This is why I usually go to the player group with a list of options for campaigns that I'd like to run, and we discuss as a group the kind of thing they want to do. Once that's decided we do character creation separately, with the player saying what they want and the GM offering suggestions. It makes for some great characters that are woven neatly into the plot.

7 hours ago, dreenan said:

Character concept mostly has to be discussed among GM and Player. The Player should be allowed to play the char he wants within the setup provided by the GM. The Char needs to fit in the campaign, otherwise neither GM nor Player will get a lot of fun. If neither Player nor GM are willing to give any ground, they should not play in the same group.

I would amend neither to either , i.e. both (rather than at least one) should compromise a bit, but with that one letter insertion I agree with the sentiment. The reason I'm making this distinction is I've seen the result of a GM not bending an iota on concept, and I doubt many on these boards have that reference point and are speaking from the assumption of a "reasonable" GM who will allow "enough" player freedom in their initial parameters. If "reasonable" and "enough" are assumed any compromise passed "reasonable" and "enough" may seem like "too much". Having had a counterexample, I don't think "reasonable" and "enough" should be assumed as the baseline.

I have joined groups where the GM had a pretty complete concept what would be possible and what not. If I am not able to build my char within this regulations than it is perhaps not my gaming round. Sure, the GM will/ can bend a bit, but it makes not much sense when the GM is planning a battle of Hoth campaign and I insist on playing a politician on Tatooine in the middle of his mayor election campaign. And I don´ t see why you cannot make a char especially for a campaingn. In more than 30 years of P&P under my Top 5 campaign list as a player is a group where the GM created all the basic char concepts for us players and he made a frightening good job forseeing what either of us might have fun to play. That was the only time such an approach was made (except one-shots, of course), and it worked. It was like taking an acting role for a movie.

The other way round I often had GM´ s saying guys, make whatever a char you want and I build around it. Well, it almost never works. this often results in very unrealistic events to just hold the group together.

Either you need a very firm campaign concept and clarify the restrictions to the players from the very beginning or you allow much which then needs lots of work together so that every char fits in your idea.

And it never worked well in my groups with a combination of a headstrong GM and a headstrong Player who start discussions every 10 minutes or so. Reading all the picky discussions it amazes me that Tramp Graphics and you ever played a second time together.

1 hour ago, dreenan said:

I have joined groups where the GM had a pretty complete concept what would be possible and what not. If I am not able to build my char within this regulations than it is perhaps not my gaming round. Sure, the GM will/ can bend a bit, but it makes not much sense when the GM is planning a battle of Hoth campaign and I insist on playing a politician on Tatooine in the middle of his mayor election campaign. And I don´ t see why you cannot make a char especially for a campaingn. In more than 30 years of P&P under my Top 5 campaign list as a player is a group where the GM created all the basic char concepts for us players and he made a frightening good job forseeing what either of us might have fun to play. That was the only time such an approach was made (except one-shots, of course), and it worked. It was like taking an acting role for a movie.

The other way round I often had GM´ s saying guys, make whatever a char you want and I build around it. Well, it almost never works. this often results in very unrealistic events to just hold the group together.

Either you need a very firm campaign concept and clarify the restrictions to the players from the very beginning or you allow much which then needs lots of work together so that every char fits in your idea.

And it never worked well in my groups with a combination of a headstrong GM and a headstrong Player who start discussions every 10 minutes or so. Reading all the picky discussions it amazes me that Tramp Graphics and you ever played a second time together.

Your counter examples are miles away from what I was suggesting.... I was suggesting that " will/can bend a bit" is the natural state of things, and departing from that ends in disaster.

For a GM that knows you that well and works to accommodate you that much up front... I don't consider it an exception. However had he gotten it wrong and statted out a character a player just not wanted to play, well it would have been a disaster if he tried to force the player to play it.

Yeah, I believe in giving people second chances. The thing about second chances, anyone who needs one doesn't deserve one, thus the need for unmerited grace. Also my purpose in that 2nd campaign was to actively help give Tramp the rp experience that was the closest possible to what he wanted by being the one to take the abuse that he was going to dish out, so no one else had to because no one else would put up with it, so he could finish off Korath's story. However, since the closest possible to what he wanted wasn't identically equal to what he wanted he fought me trying to help him. I also know that arguing is Tramp's natural method of communicating, so I engage with him where he's at to be more relatable. Despite how it seems we're old friends, I called him up to check on how he was doing the pandemic, conversation was quite friendly (we didn't talk gaming).