Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9251890" data-attributes="member: 8461">I don't think that conventions are the antithesis of engaging, dynamic play either; I was referencing that idea being brought up <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/oddities-in-fantasy-settings-the-case-against-consistency.702271/post-9251447" target="_blank">earlier in the thread</a>:Needless to say, I disagree heartily.I don't disagree; having such ideas be brought up before play begins is, and resolving the issue, is very much the ideal recourse. I'm just trying to point out why I believe there's (reasonable) reluctance on the part of some people to accommodate a character whose is designed specifically to run counter to the setting idea(s) that have been put forward. Even if we assume that there's no contrarianism or self-aggrandizement in play, it changes the nature of the proposed dynamic in ways that other players (and the GM) might not like, and that's okay.</blockquote>