Alright, this thread has moved at friggin' light speed, so I'm only going to respond to people that quoted me for now. We'll see if I can keep up later.
What can I say? I've run games in the same campaign world for decades now. There are some restrictions and structures in place that I don't feel the need nor do I want to change.
Changing things would matter much.
That's kind of intended. Change requires adaptation. Adaptation is a vital DM skill. Players always provide a source of change, but becoming too comfortable with too many unchanged world elements seems a real risk for this style.
I don't feel as though I am twisting the example here, further than it's already twisted. It sounded to me in the original example as though there wasn't any conversation about it at all.
Considering "the DM failed to inform the player" was the point, I don't see how that's "twisted" at all. Literally the entire point was what to do when this sort of breakdown DOES happen. Because, despite the protests that no one here would do such a thing, I
have seen it happen. Personally. DMs that think "like Lord of the Rings" means "gritty survival," or who say "inspired by Greek Myth" when they mean "inspired by Greek
tragedy" specifically. And these were
good DMs, mind--ones that were not acting in bad faith. They literally just didn't understand that what they
meant by their seemingly-specific description, and what could be
understood from it, could be pretty different.
Where in the example does it say they're the first three sessions? I'm making the not-unreasonable presumption these three sessions are sometime after the campaign has already started. If so, there are lots of things that can happen in a campaign that might shift it (probably temporarily, because we are talking D&D) in a less-fighty direction.
Perhaps it did not, but the overall tone of the thread has pretty specifically been about the
start of games, and more importantly, if this DID happen for just some random 3-session interval,
it is trivially obvious that the player is being petulant. When you have a choice between interpreting someone's intentionally hypothetical question in such a way that makes it interesting and not obvious to solve, or completely trivial and obvious,
maybe don't take the trivial interpretation?
So, if this is the start of the campaign, I think Bob needs to talk to Alice about how things are going and how his character isn't getting any opportunities to shine. <snip> I think the best-case outcome here depends on the rest of the table and how long the campaign has been going. If the other players want more fighting, I think Alice should probably provide it (and should probably rethink her narrative). If the other players are happy with the campaign as it is, I think Bob really has two choices: leave the campaign, or--especially if the campaign is just getting started--adjust his expectations (and probably re-spec his character at least a little).
Does this mean Alice has some kind of responsibility toward Bob? Because that's kind of the point here, asking whether Bob is being reasonable to expect certain things from Alice because of her choice to take up the DM role. In particular with that last bit: can Bob expect Alice to accept him re-writing his character (at least mechanically, even if not narratively)?
Having a series whether novels, film or comic books set in the same world is pretty common. How many mods have been written for the Forgotten Realms over the years?
You may not be terribly surprised to hear that I don't have a particularly high view of the Forgotten Realms as a setting, and have been continuously frustrated with how fixated the community seems to be upon it.
As for the rest: Sure, but I see
the whole series of books as one campaign. It's
relatively rare to have more than, say, two or three completely distinct epic-length stories all set in one singular world
that is so tightly defined that nothing unknown could lie beyond the horizon. Which was a key point from the previous thread; we're not just talking about a world, we're talking about an ultimately
closed world where every location of relevance is already so well-defined that any new worldbuilding would break things, every culture is so fully-developed that the (player-side) discovery of a species they'd never heard of before would derail the world, and every history and horizon is so well-known (by the DM, at least) that it's not possible to add/remove/modify anything without severely damaging narrative consistency. Few authors ever define their worlds so thoroughly--
even FR's authors, both at the module level and the novel level.
As far as running in the same campaign world, I have a tendency to run multi-year campaigns averaging at least a year or two. That and the stories we tell are different. The world changes because of PC's actions, the style of campaign changes based on player preferences and so on. It's a big world, the current campaign is set in the ashes of the ruins from the campaign before last, the last campaign was in a different region, when eventually this campaign wraps up we'll probably be somewhere completely different.
Sure, I grant that. I could potentially see squeezing ten years total out of the world I've got now (we're at about two years now, so two five-year games in total seems reasonable). But that's in part because so much of it has very light definition, such that going there or living there would be a new discovery for everyone, including me. But given how precisely, comprehensively, and interconnectedly you've explicitly said your world is, I just can't imagine there being
enough things to fill 20+ years of gaming. I have a pretty active imagination, and I guarantee you I couldn't have imagined all the stuff to make even three years of playable game for the world
I actually run.
Demand is a strong word.
Could not think of a lighter way to say "Hey buddy. You did not tell me that this campaign would barely have real fights."
I would have not put the word in all-caps, then, but fair. But "request" or "ask for" seems appropriate, or "challenge" if you wanted to emphasize the "pushing back against a perceived reversal" angle.
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. I will say that authority figures can be questioned.
Well, the whole point of claiming that one's power is absolute is that you
don't have to listen to any questions. That's literally the idea behind the divine right of kings and such. E.g. from Wikipedia: "
Absolute monarchy[1][2] (or
absolutism as doctrine) is a form of
monarchy in which the
monarch holds supreme
autocratic authority, principally not being restricted by written laws,
legislature, or customs.
[3]" (All emphasis and links in original.) That seems like a pretty cut-and-dried statement that nothing limits the exercise of that authority, hence the mention of "customs" in addition to formal limits like laws and legislatures.
And as many rebellions the world over have proven, absolute authority is actually granted by the subjects of that authority. In RPG terms, all of the players can quit the game leaving the DM without players.
In general, it is understood that these rebellions have been proof that absolute power doesn't actually exist in the first place, not that it is given by anyone to anyone. (Because by being given, it can be taken away, and is thus not absolute.) Power that can be so revoked is not absolute.
I would posit that the player would speak up and tell the whole group that they want more combat. If the entire group is happy without combat, then the Barbarian player is again left with the original options of either making a new character or leaving the game.
Alright. What happens if the entire group is either (explicitly) ambivalent, or also combat-positive? Are there any valid expectations Bob might have of Alice? Does Alice have any responsibilities to Bob, or the group at large, because of their request?
