Small question

I prefer 1 but it ultimately depends on the balance between play and story telling.

For example, as a player I like to have my freedom, I want my character to be mine and to alter the world through its interactions and background, thats why I like to play it is a collaborative storytelling.

Yet the options 3 and 4 have its advantages to the DM in storytelling purposes, you might need a key figure like an antagonists, or someone who has to be part of the tale since they are monumental to the development of the story, this can be things such as the chosen one, the prince, the last of their kind etc.

Ultimately it tends to vary to the freedom people are given, if I am going to play someone who has had his development and characterization written for him/her, then why am I playing this person at all instead of the GM rolling out with it?

Now say the GM calls for a character like a priest or a medic, then it is only required for the character to have this profession and the characterization is entirely up to me

If the GM ask that he has need of a supporting antagonist, say the depraved black knight of the decadent realm or the gleefully sadistic corporate killer then I am given someone who through its interactions might delve more into sides of the story that could be left untold but has relationships and positions in the opposing force.

So yea it always boils down to the players

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RolePlayGateway/~3/iVjEq_L0liI/viewtopic.php

Pope Benedict Jesuits percy harvin percy harvin mike wallace mike wallace Paul Bearer