D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[TwoSix]

You are perfectly welcome to feel that way. That is a valid, subjective opinion. But it isn't more than that.

I’m shocked that in an 18,000+ post thread that some people have diametrically opposed opinions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps the same reason that people who insist on calling anything that isn't done according to their exact preferences "reality-warping powers"?

That's unfair. I used that term for anything a player does in game, during active play, that modifies the fiction outside of the purview of their PC. That's it. Even then, there's a little wiggle room around stuff like personal backstory and the like. And of course, there are many games where that sort of thing is perfectly acceptable, or even encouraged or required (not games I prefer, but still). And I'm happy to use the term "player collaboration" if the other is too inflammatory for you, as I've said.

Hardly "anything that isn't done according to my exact preferences".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it's pretty rarely "done right", so that's probably why I have a difference of opinion.

The most common occurrence, and I think the approach that causes the most issues, are the DMs who make a pseudo-"kitchen sink" setting, which has like 10 races but doesn't seem to have room for any other ancestry because the DM doesn't like those.

The GM can like or dislike whatever they want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. That just puts us in “should the rules flow from our implicit understanding of setting, genre, and tropes, or should the setting flow from deriving rules” discussion, which is a well-trod discussion point among those who favor sim/trad play.

I certainly remember arguing those points back in the 3e days.

Honestly, I'd much rather have that discussion than this one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s fine.

I still prefer my take to “20 page character backstories and 300 page setting gazetteers make the game better.”

Don’t get me wrong, I like detailed setting guides. But I can recognize that liking something doesn’t mean its inclusion makes a game better.

I enjoy them in my game, so they make my game better for me.

 

[TwoSix]

The GM can like or dislike whatever they want.

Of course they can. I’m simply urging them to ignore that dislike.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Of course they can. I’m simply urging them to ignore that dislike.

if all things are equal, why can't we also be urging players to ignore their dislikes?

 

[Thomas Shey]

if all things are equal, why can't we also be urging players to ignore their dislikes?

The first part of this makes a big assumption.

 

[TwoSix]

if all things are equal, why can't we also be urging players to ignore their dislikes?

I’ve advocated players being flexible for a long time. I think a player being strongly tied to one character concept is equally onerous.

Happy to dig up some old posts if receipts are needed.

 

[Enrahim]

That’s fine.

I still prefer my take to “20 page character backstories and 300 page setting gazetteers make the game better.”

Don’t get me wrong, I like detailed setting guides. But I can recognize that liking something doesn’t mean its inclusion makes a game better.

I hope this sentiment is not pulling away too many people. I really hope to one day get time and players to enjoy the Arden Vul experience...

Seriously. It is a completely different kind of game. You cannot say something doesn't make the game better if the thing indeed is the game