Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Seonaid" data-source="post: 1637007" data-attributes="member: 11195">For me, it depends on how badly I want the campaign to work. I'll break character with no argument and at the drop of a hat if I really want the new character to be there, or if I'm really enjoying the campaign and want to see it continue in that vein (or if I like the new player).One thing that gets me, though, is integrating a character midway through a campaign (or even just a few sessions into it) by saying, "Oh yeah, this is my cousin Bob whom I haven't seen in months, but he's going to join us now." That seems too hokey for me. If the new character has ties to the group without the group having ties to the new character, it's okay, but if suddenly there's more backstory or history with one or two characters, it feels wrong and I don't like it. This is even more of a problem for me if, as hinted above, I don't know the new player very well.I think my main problem with D&D (and this specifically) is that I like D&D to be an epic novel, and that just isn't possible. Accomodations need to be made and there generally isn't time for sweeping backstories and detailed PC interaction. I've been doing a lot of message board gaming recently, and though it's much different than tabletop, it's still hard to get the right mix of politics (in-party and out) and still keep the game moving.In general, I like the GM to make a credible effort at integrating the new character as sensibly and in-character as possible, but in the end, I recognize that this is a game and that if players (I) don't make an effort as well, nothing would work.</blockquote>

Verification