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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6167812" data-attributes="member: 48965">It doesn't make sense to me either... however that's because it pre-supposes that discovering something precludes deeper exploration of that discovery.  Going back to the trap example, I have discovered a trap... but there are a multitude of things to explore within that discovery... What type of mechanism does it use? what type of poison is used? can I replicate either of those?  If not, where can I find someone who can?  An even easier example is a dungeon... does discovering a particular dungeon preclude exploration of it?  No, to claim otherwise is absurd.And the thing is I don't believe it is the intention of the designers.I guess we would view this differently then...  In the module "Crown of the Lich King" the designer's state that having once been an animal was one of the most popular OUT's that playtesters chose.  See for me getting to pick a single unique thing about my PC and then having the DM force me to choose something connected to the Icons when it is my chance to actually add  something to the world (as opposed to derive my OUT from something that has already been established in the world) is being unnecessarily restrictive... it's akin to railroading me during part of character creation.  It also sets up a higher likely hood that my unique thing isn't all that unique since another player could favor one/some or all of the Icons I do.  Personally I don't think a character's One Unique Thing should be about tying him or her to the game world, it's an unnecessary restriction on the one thing they can use unbridled creativity to create...  Buy in to the world is what the Icon mechanics are for... that's what the relationship points a player chooses to distribute establishes... so yeah I think your assumptions are off.   He's not choosing the fiction elements... the player has no idea what the actual fiction elements will be.  He knows who amongst the Icons they will be related too (and even in this he has no idea of how or why they will relate to the Icons) but the player isn't choosing any specific fiction elements to be included.  I also note that the wording has changed from "world" to "campaign"... This is a totally different thing and if a choice like this is part of campaign building then so is the choice to go to one adventuring locale over another... or to interact with one NPC vs. another.  Again this seems so broad as to be, for all practical purposes, pointless. I don't think this is where the disagreement is happening at all... as I stated above, the disagreement seems to be happening because you have adopted a definition of world building that is so broad that it is practically meaningless and encompasses nearly any decision the players could make in the course of the game.  According to your definition the players helped "world build" the "Isle of Brass" just by simply choosing to go there... regardless of the fact that the DM created every piece of fiction surrounding the place.  I see that definition of world building as meaningless for discussion and would hazard a guess that it's not what most people associate the term world building with.</blockquote>

Verification