Personally, on the thought of appeasing players, I find that doing whatever all of your players want all of the time can destroy a game. Maybe not destroy, but many of you can understand my meaning as GMs. We've all run across them: players who want the game to start as soon as the GM has the game post with the sheet and information up and ready, players who want to play a Yuuzhan Vong Jedi, players who are the best at what they do. Why do we limit them and why do we let them get away with it? Because we want them to have fun. I'll admit that after my years of playing an Ex-Jedi Mandalorian Bounty Hunter, I've gotten a little headstrong as to what my character can and can't do, and I even try to convince GMs of games that I play in to allow it. Some cave and I end up trying out new ways to not God-Mode, but others fail. Case in point, "uber-players" like the ones with "angsty-past" characters and "orphans" we allow them because... well they exist in both real and fantasy worlds. But as GMs, shouldn't a bit of cultural diversity count for something anymore? Back to FUN, we as GMs try to allow our players as much freedom as possible in regards to timelines, species traits, and even training (Jedi/Sith/Mercenary/etc), so they can play a character they want. I've noticed GMs create games with complete freedom (WotG and IBoP for a few semi-examples ) and others where things are a bit limited (Mando games, Jedi Games (not 50 uber-Anakins... those games suck ). But why do it? If freedom promotes more players that create a greater game-fanbase, then why the hell shouldn't you do it! You have 30 players PM sheets for "Admiral of the Imperial Navy", "Jedi Grandmaster", and "Republic Commando Squad Leader". I think, as GMs, it would be best to try both approaches and see which suits our own style. A rushed game, in my personal opinion, is a game headed for the "locked" bin.