Search results

If we're honouring the OP's request to ignore "bad fit" then I agree this doesn't make a bad player. The social player is certainly a bad fit for serious-business-only roleplaying, but not inherently bad. I still stand by my original point that if you eliminate bad fit, you're literally only...

This makes me something of an outlier, in the online community at least, but the state of D&D has no meaningful impact on my gaming. I have a stable, long-running group that are happy to play whatever game I want to run. I have twenty years of games queued up. Occasionally, something else will...

But they're not real people, and it's very important to understand this. Whatever else may be the case, behaving as if characters from roleplaying games or other forms of fiction are real, and can suffer harm based on how they are written or imagined, or that one person can disrupt another...

If you're eliminating bad fit, then all you're really left with is people who socialise poorly. Almost every RPG horror story is ultimately about people who don't understand social norms or who can't listen, communicate and compromise when dealing with other people.

And she would be right. PCs and NPCs aren't fixed, real objects that can only exist in one imaginary world at a time. Saying, "This is Gorax the Destroyer" doesn't mean Gorax the Destroyer has just vanished from another game to appear in yours. Gorax the Destroyer can exist in any number of...

It is my understanding that legally, you can't print it, but once you have a copy, there is no law against hanging it up on your wall. (My understanding may be wrong.) And while the printing would technically a breach of copyright law, it's certainly not something where there is any consensus...

Ah. I hadn't realised the post I jumped on was a response to something else (although that makes a few other posts make more sense now). My point of disagreement is on a very, very narrow front, about anyone's right to influence a game they're not participating in.

I don't actually see the difference in any meaningful sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also get the impression that if @TwoSix said, "this is LanefanPC, complete with his whole background from a previous game. He was sucked through a dimensional rift into this new world" you would have a...

In the post you just quoted, the opening words are "We're saying." Unless you think you are part of the "we", that means the words are explicitly not intended to be yours. I'm literally stating my position on the topic. Note also that you specifically asked for clarification of the position (of...

The original premise the thread was built on is that the original player of a PC gets absolute right of veto over anyone ever playing the same PC in any game ever. I disagreed. Overgeeked decided the topic interesting enough to start a new thread.

We're saying any moral right that may exist doesn't and shouldn't prevent me from using a version of your creation in my private, home RPG game (or drawing pictures of it in my spare time, or writing steamy journal entries to myself about your creation (even if I then share those entries with a...

I'm not sure there is a "Player Owns" side and a "GM Owns" side. My reading is that there is a "Player Owns" side and an "Everyone Owns" side.

Huh? I'm saying that the player doesn't have exclusive ownership of the character. Just like in your collaborative story example, neither party has exclusive ownership. Your example is supporting my position. I am very specifically only arguing with people who are saying it is their absolute...

Well, I think the fundamental point is that I don't agree with this. However, it seems pretty clear at this point that we are not going to get any closer to a mutually agreeable position, because we are working from incompatible axioms. Edit to add: I could concede you own the character, but...

I'm responding here simply to state that no, I'm not lying. I won't engage with you any further; if you are assuming everything I say is a lie, there is no point.

I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, but it wouldn't make any sense in the games I'm running. If the other GM's game was specifically designed to make sense in the context of my campaign, and it was possible to get the timings to mesh sensibly together, and it was something someone really...

Maybe he will; that's beside the point, as per my edit. The question is whether Bob has the absolute right to just say no, regardless any conversation or lack thereof.

Why not just accept that if the group says it's important to them that the character continues, they mean it, even if it doesn't make sense to you? People get emotional about the characters they've interacted with over years in a roleplaying campaign, in a way they don't about chairs or...

No. I'm arguing, "In this specific case, the fact that they're no longer present means that what they're wishing for makes no sense." If Bob is deathly allergic to peanuts, it makes sense if we agree we just don't eat them while he's around. If he leaves the group, and tells us to continue not...

My consistent guideline is that I assess how reasonable a request is. Stating that you have an inviolable right to veto my decision to imagine something because you have absolute control over the way that thing is imagined, by anyone, anywhere, forever, crosses the line, for me. This is...