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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7694665" data-attributes="member: 42582">This whole issue is something as a tangent. But to me it seems relevant to the tangent that my Moldvay Basic Set included a module called Keep on the Borderlands which has been designed keeping in mind the capabilities of 1st to 3rd level PCs; and my Cook/Marsh Expert Set included a module called The Isle of Dread which has been designed keeping mind the capabilities of PCs above 3rd level.It seems to me that the process of design of both modules was, in fact, first to think about the level of PCs that the module would be written for; then to think of a setting and a population for that setting that might provide suitable opposition for such PCs; and then to write a module that instantiates those ideas. I've got no view on whether or not either module is fair; but I think they are both pretty traditional, and yet the method of authorship is not the one that you describe.This is confused. Your first post on this topic is about fairness on the part of the GM. The ingame motivation of imaginary beings has no relevance to that.In the fiction, the reason the necromancer is working with the dragon is because  lesser dragons couldn't help her and she is beneath the notice of more powerful dragons. But the reason the fiction has been authored this way, by the GM, is because the whole thing is designed for a party of a certain level.There is no tension or contradiction here.Impartiality to whom? And fairness to whom?No duties of impartiality or fairness are owed to possible worlds, or to imaginary people. Those duties may well be owed by the GM (a real person) to his/her players (other real people), but it's not at all clear to me how the GM violates any such duties by designing an adventure with the intention that it be fun for those people to play using their PCs.</blockquote>

Verification