Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3456463" data-attributes="member: 18280">Agreed.Could be.  Or it could be a big old stinker.However, allowing or disallowing character types isn't the be all and end all of creativity, either.  Creating a campaign world that uses only humans as PCs while otherwise maintaining the standard D&D tropes requires as much (or more) creativity as allowing the WN into the game....And this is true both for players and DMs.Limiting PC races and/or classes doesn't prevent the game from having "infinite potential"; neither does allowing the kitchen sink into a game.  The potential for creativity exists only within a contextual framework.  I would argue that, the stronger that contextual framework is, the more creativity is possible.  Of course, it is equally true that creativity includes expanding and building upon that contextual framework.  However, that doesn't mean that every concept expands or builds; some damage that framework.  If halfway through LotR Frodo rented a minivan and drove to Mordor, the novel would come to a crashing and disconcerting halt.  At least for me.It is also true, as others have pointed out, that the responsiblity of the DM is to the group, not just to that one player.  If Joe is allowed to make a WN, why isn't Bob allowed to make a Saurian Samurai?  Why can't Billy make something from the Book of Erotic Fantasy?  Why can't Kathy play a Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtle?I've run across a lot of "kitchen sink" games, and in my experience, none of them are as fun to play in as a more restricted, well-thought-out world.  My last experience with a kitchen sink setting was the WLD, where I allowed any D20 character in -- we had Jedi and moderns and all those funny creatures like LEGO Men that some people love to create.  Within a few sessions, the players unanimously decided that the "kitchen sink" approach sucked, and asked to get back to "the good game".(Of course, part of this might have been due to the WLD itself, which, IMHO, needs a lot of work.)I accept, of course, that others' experience may well be different.So, I would say that every DM has the right (and responsibility) to say "This concept would hurt our game.  Make a different character if you want to play."  The player can either accept the DM's authority, and exercise his creativity to create a character that fits the campaign, or he can find some group more in tune with his character concept.In either case, it has nothing to do with whose creativity is better than whose.RC</blockquote>

Verification