Search results

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...

I will reiterate my point, as I made in post #2399.

Yes, but most also have no interest in having their options restricted. They might endure it, but very few will think it's making their experience better.

I'm sorry if I've bummed you out. But yes, I do think that a GM that thinks something like "Eberron but with Tolkien races only" is a clever idea that players will actually want to explore is a GM who needs some actual awareness.

Never said anything about "corpos", did I? (Feel free to check my posts.) I own Dolmenwood, and have played in Dolmenwood, and have advocated for it (in this thread) as a great idea of what a curated setting should aspire to be. But the key piece is that it is NOT the GM's setting.

I agree that as a player, if you agree to a curated setting, you're being problematic if you later on try to renegotiate that curation. But I still think the GM needs to examine why they are so attracted to that strict curation in the first place. From my perspective, that attraction to strict...

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...