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!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6791430" data-attributes="member: 2067">Luke and Leia are not characters who accept the setting as it is. EXTREMELY so.  The DM says that we're going to play Star Wars and the setting is a galactic empire and the Jedis are lost. Along come two characters whose missions are to destroy the Empire and to restore the Jedis. Rather than declaring these characters "anti-setting," The DM Says Yes and lets them wreck the Empire and restore balance to the force. Awesome stories result.If the player wanted to play an advanced droid who resembled a human but was programmed for assassination? Or if the player wanted to play a droid who was part of a droid army that wanted to kill civilized races? (Either of which are pretty core to the Cylon story in BSG) That'd be LESS setting-changing.I mean, for a direct comparison, the official lore about water genasi in Dark Sun 4e is that they are a "lost manifestation." A player who plays a water genasi hoping to restore rain to Athas is basically the same story as Luke Skywalker - a character type that the setting doesn't support. If characters who want to change fundamental aspects of the setting aren't "anti-setting," your decisions about what is anti-setting and what is not are looking really arbitrary.And things like the Balance and the Wall are presented as morally repugnant. When good people are killed and tormented, the response in a game of heroic fantasy is to stop the killing and torment of good people. So if the Balance kills good people, it is morally repugnant, and if the Wall is mortared with good souls it, too, is morally repugnant. These things must be stopped, just as an empire that blows up planets ("It's necessary to prevent mass chaos!") and a brutal alien gangster ("It's harsh, but fair!") are set up as antagonists. I dunno what Fellowship you're looking at, but I see a Dwarf and an Elf who leave their cloistered homes, a human from a lost kingdom who loves an elf, and hobbits on adventures, and all of them seeking to change fundamental aspects of the setting (like the Dark Lord Sauron), and NONE of these characters are typical examples of their people. They're all exceptional - the hobbits ESPECIALLY so. That'd be a short hop from what the hobbits in the shire already believe (that elves are dangerous and should be avoided). That's consistent with the setting. Believing elves should be trusted is VERY unusual in the setting. That'd be a short hop from what the humans already believe (that Wizards are meddling harbringers of doom). Believing wizards should be trusted is VERY unusual in the setting.I mean, Saruman does this. It's not like he's anti-setting, he's part and parcel of the thing. If you wanted to play a group of people who was very much in tune with the setting, Saruman-style characters would be expected. It would only be if you want to go against the setting's assumptions that characters like Saruman become antagonists. And Great Old Ones vs. Mortals is a major theme of PT. It's just not a theme you want the PC's to explore in your game.You played a magical character in a world where magic was taboo and a character tied to the Fey in a world where the Fey are lost (even in 4e, they're basically inaccessible). They were an exceptional character. I think this character went just fine. There were some memorable scenes with the character. Scenes that could only mean what they did in Dark Sun (we had to restore their homeland, we traveled through portals to see them). I think the same thing about the rain druid and the shardmind.There is a difference between the stories that you personally are interested in and the stories that the setting as a whole supports. It's fine to have personal preferences and limits, but it's a little quixotic to imagine that those are universal. Playing in an FR campaign itself doesn't preclude wanting to tear down the wall and playing in a DL campaign itself doesn't preclude opposing the Balance and playing a DS campaign itself doesn't preclude wanting to bring back the rain or getting magic from the fey. Playing in a campaign setting with an evil empire doesn't preclude overthrowing that empire. Playing in a campaign setting with a lost order doesn't preclude restoring that order. Playing in a campaign setting where hobbits are homebodies doesn't preclude adventuresome hobbits. Playing in a setting where magic is rare and madness-inducing doesn't preclude a character who confronts that head-on as a Warlock of the Great Old Ones. It's not really a matter of degree. As a DM, it's more a matter of being clear: lay out what you want. Tell people what's on the plate. Require certain elements. Dictate the bounds. Be exact and be consistent and be clear - if you leave a door open, either let it really be taken, or say "Hey, whoops, should've closed that." That's your job when you want to be pro-active instead of re-active to that degree. Tell the players what they can play as (including what goals they must have / cannot have). You may have to say "no" a lot, otherwise, but that's fine, too, if the goals are a little more nebulous. The DL DM didn't stipulate thinking the Balance is awesome or working comfortably with other races as a necessary element of your character, and approved BOTH characters as A-OK before they entered the campaign (though personally, I consider "working comfortably with other PC's" as a prerequisite for any character I personally create, because the headache of inter-party strife is only fun for me when everyone else thinks it'd be fun). The idea that they don't fit the campaign is YOUR idea, not the setting's. And similarly, the idea that you can't oppose the Wall is YOUR idea, not FR's. It's not a problem to have that idea, but it's kind of an issue to imagine that everyone else needs to agree with your idea, or else they're being "anti-setting" and having badwrongfun.</blockquote>

Verification