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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9252652" data-attributes="member: 8461">Not what I said. Did you overlook the part where I overtly characterized that as a generalization, and then flat-out acknowledged that the GM should talk to the players first?Eventually the setting does have to be given the impression of immutability, at least where certain considerations are concerned. Otherwise there's no sense of continuity to anything, and the point of having a campaign becomes much harder to maintain (again, in my experience).Who's the movie named after, again?Which just goes to show that you don't need to overturn setting convention if that's what you want for your character.When one character has it written into their backstory that they and they alone overturn what everyone else believes to be impossible, I suspect the spotlight will shift back toward them more often than not.No it doesn't. It's avoiding working twice as hard for half the reward.No, but it lends itself quite easily to that problem. Is that worth the reward? The player of the PC in question might think so, but as for the rest of the group, I'm less sure.The players have a great deal of input into the game, insofar as what their characters do. It's why there are so many stories about GMs trying to deal with sudden curveballs from the PCs' actions, especially when they've gained more power over time. To suggest that they're somehow hamstrung if they can't start out as being able to redefine the world itself strikes me as overblown.If I thought that's what you were doing, I wouldn't have called it a caricature. But simply restating someone else's point by inverting two parts of it with no further commentary doesn't really suggest anything, except being pointlessly contrarian.</blockquote>

Verification