Search results

Yep. And the argument I feel like we've been making is that the same logic also applies to the GM as another player. They don't get special privilege for their aesthetic dislikes just because they're primarily responsible for the campaign frame.

But you can surely understand that long-term consistency isn't vital when you're only planning on running for maybe 20-25 sessions before the game ends and the next GM takes over?

100%

Sanderson is pretty much the anti-Martin when it comes to deadlines. Dude's a machine. My only actual concern for the Cosmere is if he'll be able to keep up the pace into his 50s and 60s, especially since Stormlight probably won't end until about 2040.

That is a position I strongly advocate.

Agreed. Quite a few posters seem to be coming from a background where they design a campaign setting for weeks/months, and then look for players to fill the table. That’s so outside my wheelhouse I don’t even know how to discuss it properly.

It absolutely depends on the game (or edition for D&D, which I generally see as separate games). For AD&D, I would broadly agree with you. For 3e, I’m more ambivalent. For 4e and 5e, which were designed for more modern audiences with modern design precepts, I would disagree.

It has nothing to do with entitled. As a GM, you should want to include your player's interests. As I've stated in many threads, all of my assumptions are that the participants are competent adults who can weed out childish morons like the above example. Players have the responsibility to...

Sigh. What’s unacceptable, or at least considerably problematic, is the idea that the GM’s pregenerated notes about setting take primacy over a player’s specific interests, in the context of a game system (D&D 5e) that is intended to be cosmopolitan and accepting of distinct character vision.

The GM has close to carte blanche to introduce anything they deem fit, barring some kind of X-card scenario.

And there’s the start of the recursive argument all over again.

No one has ever stated otherwise.

And vice versa.

“Rights” has nothing to do with it. It has to do with what approach generates a more cohesive group, with the understanding that a cohesive group will generate a more entertaining game.

Not exactly the same, but I have elves generally living and looking fairly “ageless” for about 3 centuries, and then fairly rapidly descending into senescence and death. An elf that actually looks old is probably less than a decade from dying. In my settings though, elves, dwarves, and humans...

It’s a shame, so many Bothans died to bring us this thread.

Agreed. Even as an active 4e lover, I do think that was one of the edition's weak points.

I also have active antipathy towards criticism centered around "plot holes". I view the show as more of a pure spectacle, so I'm not sure what themes Season 1 evoked that the remaining seasons didn't.

Exactly. In terms of how important "logical plot" is, the show is somewhere between a typical D&D session and an episode of the A-Team. :)

Not being overly concerned with that kind of "logical stuff" is very much part of the '80s media the show is emulating.