Aldarc
Legend
I'm speaking less in terms of ownership but more in terms of membership and participation. And also consider how often players use pronominal possession to discuss games they play in.But in the end, yes, it's the DM's world*.
* - for a homebrew world, a quick way to confirm this is to ask "if this setting got published, who would hold the copyright?".
Without getting into the nitty-gritty, just recall some of the back catalogs of our disagreements.At risk of setting myself up for the slaughter, I suppose I should ask what in your view those things might be.![]()
I don't think that anyone is advocating anything too extreme, so I think this is less of an issue than one might imagine.No, it wouldn't exclude it; but it could certainly change it considerably: instead of just defining the setting and locking it in (and thus having to think about it a lot less going forward) the DM now has to account for player-side alterations to the setting, somewhat on the fly.
I actually had these cultures also in mind. They believed (as nearly all theistic religions do) that their deities were real and occasionally walked among them, but it is questionable and a matter of faith and worldview. In Eberron as well, for example, they believe that the Sovereign Host are real and that they influence the world. They believe that the Traveler walks among them. Is this true? Who knows? Do the gods need to be embodied NPCs for people to believe that? I don't believe so.Keep in mind, though, that the Norse and Greeks (and Romans? Not sure) believed their deities were real and occasionally walked among them, and weren't all that elusive - just ask all the ancient-Greek women who believed they'd had Zeus in their beds or Norsemen who believed they'd met Odin on a road. Various D&D settings follow this model for the game, as do I; and as a double-edged side effect it's nigh impossible to be a true athiest in such a setting.
No. As I did not want to spend too much time overthinking names, I just used the names Moradin and Berronar.The Dwarves have no other deities than the one you invented? No Moradin? No Clanggedin? No Berronar? No pantheon at all?
Perhaps you would feel better about the bold, if you re-read the part that precedes what you emboldened in my post.The bit I bolded is what I was after - you not only invented the deity (which is kinda cool) but also determined its place in Dwarven society, which by extension largely determines how other Dwarves are going to react to you and-or your deity (which is not cool, as that's taking NPC agency away form the DM).
I pitched an idea. She was on-board with it and worked with me on it. From my own sense of DM agency, I am hard stretched to see how that cooperation takes away any meaningful agency from the DM.I worked in cooperation with the GM. I proposed and discussed with her
If we were playing in a pre-made setting, then a player might pick a deity whose cultic practices and social connectivity are already understood. It's along similar lines.
Neato!Many years ago I and some other players and my DM were sitting around joking over coffee, and over the course of the conversation invented a rather gonzo Dwarven god of beer and hockey. Within a week or two that god appeared in the Dwarven pantheon in his well-established game. Several months later when I needed a character I banged out this god's first played cleric**, who went on to a grand - if death-filled - career. This god is still part of our Dwarven pantheons today.
** I don't know how to embed links - his character page is here: http://www.friendsofgravity.com/games/commons_room/Hall_of_Heroes/HHGutezapre.html
Not sure why that would necessarily be the case.I guess what I'm getting at here is that were I to come into that game and want to play a cleric to that deity I'd in effect have to answer to two DMs instead of just one.