the one putting in the work, and while there should be give and take...they call the shots. It's not fair to demand that a DM who struggles now has a week to rework their whole campaign to adapt for the whims of the players. No, the DM gets a say. They might be willing to adapt the campaign to those whims, or they may that they won't. Both are valid, and the DM's agency is important.
Players who decide that they're going to do something silly like all play as Wizards and then demand that I must adapt the campaign to make it easier for them will find that their DMing experience is about to improve. I'm happy to try and work with players, but they have to recognise that I'm doing them a favour and that they don't own me or my time. It's a request, not an entitled demand. As such, they need to get me on board just as much as any of the other players, if not more so.
How is deciding that they are stressed out in real life and want to have a break from what was some fairly intense gameplay hobbling themselves. And if you think that the DM should be the ones dictating how players play, I would definitely want to improve my DMing experience. You are coming off as pretty high-handed here, so I hope that is not your intent.
If players want the campaign to include something specific in it, then they should have said so before, not when the campaign has been organised and we're starting it proper the next session. If I'm saying thst I'm running Curse of Strahd with full on horror, and then you wait until a week before to tell me you want Monty Python? You're having a laugh.
More to the point, it's about game design philosophies. It's very valid to hold that the characters are exploring the world that has been created, and if the players want to hobble themselves...then that's on them. I may not hold that philosophy, but it's a valid one to hold. The DM is the one putting in the work, and while there should be give and take...they call the shots. It's not fair to demand that a DM who struggles now has a week to rework their whole campaign to adapt for the whims of the players. No, the DM gets a say. They might be willing to adapt the campaign to those whims, or they may that they won't. Both are valid, and the DM's agency is important.
Players who decide that they're going to do something silly like all play as Wizards and then demand that I must adapt the campaign to make it easier for them will find that their DMing experience is about to improve. I'm happy to try and work with players, but they have to recognise that I'm doing them a favour and that they don't own me or my time. It's a request, not an entitled demand. As such, they need to get me on board just as much as any of the other players, if not more so.
How is deciding that they are stressed out in real life and want to have a break from what was some fairly intense gameplay hobbling themselves. And if you think that the DM should be the ones dictating how players play, I would definitely want to improve my DMing experience. You are coming off as pretty high-handed here, so I hope that is not your intent.
This seems a silly argument for this thread. It's a perfectly valid play style for a DM to plan a game that literally caters to the wishes of their players. It's also a perfectly valid play style for a DM to give a heads up as to what sort of ride the players will be in for if they want to jump into the DMs table. I mean, if the latter wasn't a valid form of play, the bulk of convention games would never exist, and a lot of LFP solicitations to boot. I imagine most long lived tables ebb and flow between these the two poles you two seem to have set up as antagonist camps. Sometimes a DM may have specific goals for "the game." Other times, players or some players may want to explore some specific in "the game." And tables that are running on all cylinders likely establish some sort of harmony.
In terms of "party construction," the actual topic of this thread, sure, sometimes a DM has specific gameworld serving roles that need to be filled; and such DMs do collaborate with players to see that those needs are met. Other times a DM takes a more "bring what ya got" approach. I don't really see a need for DMs to be invalidating other DM's playstyles in this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
How is deciding that they are stressed out in real life and want to have a break from what was some fairly intense gameplay hobbling themselves.
Let me recontextualise that. How is deciding that I am stressed out and want to have a break from fairly intense gameplay by picking the slowest car in the racing game hobbling myself? If players want to pickto be a bunch of Wizards, that is fine. If they discuss that with the DM at an appropriate time (ie not when it's about to start) and the DM is happy to adapt the campaign to make that a viable party compostion? Great. If the DM doesn't want to do? Well, the DM doesn't owe the players anything. The players can negotiate with the DM, maybe they can make concessions that address the concerns of the DM or maybe they can just bribe him. Doesn't really matter how it's resolved, the DM isn't a slave, they get input too.
And if you think that the DM should be the ones dictating how players play,
I never said anything about dictating to the players anything, let alone how they should play. The problem is if the players dictate.ti the DM how to DM, as you suggest. They can pick whatever they want, unless I have a good reason to not allow it (perhaps unofficial homebrew content that I'm unsure of how balanced it is, inappropriate content for the setting like the Gunslinger for an adventure set in Ancient Egypt, etc). If they all want to play as Wizards, they can. I might raise an eyebrow, but it's fine. The enemy spellcaster in that group of Orcs isn't going to mysteriously forget that he has the spell Silence though, and the party will have to deal with that. If the party is small, then yes, the DM should absolutely adapt. If the party is making decisions that significantly impair themselves , then that's a discussion to be had between the party and the DM. If the party has no healer, the DM is perfectly in the right to turn around and say, well, that sucks, I guess some of your gold is going towards healing potions, huh? Because he isn't required to provide free potions. Maybe the DM is willing to, maybe he decides that player agency means something and therefore has consequences. But his input is just as, if not more, important than the players' when it comes to DMing.
Minor spoilers for Rime of the Frostmaiden:
I'm running a party for RotFM. I did warn them, but they all decided to play characters that do not have a ranged attack. Or rather, none that would have any particular skill at it. There is a section all about a dragon that the party must take down. I'm not going to remove that dragon from the game and rewrite an entire section of the adventure because no one picked a ranged character. Nor will I play the dragon as dumb and just stands there in front of them and let's them hack away at it because it can see that they aren't carrying bows. It will be a dragon, it will fly, it will launch fireballs at them and the things they are trying to protect. It's upto them to come up with a way to bring it down. If they come up with an idea, I'm willing to help them get it to work, but they aren't having the world moulded around their aggregate decision to not have a ranged character. They have to find ways around that weakness.
If players want to play in a very suboptimal way, that's fine. If the DM wants to play their world in a very suboptimal way, that's fine too. There's a problem when one side of that equation tries to dictate to the other how to play, though. I'm a player in another campaign, none of us is "the Face". That's fine, I don't expect the DM to lower DC on the Charisma checks. I could have played a Bard, a Sorceror or another Charisma based character, but I didn't. So I'm expecting to have to use my sword a lot. That was my choice in my character creation. I could have negotiated with the DM and asked to make those checks easier, and they would have had the choice of saying yes or no. The only time I would have cause to complain is if the DM said that they'd adjust the difficulty so I could play the character I wanted and I made my decisions based on that, then they changed their minds afterwards. That's wrong. But a party choosing options knowing that things they're missing might be important and going ahead anyway? That's their choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's a perfectly valid play style for a DM to plan a game that literally caters to the wishes of their players. It's also a perfectly valid play style for a DM to give a heads up as to what sort of ride the players will be in for if they want to jump into the DMs table[...]I imagine most long lived tables ebb and flow between these the two poles you two seem to have set up as antagonist camps. Sometimes a DM may have specific goals for "the game." Other times, players or some players may want to explore some specific in "the game." And tables that are running on all cylinders likely establish some sort of harmony.
To be clear, I have nothing against DMs adapting the adventure to the decisions of the party to whatever extent. I even do so in my own games. If the party wants to play characters that negotiate through everything and so the DM sets everything up so they can do that, that's perfectly valid and good. I'm against the idea that the DM has no say in the matter, and that the DM has input too - even an outsized one. Like everything g in life, it's a discussion, a bit of give and take - not just the DM bending to every whim of the players. The way I see it isn't so much as two poles, so much as there was one pole bei g argued, and I'm saying that there are other valid ways of doing it as well.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's a perfectly valid play style for a DM to plan a game that literally caters to the wishes of their players. It's also a perfectly valid play style for a DM to give a heads up as to what sort of ride the players will be in for if they want to jump into the DMs table[...]I imagine most long lived tables ebb and flow between these the two poles you two seem to have set up as antagonist camps. Sometimes a DM may have specific goals for "the game." Other times, players or some players may want to explore some specific in "the game." And tables that are running on all cylinders likely establish some sort of harmony.
To be clear, I have nothing against DMs adapting the adventure to the decisions of the party to whatever extent. I even do so in my own games. If the party wants to play characters that negotiate through everything and so the DM sets everything up so they can do that, that's perfectly valid and good. I'm against the idea that the DM has no say in the matter, and that the DM has input too - even an outsized one. Like everything g in life, it's a discussion, a bit of give and take - not just the DM bending to every whim of the players. The way I see it isn't so much as two poles, so much as there was one pole bei g argued, and I'm saying that there are other valid ways of doing it as well.
Right, that's what I thought, but it looked like this digression from the topic at hand was being staked out needlessly in terms of a fight. I didn't see it as polarized until it was staked as such. Setting up the game is a discussion, and contrary to some forms of rhetoric, every discussion need not be an agon. There's a myriad ways a particular game to incorporate the pre-game discussion into actual play. It's great someone like Merigold will bend over backwards and do player-driven research into adventure planning or whatever ... and they can be applauded. But there's a lot of ways to play outside that practice, including - to make this digression relevant to the thread topic - what a DM may or may not ask for from the players when building characters and/or determining party composition.
Players should work with and not against the DM when it comes to making a character that's interested in doing stuff, whatever that may mean for a given campaign. This is largely what session 0 is for though. Everyone shouldn't show up for the first regular session without having talked about their characters, at LEAST to the DM. These sorts of kinks can all be ironed out in a good session 0 where expectations are laid out for what the game will be and the DM and players can openly communicate about their characters and role in the story.
We had a great game of CoC once because we all independently created our characters, and we had a group of 5 professors, all trying to prevent the great horror entering the world. We had a whale of a time on that campaign :-)
Before the character creation starts, the DM should have informed the group of what the campaign will be like, the setting, the themes, what kind of environments will be involved, scope, etc. Everything they need to know to make appropriate characters. As the ideas form, the players should be checking with the DM that the ideas are appropriate. If their characters are going to be four Wizards, then as the ideamisnfloated, the DM should be consulted/speak up as to whether they'll actively make the effort to make it work (have more potions for healing, for instance), or whether the campaign is finalised and what will happen will happen. No healer? That sucks, how are you going to deal with it?
In short, the party can't and shouldn't expect the DM to change the world to make their idea work, but the DM should.be open and explaining if they're willing to do so.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think the whole party has to decide how they like to play, how the DM's style and goals fit in, etc. As a DM, if you have already built out a campaign to the extent that you cannot change it to suit the desires of the players, you may have wasted a lot of time and effort. I know my campaign was getting pretty intense and the players wanted something more lightweight and fun, so I did a take off on Urbil's Fools, created a bunch of encounters, stole shamelessly from Monty Python (yes there was a watery bint in a well holding out a scroll as a way to determine the ruler of the village in spite of the fact that they were meant to be an autonomous collective), made up some riddles and puzzles, had a deck of many ridiculous things that messed with the party (wizard only spoke goblin for an hour, and the fighter had to rhyme everything, and the rogue doubled her gold) in a fun way and they had a blast! Because of that, I am thinking of scrapping some modules that are pretty intense which is a major effort at this point, as I have to work some major plot hooks into something new.
That is my job as DM, to run a campaign that is enjoyable for the players, not shoehorn their characters into my world.
If players want the campaign to include something specific in it, then they should have said so before, not when the campaign has been organised and we're starting it proper the next session. If I'm saying thst I'm running Curse of Strahd with full on horror, and then you wait until a week before to tell me you want Monty Python? You're having a laugh.
More to the point, it's about game design philosophies. It's very valid to hold that the characters are exploring the world that has been created, and if the players want to hobble themselves...then that's on them. I may not hold that philosophy, but it's a valid one to hold. The DM is the one putting in the work, and while there should be give and take...they call the shots. It's not fair to demand that a DM who struggles now has a week to rework their whole campaign to adapt for the whims of the players. No, the DM gets a say. They might be willing to adapt the campaign to those whims, or they may that they won't. Both are valid, and the DM's agency is important.
Players who decide that they're going to do something silly like all play as Wizards and then demand that I must adapt the campaign to make it easier for them will find that their DMing experience is about to improve. I'm happy to try and work with players, but they have to recognise that I'm doing them a favour and that they don't own me or my time. It's a request, not an entitled demand. As such, they need to get me on board just as much as any of the other players, if not more so.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
How is deciding that they are stressed out in real life and want to have a break from what was some fairly intense gameplay hobbling themselves. And if you think that the DM should be the ones dictating how players play, I would definitely want to improve my DMing experience. You are coming off as pretty high-handed here, so I hope that is not your intent.
This seems a silly argument for this thread. It's a perfectly valid play style for a DM to plan a game that literally caters to the wishes of their players. It's also a perfectly valid play style for a DM to give a heads up as to what sort of ride the players will be in for if they want to jump into the DMs table. I mean, if the latter wasn't a valid form of play, the bulk of convention games would never exist, and a lot of LFP solicitations to boot. I imagine most long lived tables ebb and flow between these the two poles you two seem to have set up as antagonist camps. Sometimes a DM may have specific goals for "the game." Other times, players or some players may want to explore some specific in "the game." And tables that are running on all cylinders likely establish some sort of harmony.
In terms of "party construction," the actual topic of this thread, sure, sometimes a DM has specific gameworld serving roles that need to be filled; and such DMs do collaborate with players to see that those needs are met. Other times a DM takes a more "bring what ya got" approach. I don't really see a need for DMs to be invalidating other DM's playstyles in this thread.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm running a party for RotFM. I did warn them, but they all decided to play characters that do not have a ranged attack. Or rather, none that would have any particular skill at it. There is a section all about a dragon that the party must take down. I'm not going to remove that dragon from the game and rewrite an entire section of the adventure because no one picked a ranged character. Nor will I play the dragon as dumb and just stands there in front of them and let's them hack away at it because it can see that they aren't carrying bows. It will be a dragon, it will fly, it will launch fireballs at them and the things they are trying to protect. It's upto them to come up with a way to bring it down. If they come up with an idea, I'm willing to help them get it to work, but they aren't having the world moulded around their aggregate decision to not have a ranged character. They have to find ways around that weakness.
If players want to play in a very suboptimal way, that's fine. If the DM wants to play their world in a very suboptimal way, that's fine too. There's a problem when one side of that equation tries to dictate to the other how to play, though. I'm a player in another campaign, none of us is "the Face". That's fine, I don't expect the DM to lower DC on the Charisma checks. I could have played a Bard, a Sorceror or another Charisma based character, but I didn't. So I'm expecting to have to use my sword a lot. That was my choice in my character creation. I could have negotiated with the DM and asked to make those checks easier, and they would have had the choice of saying yes or no. The only time I would have cause to complain is if the DM said that they'd adjust the difficulty so I could play the character I wanted and I made my decisions based on that, then they changed their minds afterwards. That's wrong. But a party choosing options knowing that things they're missing might be important and going ahead anyway? That's their choice.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To be clear, I have nothing against DMs adapting the adventure to the decisions of the party to whatever extent. I even do so in my own games. If the party wants to play characters that negotiate through everything and so the DM sets everything up so they can do that, that's perfectly valid and good. I'm against the idea that the DM has no say in the matter, and that the DM has input too - even an outsized one. Like everything g in life, it's a discussion, a bit of give and take - not just the DM bending to every whim of the players. The way I see it isn't so much as two poles, so much as there was one pole bei g argued, and I'm saying that there are other valid ways of doing it as well.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Right, that's what I thought, but it looked like this digression from the topic at hand was being staked out needlessly in terms of a fight. I didn't see it as polarized until it was staked as such. Setting up the game is a discussion, and contrary to some forms of rhetoric, every discussion need not be an agon. There's a myriad ways a particular game to incorporate the pre-game discussion into actual play. It's great someone like Merigold will bend over backwards and do player-driven research into adventure planning or whatever ... and they can be applauded. But there's a lot of ways to play outside that practice, including - to make this digression relevant to the thread topic - what a DM may or may not ask for from the players when building characters and/or determining party composition.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.