Search results

I mean, I would do that too. But I'm strongly in favor of the idea that any participant should strive to be accommodating. If I'm the GM, I accommodate my players. If I'm a player, I accommodate my GM. Just be chill. Your PC isn't that important. The setting isn't that important. Getting...

They shouldn't be defining a setting with strict curation before doing collaboration with the players that will be consuming that setting, no. Have a rough outline, meet with the players to see what they're interested in, and then you flesh out more details. Nothing is a bigger red flag for...

The game's been out for 12 years (and the D&D milieu for a lot more). All of us have a ton of character ideas floating around in our heads. If I have a cool concept for a halfling sorcerer in my head, and I get invited to a D&D game with a new GM, I'm allowed to be surprised (and possibly...

All of my posts on this subject indicate that I agree with you here.

Why would it change just because I didn't prep it beforehand? Once something is introduced in the fiction, it's fixed into the setting. That's pretty core to pretty much all RPGs. Having a setting bible doesn't help me be more consistent.

That doesn't conflict with the default assumption of the 5e multiversal setting being cosmopolitan. If I was going to a 5e table full of randos (which sounds awful), my assumption would be that 5e official material is on the table unless the GM says otherwise.

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.