Search results

Of course. When it comes to X-card type restrictions on uncomfortable topics, that obviously trumps the normal practices. If something makes myself or one of the other players uncomfortable, it's out, no questions asked.

If the GM does feel that way, I'd be happy to hear them state their case and defend it, as I have here. I'm fully comfortable that in the context of this thread, I am making a normative case, not attempting to do an objective characterization.

I mean, a lot of the discussion here is about what determines that tiebreaker. If Player wants X, and GM wants Not X, who has the stronger standing? I know my thoughts based on my priorities, but people have different priorities.

Strict curation is an action that is taken. Attraction to strict curation is a feeling, or aesthetic preference. There are good ways and bad ways to do curated settings. When the curation flows from a shared understanding of the setting (like a published setting, a known IP, or a...

Fair. I can't disagree with any of the points here.

My biases are absolutely towards light prep and more improv, for sure. Some of my arguments here are certainly derived from my general preference away from highly-developed prep for D&D and D&D-type games.

"Attraction to strict curation is a GMing weakness" is what I said, which is subtly different. And yes, if your impulse is to take a setting and chop out a bunch of races to make things simpler or cleaner, I think following that impulse hampers your game and your players.

I would agree with that, which is why it's certainly fortunate I do all of those recommendations. There is an enormous amount of rhetorical space between comparing two things and finding one better, and actively denigrating something. Saying "I don't like X" is a statement of a mindset, not...

They did, actually. Using recognizable D&D names like Mephistopheles made them feel more of a connection to the game. It's pretty central to my GMing philosophy that I'm playing with a group of players I trust. You can't collaborate with people who don't play in a trustworthy fashion. I...

That is true, that is something we do differently. I'm assuming you feel your way of communication is better? :)

It matters to me. And I've already explained why I think it should matter to "Generic GM reading this thread." And again, different experiences. More than half the people I play with have spent considerable time in the GM chair. A bunch of us are familiar with quite a few settings.

There are a ton of players who want games where they don't have authorship responsibilities. I won't deny that. I'm glad you found a player group correlated to your interests.

I believe it to be the better way, but you have no reason to agree with me unless I convince you. That's the point of discussing things! It's totally OK if we come to an understanding that our priorities are different. But I'm also not required to act like I think every methodology of play is...

I think tightly curated settings are great fun. But if the players aren't interested, then it's the concept that goes away, not the players. Maybe another group at another time may want to try that idea; if not, it doesn't make it to the table just like thousands of other campaign ideas I've had.

I have every published setting connected in a loose multiplayer framework precisely to alleviate those kinds of concern. There's plenty of room for Asmodeus and devils within Fernia, Shavarath, Mabar, etc.

You see it as double standard because you're focusing on the impact on the player. I'm laser-focused on the difference between a collaborative game and one where the GM's concepts are privileged. If the players and GMs agree on a curated setting, than that curation was shared. If the player...

If a player wants to play a Tiefling in Middle-Earth, than they didn't actually want to play Middle-Earth in the first place. So we will just play something else.

That would put me in a position of dictating information to them, which I also try to avoid. I prefer settings where everyone has some familiarity, or the setting is loose enough to accommodate most ideas. As an example, I'm starting a table to try out Shadow of the Weird Wizard in a few...

When you curated the setting, you unfortunately made your worldbuilding impact their focus on "just" their character.

I said this a day or two ago, but tight curation around a central animating principle is totally fine (by me.) It's "my homebrew doesn't have a place for tieflings or dragonborn, so you can't play them" I find objectionable. One is about a exploring a concept together, the other is about...