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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1477989" data-attributes="member: 6398">Alright, here's a possible situation where it might look arbitrary but it isn't... In 2E, all Druids in a campaign were supposedly part of a world-wide organization of nature priests (The Order).  In this organization, the Balance between Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos were crucial, far more crucial than the personal views of the individual Druid.  In such a scenario, Druids could actually be the foe; Seeing Good and Law having the upper hand for an extensive period of time, they believe that Chaos and Evil now need a "boost" to rebalance the cosmic scale.  This would mean that Druids would be presented as a foe in the setting even though they are traditionally not cast in such a light. Now, how do I, as GM, present an explaination for not allowing Druid PCs that... A. Doesn't give away the plot.B. Isn't a flat-out lie.C. Doesn't come across as arbitrary? That's the problem with the "explain why anything's different" stance: It demands an explaination for things that are possibly (indeed, probably!) best left to be discovered in-game. As for the Elves, that is another situation entirely; FR is a heavily supported campaign and there are certain assumptions that players will make about that setting in particular (especially since a family of Elves can't go on summer vacation without coming back as a new subrace).  For this reason, an explaination of some sort should be forth coming or the players will have presumptions about the game world that aren't correct (and justly so!). However, this is specifically an issue with a published campaign setting.  The problem being discussed is, in fact, not at all related to such a thing, but rather is people assuming that a GM's homebrew needs to be exactly like Greyhawk (same races, classes, choices, etc.) and demanding explainations for why it isn't.  And, quite frankly, that's a mistake on the player's part. I mean, does anyone complain that Scarred Lands is different from Greyhawk?  How about Gothos?  Freeport or Bluffside?  Midnight?  Oathbound?  Arcana Unearthed?  Iron Kingdoms?  Conan or Slain?  Is the "world concept of a publishing company" really any different than the "campaign vision of a homebrewer"? I say it isn't.  And to put individual GMs up against the wall with incesant demands for explainations and reasoning is just as rediculous as expecting such explainations from Jim Butler, Hal Greenburg, Wil Upchurch, Monte Cook, or any other professional.  It's rude, discurteous, and is more representative of distrust than anything else.</blockquote>

Verification