Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Forgotten Realms] The Wall of the Faithless
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6790426" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>That's kind of the player's <em>job</em>, though - to give the DM story fodder. The DM shouldn't just be able to run any generic adventure with any random party. DMs SHOULD be taking into account what their players want in a game when they're considering the plots they're running in their setting. </p><p></p><p>When a walking stove is looking for his master/creator, that's a player "forcing himself" on the campaign, and that's <em>awesome</em>, because now I can work that goal into the goals of the adventure and increase the character's involvement. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's nothing about 4e water genasi that lets them create water? </p><p></p><p>Now you're moving the goalposts a bit from character goals to character races. To stay on goals: If it's not a problem for a character to want to bring back the rain to Athas, why is it a problem for a character to want to tear down the Wall in FR or to replace the Balance in DL? There are characters who would have cause to want to do these things in each setting (druids in general in DS, dragonborn especially in FR, and everyone who post-Cataclysm abandoned the deities in DL). It's not out of the setting bounds. It transforms the setting in the best way. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Your experience of that and my experience of that were very different. It was part of my (human) druid's pathos that the water (re-fluffed swarm druid powers) she created was never permanent, it fueled her goals that brought her to bring a river back to Tyr. That's not anti-setting, that's entirely within the setting's bounds, using the setting and its conflicts to influence the type of character I created and what they did in the setting. The shardmind character was anachronistic in an interesting way that peeled back layers of the setting's history for us and created a very memorable villain. Those were some of my favorite moments in that game, and they happened because the players influenced where the DM's story went, just as they did when everyone banded together to save your character's mom. </p><p></p><p></p><p>...you played a fey warlock, going "anti-setting" in at least two ways (fey are considered dead or lost and magic is considered dangerous and destructive). And there were some awesome scenes that resulted from that (the fey lord that took secrets was cool!). </p><p></p><p></p><p>Heroes aren't MEANT to fit into their worlds comfortably. If they did, we'd all be moisture farmers instead of Jedi Knights and senators instead of Princesses and normal stormtroopers instead of ones that take off their helmets. Heroes are heroes because they challenge the campaign world, be that the Wall, the Balance, the Sorcerer-Kings, the Empire, or any number of a million other heroic stories where the world ends differently than how it began. It's the mundane world that the Campbellian hero changes. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've little desire to play a game of D&D where I'm Moisture Farmer Luke Skywalker, who obediently follows the Empire's directives. That's the "menu" in the <em>Star Wars</em> setting. I'd much rather play Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker who challenges the setting's "dark dominant" paradigm and succeeds in restoring balance to the force. You might very well decry that as anti-setting since the Jedis are all lost and there's only even one that still exists in the canon and the setting is about the Empire ruling the galaxy. I mean you enter a world where there's no Jedi Knights, and where the Emperor rules supreme, and the first characters pitched are a farm boy who becomes a Jedi Knight and a princess who wants to fight the Empire! Talk about going against the setting!</p><p></p><p>I'd say that's exactly the kind of character I want to DM for - one who wants to DO BIG THINGS in the campaign world. To change it. To follow through with a narrative. Characters like Han - accepts the setting, works within it, tries to avoid commitment, just does individual missions - those characters are dull to DM for. Go to X and get the MacGuffin, go to Y and deliver it, that's not a story of world-changing heroism, that's a story of a particularly hazardous run to my mailbox. That's why Han is a supporting character - he's not interested in doing big things (well, eventually he is, too, and by that point he's become a bit of a protagonist himself instead of a plot device, but not for a while).</p><p></p><p>My gnome wild mage is crushing dragon cultists next to everyone else and wants to make the world a better place for everyone where there is no more Cataclysm and no more threat of an evil dragon goddess's return. He even wants it for bigger, more cosmological reasons than the "the dragonarmies were mean to me" narrative of most of the characters. He sees the great causes of suffering in the world, the things that allowed the dragonarmies to exist in the first place, and wants to fix them. </p><p></p><p>...and that's not heroic?</p><p></p><p>A dragonborn who wants to tear down the Wall sees a cause of suffering in this world and wants to eradicate it, to give his people reason to hope, to give the deities reason to provide, to make being good matter more than being faithful, to get rid of something hateful and restore something just. </p><p></p><p>...and that's not heroic? </p><p></p><p>Heck, why do we play games fighting against the dragonarmies - if they were eradicated, that would remove a fundamental pillar of the setting. To be in line with the setting, I guess we should play doomed townsfolk? Or members of the dragonarmies themselves? Certainly not heroes who change the world for the better! Those characters aren't part of the setting!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that's not really the case in your proposed Thule game - you're additionally constraining the setting beyond what the setting suggests (and also expanding it in terms of monks and paladins) because you want a particular vibe. That's cool, but that's not automatically what PT is. That's what you want to make it. And I don't think anyone has told you that they don't want to play that game. It's just a matter of finding out exactly what is on the table and what isn't. </p><p></p><p>When I see Conan (and I don't see much of him), I see him as an outsider beating the snot out of a world of decadent and corrupt wizards. The DM set up a world of decadent and corrupt wizards, and Conan is the proposed character: outsider, rude, violent, strong, independent. He is everything that the dominant setting is not. That's why he's the protagonist. </p><p></p><p>When I see the Fellowship of the Ring, I see them as unusual and exceptional, hobbits on adventures humans who are honored by elves, angel-mages who are considered eccentric in their own circles, in a world of spreading darkness. They are everything the dominant setting is not. That's why they're the protagonists. </p><p></p><p>When I see PT, I see a world of prehistoric monsters and madness-producing magic. I'd imagine its protagonists would tame the wilderness and bring order to spellcasting. They would be things that the setting would be changed by. That's why they'd be the protagonists.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6790426, member: 2067"] That's kind of the player's [I]job[/I], though - to give the DM story fodder. The DM shouldn't just be able to run any generic adventure with any random party. DMs SHOULD be taking into account what their players want in a game when they're considering the plots they're running in their setting. When a walking stove is looking for his master/creator, that's a player "forcing himself" on the campaign, and that's [I]awesome[/I], because now I can work that goal into the goals of the adventure and increase the character's involvement. There's nothing about 4e water genasi that lets them create water? Now you're moving the goalposts a bit from character goals to character races. To stay on goals: If it's not a problem for a character to want to bring back the rain to Athas, why is it a problem for a character to want to tear down the Wall in FR or to replace the Balance in DL? There are characters who would have cause to want to do these things in each setting (druids in general in DS, dragonborn especially in FR, and everyone who post-Cataclysm abandoned the deities in DL). It's not out of the setting bounds. It transforms the setting in the best way. Your experience of that and my experience of that were very different. It was part of my (human) druid's pathos that the water (re-fluffed swarm druid powers) she created was never permanent, it fueled her goals that brought her to bring a river back to Tyr. That's not anti-setting, that's entirely within the setting's bounds, using the setting and its conflicts to influence the type of character I created and what they did in the setting. The shardmind character was anachronistic in an interesting way that peeled back layers of the setting's history for us and created a very memorable villain. Those were some of my favorite moments in that game, and they happened because the players influenced where the DM's story went, just as they did when everyone banded together to save your character's mom. ...you played a fey warlock, going "anti-setting" in at least two ways (fey are considered dead or lost and magic is considered dangerous and destructive). And there were some awesome scenes that resulted from that (the fey lord that took secrets was cool!). Heroes aren't MEANT to fit into their worlds comfortably. If they did, we'd all be moisture farmers instead of Jedi Knights and senators instead of Princesses and normal stormtroopers instead of ones that take off their helmets. Heroes are heroes because they challenge the campaign world, be that the Wall, the Balance, the Sorcerer-Kings, the Empire, or any number of a million other heroic stories where the world ends differently than how it began. It's the mundane world that the Campbellian hero changes. I've little desire to play a game of D&D where I'm Moisture Farmer Luke Skywalker, who obediently follows the Empire's directives. That's the "menu" in the [I]Star Wars[/I] setting. I'd much rather play Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker who challenges the setting's "dark dominant" paradigm and succeeds in restoring balance to the force. You might very well decry that as anti-setting since the Jedis are all lost and there's only even one that still exists in the canon and the setting is about the Empire ruling the galaxy. I mean you enter a world where there's no Jedi Knights, and where the Emperor rules supreme, and the first characters pitched are a farm boy who becomes a Jedi Knight and a princess who wants to fight the Empire! Talk about going against the setting! I'd say that's exactly the kind of character I want to DM for - one who wants to DO BIG THINGS in the campaign world. To change it. To follow through with a narrative. Characters like Han - accepts the setting, works within it, tries to avoid commitment, just does individual missions - those characters are dull to DM for. Go to X and get the MacGuffin, go to Y and deliver it, that's not a story of world-changing heroism, that's a story of a particularly hazardous run to my mailbox. That's why Han is a supporting character - he's not interested in doing big things (well, eventually he is, too, and by that point he's become a bit of a protagonist himself instead of a plot device, but not for a while). My gnome wild mage is crushing dragon cultists next to everyone else and wants to make the world a better place for everyone where there is no more Cataclysm and no more threat of an evil dragon goddess's return. He even wants it for bigger, more cosmological reasons than the "the dragonarmies were mean to me" narrative of most of the characters. He sees the great causes of suffering in the world, the things that allowed the dragonarmies to exist in the first place, and wants to fix them. ...and that's not heroic? A dragonborn who wants to tear down the Wall sees a cause of suffering in this world and wants to eradicate it, to give his people reason to hope, to give the deities reason to provide, to make being good matter more than being faithful, to get rid of something hateful and restore something just. ...and that's not heroic? Heck, why do we play games fighting against the dragonarmies - if they were eradicated, that would remove a fundamental pillar of the setting. To be in line with the setting, I guess we should play doomed townsfolk? Or members of the dragonarmies themselves? Certainly not heroes who change the world for the better! Those characters aren't part of the setting! Except that's not really the case in your proposed Thule game - you're additionally constraining the setting beyond what the setting suggests (and also expanding it in terms of monks and paladins) because you want a particular vibe. That's cool, but that's not automatically what PT is. That's what you want to make it. And I don't think anyone has told you that they don't want to play that game. It's just a matter of finding out exactly what is on the table and what isn't. When I see Conan (and I don't see much of him), I see him as an outsider beating the snot out of a world of decadent and corrupt wizards. The DM set up a world of decadent and corrupt wizards, and Conan is the proposed character: outsider, rude, violent, strong, independent. He is everything that the dominant setting is not. That's why he's the protagonist. When I see the Fellowship of the Ring, I see them as unusual and exceptional, hobbits on adventures humans who are honored by elves, angel-mages who are considered eccentric in their own circles, in a world of spreading darkness. They are everything the dominant setting is not. That's why they're the protagonists. When I see PT, I see a world of prehistoric monsters and madness-producing magic. I'd imagine its protagonists would tame the wilderness and bring order to spellcasting. They would be things that the setting would be changed by. That's why they'd be the protagonists. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Forgotten Realms] The Wall of the Faithless
Top