Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9509215" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't see how. Your point was that any limitation that doesn't make the game unplayable necessarily promotes creativity. I provided examples of limitations that did not make the game unplayable, but also did not promote creativity. As for setting limitations? "Every player must play a character who speaks in French-accented English." That's a setting-specific limitation which, at least on its surface, has no relationship at all to promoting creativity--though I will note that you have now changed the requirements, adding that it must be a limitation rooted in the setting, not just limitations-in-general.Have I said that all limitations are bad? If you got that impression from what I wrote, I heartily recommend you re-read what I said. I specifically said some limitations are good, and others are neutral, and some may even be detrimental. Your statement here only has any force against someone claiming that all limitations are always harmful guaranteed, which I never said and explicitly contradicted."Could be" makes this an incredibly weak argument. Something that made it so a good game genuinely couldn't be had by ANYONE attempting to play it would be monstrous, something no person in their right mind could ever support. It isn't a feather in anyone's cap for something to simply avoid preventing a functional game.And I'm arguing that those limitations absolutely can be the thing that makes a game good or bad. It won't always be the thing that does it. There are simply too many things that can make a game good or bad to ever argue something so foolish! It won't even necessarily be a thing that contributes in either direction.But when I see extensive limitations, especially those that are given either no explanation at all, or no explanation beyond "it's what I like" or "I just think it's stupid", that's a red flag, a pretty big one. Not the biggest possible, but a pretty big one nonetheless.And I'm saying that they are more than just flavors. They're ingredients. And some ingredients can be detrimental--can directly be what ruins a dish.Welcome to the club. I deal with this sort of thing all the time.Okay. Please put yourself in my shoes: I have never, as a player, been in any group that lasted longer than a year after I joined. (My current 5e group will cross that threshold in a few months, and I am still very grateful for the invitation to join it.) Almost none of the groups I've been a player in have had any players in common. I have been striving to find a long-running group to play with for a very long time, and I've seen many bad apples I've stayed far away from while looking for such a thing. That is part of why almost all of the DMs I've actually had have been at least pretty decent, and the majority have been quite good.I have never had the luxury of relying on years of reputation. I have never been so fortunate as to have extensive experience with a DM before working with them. And this is going to be similar to the experience for most players today, because most players of D&D 5e (whether 5.0 or 5.5e) are brand-new to TTRPGs, if WotC's numbers are to be believed. As in, something like four to eight new players for every single person who had played a previous edition first.</blockquote>

Verification