Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 2553232" data-attributes="member: 3854">Interesting question.This question reminds me of an old thread:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=79786" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=79786</a>. . .Saying that a character played up from 1st level is more legitimate than a character that wasn't, kind of says that characters created above 1st level (even 2nd level, like I start my campaigns) are less legitimate. This just doesn't sound/feel right.As a DM, I'd be wary of a character brought into my campaign from another. It could have more emotional and "expectational" baggage from the other game (unknown to me) than would be good for my game.But more or less legitimate? Calling any character created within the rules of the game and/or the campaign anything other than completely legitimate for that game just is weird.. . .Thinking more about it, I would say that a character created specifically for the given campaign would be more legitimate than a character created for another campaign and brought over -- regardless of the level it was created at or played at. In this situation, the word "legitimate" seems to make more sense.Quasqueton</blockquote>