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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5097160" data-attributes="member: 18280">Originally, D&D was played more like the West Marches campaign (<a href="http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/" target="_blank">ars ludi » Grand Experiments: West Marches</a>).  In this sort of game, each player might control more than one character, of various levels (based upon their exploits), and the players would get together groups of characters appropriate for a particular goal.  (This is why the notes on careful timekeeping appear in the 1e DMG.  If Preacher Bob the Cleric is away exploring the Caves of Noisome Odours, he cannot also be along on the Quest for the Holy Handgrenade.)So, if some players wanted to cross the bandit-haunted Plains of Perserverance, they would bring Sir Ridesalot along (if he was willing).  When delving into the Catacombs of Doom, the player who controlled Sir Ridesalot would, perhaps, play Hershel the Thief instead.If the players decided to bring Sir Ridesalot into the Catacombs of Doom, it was on them to determine how to make it work.  Likewise, if they brought Sir Delvesalot to the bandit-haunted Plains of Perserverance.A lot of the responsibility for making characters work within a setting that has been shifted onto the GM's shoulders was originally on the players' collective shoulders.  IME and IMHO, the game works best when the players shoulder a fair percentage of the burden.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that the difference is like night and day.RC</blockquote>

Verification