Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anon Adderlan" data-source="post: 3601848" data-attributes="member: 53053">Okeydokey. Please keep in mind that I have very strong opinions on this issue, and that I am concerned with bringing new players into the fold.That said...Hell yes! And this is exactly what every potential player who isn't ALREADY playing D&D will expect.And the fact that so many RPGs are based on books and other media (such as, well, Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Lord of the Rings, Stormbringer, Conan, etc) just reinforces this very valid assumption.It's never a carbon copy. You could get an entire group of players to play Spiderman, and each interpretation would be different. Most heroic characters, despite their named status, are actually basic archetypes open to reinvention.Writers follow rules, they're just not usually explicit about it if it's the work of a single individual (then again, look at Tolkien). When multiple writers are involved in the creation of a work however, they typically have a 'writer's bible' handy to make sure all future work is consistent with what came before it.Heck, something quite similar is done when a work is licensed, to make sure the product correctly represents the property.But again, that's EXACTLY why a lot of people play.Why for the love of Zod would you want to make sure that the players clearly understood that their characters are NOT special?Which reminds me, just to make sure my players don't get too full of themselves, my introductory adventure for the new Star Wars will feature their PCs on an exciting journey to pick up some power converters at Toshi station.Actually, as I said before, expecting them to base their character concept off the rules is actually a less realistic expectation than expecting them to have a character (and even setting or scenario) idea that they gleaned from their own personal experience.Sure they can. You just don't have a good set of rules to support it. I will admit that quite a few licensed RPGs fail to deliver an experience similar to the work it's based on, but that only proves a particular system (and/or version of it) is unsuited for the license in question.Other than that twink Boba Fett, both Aragon and Conan often worked with others who played an important part in the events that took place. Being legendary has nothing to do with being unable, or unwilling, to work with others.So why do these RPG companies keep licensing the damn things >_<Oh, and I believe you are incorrect <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> In this context, I agree. But this almost always requires a high level of familiarity with the game.The funny thing is that players typically don't want to play a character they feel is a carbon copy of another player's character, which is why I couldn't get all my players to play 'rogues'.Yet they were all willing to play 'pirates' for some reason? 0_oIf the player considered Presence a unique element of their character's identity, then they have a valid complaint.IF however they consider Presence to be a mechanical edge which they can potentially use to abuse and marginalize the other player characters, then they shouldn't even be allowed to play.Knowing why the player considers it unfair is important here, and sometimes you have to be a bit of a mind reader, as asking directly rarely yields a useful or truthful answer.</blockquote>

Verification