NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9252168">Let’s keep the OP point in mind. It is a general statement about setting consistency being overrated, with a very narrow range of consistency in mind (that honestly seems more about Gm and player authority over things like campaign set up and setting material). And it uses examples from Tolkien that don’t seem to violate setting consistency concerns unless you use the very specific definition of setting consistency used by the OP. So I think people are pishing back against that general statement. I.e. ‘setting consistency is overvalued and getting in the way’ versus ‘hey I value setting consistency and here is why it is important’. The post specifically invokes burning wheel but seems to be doing so to suggest broadly this is how games out to approach things. Also this is part of a an ongoing conversation by the OP. There are prior discussions  people are weighing when they respond. My opinion is Burning Wheel looks like it suits a lot of people. Groups should play whatever system they prefer and arrive at whatever arrangement around setting, character creation and Gm authority that works for them. But I think if the point is to promote burning wheel and to promote a style of player where players have more control of character concepts and where setting consistency isn’t a priority, the OP doesn’t do a good job of persuading people because it holds up these options by attacking a preference for world building and setting consistency and tries to undermine the role of setting consistency in Lord of the Rings.</blockquote>

Verification