Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Not a Decepticon" data-source="post: 9480295" data-attributes="member: 7020527">I will tell you this - I've played some GTA in my life and I know, that despite being a player who focuses on the narrative and story of the games, GTA very easily incentivizes you to go on a rampage by the fact you can go slaughter everyone on the street and get freaking army after you...and once you get out of the hospital, it will be as if nothing happenned. I have seen people go on similair rampages in Skyrim and how little it matters - nothing bad will ever come to the protagonist and all NPCs whose death would render the main plot unplayable are immortal. You can rob someone blind and then sell them their own stuff if they didn't see you take it. And people do abuse this freedom of consequence in those games simply because it is there. I do not care for this type of gameplay in my tabletop sessions and if I were forced to play at such table, I'd rather walk away and not play at all. If this is the direction D&D is going towards, then maybe D&D is not for me.I dread how delusional the answer I will probably get, but I'll bite - then what do you want from the game instead of plot hooks and quests?Also, the "I didn't say it's bad, just that I dislike it" just means "I've said it's bad but I don't want to be confronted about it, so let's chuckle it to my personal preference".GM working with the player to establish something should go both ways, that's what cooperation is. You are defending Bastion as a thing where player is all take and no give - they get new fancy thing that DM has to give up control over, and DM gets nothing in return.Sounds to me like you are already limiting the player chocie, you just made a bit of mental gymnastic to pretend you don't. By naming existing gods and adhering to setting lore, you will have players who consider it too limiting. On the flip side, you will have a player who will consider anything but a page of lore to be homework and tell you it's your job to make their concept fit. And none of these is bad, btw, so spare me "don't play with players who don't play the game I, rando on internet, play them" comments.Except you don't want to work together, both previous paragraphs seem to be "just let the player do it", whenever it means giving them unlimited freedom or offloading to them the work. Why ever DM if you don't want to put in the work?And before you say anything, I work 4-shifts job. I've worked the same physical labor job before I begun running my current games, next year I will switch to ones where I will be doing 12-hour shifts. And I still consider that GMing requires work and I gladly do it because so far it is the only REWARDING work, and fun me and my players have is worth it.The Bastion cannot develop a reputation because Bastion is not part of the world and DM is not allowed to interact with it.It's not just abotu being at stake, it's about all aspects of being part of the world. You have too antagonistic view of the GM, where the only way GM could ever want to interact with a Bastion is to do something bad to it, when by these rules I cannot interact with it AT ALL. Traders cannot show to set a trade in the bastion, refugees from war cannot seek asylum, people cannot hold festival there - DM is not allowed to interact with the Bastion. It's not part of the world, it may as well not exist when players not looking at it. Schrodriger's bastion.</blockquote>

Verification