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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9252598" data-attributes="member: 7025508">So it doesn't seem this thread has much to do with setting consistency. (Examples in the OP aren't really inconsistencies either.)Thurgon being the last knight of some order doesn't to me seem inconsistent with a typical medieval fantasy setting (Greyhawk?) Now if he was a last biker of a motorcycle club, it would. (Though of course as this fiction one could make this work too, but that would necessitate changing the setting significantly. It can be done, but also understandable if the GM doesn't want to.)Last mage in the magic has faded world doesn't prima facie seems like an inconsistency either. Granted, we don't know the details of the "no magic" situation, so for some iterations it could be. But to me it looks more like the player riffing on the concept rather than ignoring it. It doesn't to me seem like same situation than discussed in several D&D threads, where some player insists on specific character concept regardless of the setting, or even before knowing what the setting is like.But there has been quite a bit discussion about how "special" the characters should be, which actually seems to be mainly about how much their backstories should direct the course of the campaign. There is no right or wrong answer to this. In one hand it is good thing if the character backstories organically drive the campaign. They are the main characters in any case, so might as well tie everything to their backstories, right? The reason to not do this, is the same than the reason to have no overarching GM "main story." It is restrictive. The game will be about that, and there will be little breathing room for anything else. If you want to run more episodic or sand boxy campaign, this is a bad fit. On the other hand if you want an ongoing narrative where the characters are in the focus, it is probably a good idea.Contrast Star Wars with Star Trek. Star Wars is about chosen ones and the epic struggle between light and dark which is directly linked to the main characters. Star Trek on the other hand (even the films) is more episodic. Enterprise is a great ship, and the characters some of the best officers in the fleet, but they aren't really that special in the context of the setting. And they face myriad of different situations, some that are more personal, some not. Both approaches work, both are great. But they're different. It just depends on what sort of stories you want to tell.</blockquote>

Verification