Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 9509075" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I'd say there is no such thing as a good or bad limitation unless the game becomes completely unplayable as a result.&nbsp; The limitations are just the boundaries of the setting.&nbsp; Whether those boundaries are good or bad would be subjective not objective and depend on the group.I'm not nearly as tethered to the official rules as you are.&nbsp; I did though grow up using 1e so that might be part of it.&nbsp; I send out a packet 0 ahead of time detailing the world to some degree and all of the house rules.&nbsp; I also explain rule 0 and what is expected of the players.&nbsp; At that point some people will not want to play.&nbsp; Either because they don't like my DM style or because the setting proposal just isn't something they like.&nbsp;&nbsp; The latter will show up again next time to see what I am offering.&nbsp; The former probably won't.&nbsp; And that is okay.&nbsp; What is true though is I keep having happy groups one after another for a very long time.&nbsp; So I think the limitations I am putting forth are at least acceptable to a portion of the playerbase and as such are fine.For me, I only enjoy well developed worlds.&nbsp; And by developed I mean developed by the DM.&nbsp; Not necessarily completely in advance but at least in advance of my interaction with it.&nbsp;&nbsp; A faraway country may only have a Greyhawk level description on day one but it will be fleshed out more if I go there.Dungeon World as a game is pretty much the antithesis of my play style and designed intentionally to be that way.&nbsp; I'm not saying this particular quote is the antithesis.&nbsp; Any world designed by a DM naturally can only go so deep.&nbsp; I can't recreate an entire real world.&nbsp; But I tend to think the more I can do that the better it will be.&nbsp; So I have more depth close to the sandbox and less depth as you go out from it.A good example is Gygax's city of Greyhawk.&nbsp; That area over time became very well detailed in his campaign but places like the Great Kingdom only had some high level details.I don't think you do it on purpose but you do misunderstand me a lot.Edit:&nbsp; It has nothing to do with the DM doing no wrong.&nbsp; Players have roles and DMs have roles.&nbsp; The point though is that even a world as restrictive as my Dwarven campaign has plenty of room for adventuring and exploration.&nbsp; A group of the right players could get a lot out of it.&nbsp; No setting can please everyone.&nbsp; Any setting though that can be played in by a group which has fun is by definition not too limited.&nbsp; It may be too limited for you but it is not too limited in the general sense</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 9509075, member: 6698278"] I'd say there is no such thing as a good or bad limitation unless the game becomes completely unplayable as a result. The limitations are just the boundaries of the setting. Whether those boundaries are good or bad would be subjective not objective and depend on the group. I'm not nearly as tethered to the official rules as you are. I did though grow up using 1e so that might be part of it. I send out a packet 0 ahead of time detailing the world to some degree and all of the house rules. I also explain rule 0 and what is expected of the players. At that point some people will not want to play. Either because they don't like my DM style or because the setting proposal just isn't something they like. The latter will show up again next time to see what I am offering. The former probably won't. And that is okay. What is true though is I keep having happy groups one after another for a very long time. So I think the limitations I am putting forth are at least acceptable to a portion of the playerbase and as such are fine. For me, I only enjoy well developed worlds. And by developed I mean developed by the DM. Not necessarily completely in advance but at least in advance of my interaction with it. A faraway country may only have a Greyhawk level description on day one but it will be fleshed out more if I go there. Dungeon World as a game is pretty much the antithesis of my play style and designed intentionally to be that way. I'm not saying this particular quote is the antithesis. Any world designed by a DM naturally can only go so deep. I can't recreate an entire real world. But I tend to think the more I can do that the better it will be. So I have more depth close to the sandbox and less depth as you go out from it. A good example is Gygax's city of Greyhawk. That area over time became very well detailed in his campaign but places like the Great Kingdom only had some high level details. I don't think you do it on purpose but you do misunderstand me a lot. Edit: It has nothing to do with the DM doing no wrong. Players have roles and DMs have roles. The point though is that even a world as restrictive as my Dwarven campaign has plenty of room for adventuring and exploration. A group of the right players could get a lot out of it. No setting can please everyone. Any setting though that can be played in by a group which has fun is by definition not too limited. It may be too limited for you but it is not too limited in the general sense [/QUOTE]

Verification