Search results

Correct. I know you seem to find it problematic that I don't regards a quality published work to be equivalent to someone's written notes, but to my mind it's a pretty obvious distinction. A published work is shared among all the participants, someone's specific homebrew is explained to the...

Yep. The majority of players just aren't that interested in exploring someone else's creation as the focus of the game.

That doesn't seem that specific to me, gotta be honest. I know a ton of people who see a good portion of their friends primarily in the context of a shared hobby or activity. If they stopped the activity, they would see their friends much less. If I decided to give up roleplaying, I of course...

Is it that abnormal to have a friend group primarily organized around game night, but the actual game you're playing isn't that important? If my friend Bob really hates Spelljammer, we'll table the Spelljammer pitch and do something else.

Yea, that's so different from my experience I can't comment on it. We've always built a game for the group, not a group for the game.

You don't want to know my opinion on pre-published adventures. I'll tell you anyway. :) I think they're the worst, because they're predicated on centering the importance of a plot over the player characters and their needs.

It isn't invalid. But I would also make the strong argument that it isn't a good position. The ideal is flexibility and collaboration on the part of all participants. Yes, generally the GM comes up with the seed of the pitch, for a particular game or setting frame; but that's hopefully the...

Sort of. For me, it's about me, as a GM, advising other GMs to not think their desire to worldbuild is actually going to add a ton of value to the games they run. And it's coming from experience of building tightly curated settings, and realizing that attempting to maintain that curation...

For me, the question is "How is it more fun to prioritize your curated aesthetic over facilitating a collaborative effort with the players?" I mean, once you've organized your players and discovered what they're interested in playing, then you can worldbuild and curate to your heart's content!

1-2 pages of setting notes sounds about right.

Yea, that probably does color my view. Once the game has actually started, I'm not really touching the world anymore outside gameplay. Maybe make a change then to say if it's happening "away from the table", then we can call it worldbuilding. But there's a bright shiny line that divides...

And that's fine, but yea, I don't agree with your definition either. Making up a new site for the PCs to encounter isn't what I would classify as "worldbuilding". That's just gameplay. There needs to be a specific term for the defining of the campaign frame prior to start of play/Session...

Honestly, tortle is probably one of the worst examples, precisely because it has mechanics that have such a strong diegetic visual associated with it. It's a lot easier to reskin something like a triton or a hobgoblin, for examples of races that deviate from the "norm". If the ask is "I want...

Just don't ask where the centaur came from. Some things are better left unanswered. Seriously, though, that's a fantastic concept.

I'm a fan of actual compromise, not..... that.

OK.... If my GM told me I couldn't be a tortle, but I could be a human in a turtle suit, and was actually serious about it, then that's a "run away from the table" moment for me.

Yes. As a player, your default should be "Oh, this race/class/concept doesn't work for this campaign idea? Let me switch it up." As a GM, your default should be "Oh, you want to try race/class/concept? Let's come up with some ideas for working it into the game." The issue is the players and...

My take would be, as a player, if I walked into Session Zero not knowing details about what the game will be like (like the game will be in a custom setting that deviates from the game's norm), than I haven't actually accepted the pitch yet. Part of the pitch should absolutely be explaining...

Is a game with no players actually a game? This seems like a "does a falling tree with no one to hear it make a sound?" kinda question.

The idea I like is "xenophobic against races that the players didn't pick with their characters." :)