Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Melan" data-source="post: 2972829" data-attributes="member: 1713">I disagree. It is my considered opinion that an "adventurer" is a totally fictious construct driven by the ego of the player, sometimes with an ideology ("backstory") to explain his actions. But the motivator is still the player and no one else. It is the player's will to engage in adventures that makes a game run. Even without a backstory, the PC may still undertake actions just because its player wills it.My take: satisfying the wishes or needs of a character is a meaningless excercise by itself. Only the players matter. Backstories are only useful inasmuch as the players enjoy having one, or to provide an excuse for adventuring ("orcs killed my father. Now I fight crime."). I, personally, don't need this justification. I, the player, like dungeoneering just fine.I meant my comment as a criticisim of worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake. What is a world detail worth if it does not come up during play or does not influence the way the game events unfold? In my opinion, nil. There is only one exception, apparently very common in gamerdom: those people who just like to read about fictious worlds. I am not one of these people. Furthermore, I don't consider these needs to have anything to do with gaming. They are something else - certainly, a lot of people who enjoy the LotR appendices, don't enjoy them because they also enjoy RPGs.</blockquote>