I have a very detailed world, but that's not why my game is popular...

[solamon77]

As a DM and a Player, I often think too much "awesome stuff" starts diluting the awesomeness. "Awesome stuff" is great for an adventure or two, but when you're running a multi-year campaign, a focus on "awesomeness" can turn the genuinely awesome into the mundane.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess that makes sense. Personally, I see 'chaos' as 'evil' by another name; someone who wants to play a 'chaotic good' renegade anti-hero is every bit as disruptive as someone wanting to play a 'lawful evil' honorable killer.

Where to me both of those are perfectly acceptable character archetypes that the presence of a standard Paladin would render unplayable.

If having a paladin means that everyone else is within one degree of LG, then that's less chance for significant party friction.

Also less chance of being able to independently think for yourself both as a character and a player, and follow up on those thoughts with immediate action rather than running it by the planning committee (which IME is what mainly-Lawful parties quickly turn into).

I have not looked at the them in a long while, but have you seen the Vampire the Masquerade and Vampire Dark Ages Paths?

Never looked at V:tM at all. Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out.

Lanefan

 

[aramis erak]

Even that carries risks, as if the roll succeeds you then have to find a way to narrate the wacky stuff into ongoing events and - worse - explain it and codify it so if the same thing comes up again it's resolved in the same manner.

Agreed.

Don't get me wrong, though: this stuff can be fun - but the old principle applies here too: if everything's wacky, nothing is.

Lanefan

Unlike real life, games have real life and other games to measure Wacky against.

 

[Jhaelen]

"Awesome stuff" is great for an adventure or two, but when you're running a multi-year campaign, a focus on "awesomeness" can turn the genuinely awesome into the mundane.

"If everyone is super, no one will be", I guess.