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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eddie_Hawkins" data-source="post: 2559939">I see. . . .First, thanks for the support Dontella.  It's nice to know there is someone out there who sees that we aren't misinterpreting the call for a change in setting as people feeling that doing so would be a quick fix, who sees the reality of the situation and is trying to get the point across to them.What reality and what point?  That players are always going to make the characters they want and a change in scenery won't ever fix any of the problems we've been discussing, even in the long run.  Why?  Because, as I said before, WotC just won't allow the WizOs to be so strict for fear of chasing people away.Second, Fen, thanks for backing us "not-so-old-fogeys" and reminding others that our opinions are no less valid because we haven't been around as long.And I can't believe you believe that ANY limitation of creativity is a good thing.  As it says in the beginning of every edition of every D&D game ever produced: "These rules are guidelines.  If they don't work for you, change them or ignore them."  The creators of D&D, as you can see, saw creativity as a thing to be nurtured, not limited.  Besides, ask any creator of any official D&D world if they think their world is perfect, or if it is right for everyone just as it is, without any kind of customization.  I know they'd say no.  Otherwise, they'd never go to WotC (TSR for you "fogeys") to have their world published, because their view wouldn't mesh with the publishers of D&D.Limitation of creativity is NOT a good thing, and it never will be.What it sounds like to me is that you would rather no characters from worlds other than the chat site's setting be allowed.  I get this impression because you say that you are against setting violations and "uber-characters" that can come and go as they please without being imprisoned in the current setting world.As I have said before, I disagree since enforcing the setting to such a degree as well as disallowing characters that are able to come and go as they please limits the freedom and creativity of FFRP (now called ISRP, by the way - Interactive Story Roleplaying).What you are proposing is contrary to the whole idea of FFRP.  You are proposing that the site become a strict setting only.  Well, like Krys said, if you dislike Free Form so much, and you know where "your kind" of sites exist, why are you here?  Why don't you go where you'll be happy instead of trying to change this site into a place where others won't?  Besides, if you succeeded, where would be the freedom in "Free Form"?I am not trying to be malicious here, I'm just curious and confused.  In case you haven't noticed, people are more or less happy with the way things are.  And here you come trying to change a place into something they won't be happy with when you already have admitted that you have already found a place that you are happy with?  Most curious, and most confusing.(By the way, your comment about the difference between "role-" and "roll-" playing is absolutely unneeded since we are discussing a site without a dicebot.  Just thought I'd be an annoying nit-picker and point that out.  As Gary Gygax would say, "Cheers.")In my opinion, I don't think stricter enforcement of setting would encourage stronger development of character backstories.  If someone doesn't want to spend the time on a backstory, nothing is going to change that.  For that matter, some people just can't do backstories.  I know a few of them.  And limiting where their creative strengths actually lie won't help.  Limiting someone's creativity, in any way, has a nasty habit of limiting all of one's creativity, not just part of it leaving the other parts to grow and flourish.I agree with your comment about others believing that you have an elitist attitude, because you do.  I'm sure no one believes that your elitist attitude is restricted to D&D, mind you by your own admission.  I'm sure others have the correct impression that your elitist attitude applies to all rpgs.And one more thing.  If the WizOs start being more strict about setting, those who come to the site for their first roleplaying experience will be chased away.  Why do I think this?  Well, before one can adhere to the setting, one must not just be aware of the specifics of the setting, they will have to know the setting in order to avoid being banned.  In Krystal's case, she never would have actually tried roleplaying because she would have gotten a poor view of the gaming community.  I'm surprised that this sort of thing doesn't bother such an avid advocate of roleplaying or rollplaying.Forget the fact that WotC is trying to attract new potential gamers, not repel them (or "chase them away"), which is one of the reasons they haven't shut down this chat site (which is something of a cash sinkhole).  Those of us who have roleplayed with Krystal (among other characters online), just ask Dontella, would have missed out on a rich roleplaying experience. If you make the site less attractive to those who have never roleplayed before, and want to try it, you may not only be cheating the rest of us out of an enjoyable roleplaying experience, but you just might be cheating yourself out of one, as well.In my opinion, some of the best roleplayers are those who start out playing their characters with no knowledge of game mechanics whatsoever.  Let other places be like you want them to be, since they already are, and let this one remain a place that can show a person sincerely interested in roleplaying how to do it right.</blockquote>

Verification