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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9252630"><p>Even in sandbox it won’t necessarily be an issue. I run sandboxes pretty regularly but am often quite open to suggestions around background that make the character important or significant in the way the last mage might be. I’d say the only difference is where that leads will be a result of organic interaction and development over the course of the campaign. And the way it is arrived at isn’t through ‘conflict’ or any kind of attempt to wrestle for it, but with a simple q&a (ie the player might say ‘would it work for me to be x, or is there anything in the setting like y where I could be the last remaining A of B). Generally in my sandboxes there is the conventional, GM is arbiter of the setting, players are arbiters of their characters, but there are gray areas like character background. And I have run the same sandbox setting with a different dynamic, where players can be arbiters of the setting through the words their characters speak, using a variation of the Hillfolk rules kludged to our existing system. IE if Zheng Bao, a PC, says “but brother you have forgotten about The Order of the Golden Lantern, they will want this artifact as well and may send men against us” then the order of the golden lantern, which didn’t exist before in the setting, now exists: similar things could be stated in terms of background. Using this latter approach, setting consistency would very often be explained post hoc and a very low priority for us</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification