Search results

Another thing I've noticed is that the players who want to play the unicorn in your setting are often the players you half wished had showed up. They aren't these really great immersive players that you might want to go out of your way to make happy. Those players almost always see the setting...

This party was designed to offend basically everyone. Smh.

Deities may be a bad example because they always factor in a big way in my world. Religions are major movers and shakers. if someone wanted to play an exile from a fallen Kingdom, then I might find something because it's a big world. But all of my established history is based on the Gods.

I wouldn't unless it was a very small move from what I have. Instead of asking players for setting specific background ideas I just ask them for more abstract guidelines. Then we meet and I go over various options that fit what he wants. I typically though when recruiting will do enough...

I often spend months working on a campaign setting before I recruit players. Fact is in some ways I'm always working on campaign setting material.

I think the super-module and Pathfinder module series that go from low level to campaign end are examples of what you say. I wasn't thinking that was what you meant though with setting tourism. That is more railroading or scripted play. I play sandboxes but on occasion there is an opportunity...

I agree if the DM just says, "You fall off this cliff you got too close" that sees very arbitrary. Some kind of roll should have been made. This example with the fake treasure though doesn't seem like that at all. The DM placed a fake treasure for some in game reason. Sure if he turned it...

That may be true but I think genuine adversarial gaming is a bad thing in a roleplaying game with a DM like D&D supports. (in general). The DM should of course roleplay the evil NPCs but he should be rooting for the players ultimately. That doesn't mean he plays the NPCs poorly. It just...

Then it was probably done for comedic effect. Who cares about treasure in a one shot? Treasure is only good if you get to spend it in the next session.

And the question here begs so many angles of observation. Even if I agree with everything the original poster said for me the answer is not rebellion. It may be leaving the game but I'm not overriding the DM. So this little snippet of the discussion is one thread that runs somewhat in...

It would be if the DM does not do it all the time. If he created a sandbox and one possible adventure was going after what turns out to be a fake Maltese Falcon, it is neutral. In the real world not everything is as it seems. If though, the DM is doing this all the time then you may have an...

That was what I meant to say in my last sentence above.

If by virtuous desired and admired by players that is true. Some players want that style and others don't. Thus my often given advice that a very detailed session 0 is a great way to head off later trouble. I think for many of us we are pushing back because the criticism is given...

I think I back towards it a bit from another angle. I'm very much trad but the player characters see themselves as heroes of their own journey. The whole world just doesn't revolve solely around their concerns. And that is intentional because I want the players to feel like the world is a...

The second those players rebelled that campaign was over for me. Whatever happens. They were going to quit if the DM didn't given in and I am going to quit if he does.

I would ask how you know that...and if I was convinced by your arguments then I'd say that is a bad DM. But "questioning" it is a waste of time. Well we will agree to disagree there. At least while the session is running. I've never been glad a player challenged a ruling whether I'm a fellow...

For my style of play, the players will have this feeling if they triumph.... 1. They mostly earned it through skilled play and it was not given to them. 2. They may have gotten lucky but if so it was the luck of the dice which is true in game luck. 3. The world wasn't about them but they...

Well if there was a locked door there already. I think whether the DM planned it in advance or just whipped it up matters a lot. Your last sentence is right and if the DM planned it that way then it is entirely fair. It really comes down to frequency that something like this happens. If...

To me this falls under communication. In this case a player said something and the DM misunderstood what was said. I'm fine with communication correctives when either side obviously misheard or didn't understand. That isn't though the total of what is being discussed here.

I think there is some confusion in terms that keep bouncing back. There are things you can do as your character and each thing you do affects the world just like each thing an NPC does affects the word. The confusion at times is the player affecting the world outside of what his character can...