Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takasi" data-source="post: 4865094" data-attributes="member: 20194">The players were able to tolerate the status quo.&nbsp; It wasn't an issue until it was yanked out from under them.&nbsp; I do agree that the status quo setting can also be limiting to what a player can and can't do.&nbsp; This can be done literally.&nbsp; Take a road from town a to town b and fill the surrounding forest with extremely high level creatures.&nbsp; If the party walks off the path they are probably going to die.&nbsp; Everyone tells them this.&nbsp; They decide to walk off the path and they all die.&nbsp; Some players would be intolerant of that setting just as some players are intolerant of setting degeneration through inevitable plotting by the DM.&nbsp; A bad setting that can be improved can be as restrictive, at first, as a good setting that's going bad.&nbsp; The difference is that players at least get to choose what to improve, whereas the DM is the one who decides what will be in danger.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takasi, post: 4865094, member: 20194"] The players were able to tolerate the status quo. It wasn't an issue until it was yanked out from under them. I do agree that the status quo setting can also be limiting to what a player can and can't do. This can be done literally. Take a road from town a to town b and fill the surrounding forest with extremely high level creatures. If the party walks off the path they are probably going to die. Everyone tells them this. They decide to walk off the path and they all die. Some players would be intolerant of that setting just as some players are intolerant of setting degeneration through inevitable plotting by the DM. A bad setting that can be improved can be as restrictive, at first, as a good setting that's going bad. The difference is that players at least get to choose what to improve, whereas the DM is the one who decides what will be in danger. [/QUOTE]

Verification