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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Agamon" data-source="post: 6279343" data-attributes="member: 184">You have your anecdotal evidence, I <a href="http://forum.rpg.net/poll.php?pollid=3405&do=showresults" target="_blank">have mine</a>.I guess the point to this whole debate is that some people read an RPG book like it's a MtG card and what's written is gospel, and some see it more as a malleable suggestion.Take my own players, for example.  They don't think the book runs the game.  I do, with their input. We made PCs the other night for an FR game I'm starting.  One guy asked if he was allowed to be a gnome.  No assumption, even though he knew there were gnomes in FR.  And after I told them that the setting is very anti-drow and anti-orc, one player said, "Well, what about this..." and we discussed how he might make a drow and make it work and it turned into a basis for the group template.I might be lucky to have such players, but I'm in 4 separate groups where I'm the only similar person in each, and there isn't a player out of the 15 that would have trouble with this.  Small sample size, maybe, but from my point of view, it doesn't seem like such a big problem.And maybe I have rose-colored glasses on, but I think they'll do a good job making this kind of stuff easily ignorable.  In the playtest, alignment is nothing more than 9 descriptive paragraphs and the game isn't hurt by "black markering" the entire section.  Nothing invasive in the mechanics, which is what I mean by "tattooed".  I can call the Sword of Kas whatever I want in my game, it's not going to mess with the actual game.</blockquote>

Verification