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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4919833" data-attributes="member: 30678">Well, and I can claim that Golarion is superior to all the other settings and that we all know it for a fact (even if nobody else would admit it aloud)... but that would be just *my* opinion, right? Just as you claiming your way of DMing is superior to mine is just *your* opinion. BTW, if you're claiming I have said the only way to , I'd like to see you quoting me for that. Because I really don't think that's what I've said or implied; I'm of the mind that whatever suits you and your group is fine. IMO it's about preferences; what do you want out of the game and what do your players want out of the game?  What I *have* said is that whenever you decide to run a game in a new setting, discuss it with your players before you start writing. Maybe someone absolutely hates FR , or maybe someone is already running a Cormyr campaign in another group or maybe all the guys would want you to stick with Eberron; it doesn't mean you need a green light from everyone to run a FR campaign, but this sort of issues *may* result in disruptive behavior during play or even (sooner or later) someone might decide to sit out sessions (or even walk out). I don't think it can hurt, if you have a polite discussion about it with the players (the last time I did this was when I bought Pathfinder CS; I wasn't sure how the guys felt about Golarion, so I asked them directly whether they want to play in it or not). The thing is, despite the DM's authority it's kind of hard to run games if you don't listen to what sort of games, campaigns and adventures your players want to experience. If you always force your own vision and preferences down their throats, it's a miracle if they don't all eventually walk out. It may be your "daddy chair", but I would walk out if you, for example, continously ran combat-heavy sessions even though everyone had said that they don't want third "on-the-frontlines-in-a-worldwide-war" type of campaign (and this is just a quick example; I think you get my drift here). As far as canon goes, I'm not talking about checking facts or canon bits with players; as I said above, whatever suits the group is enough. But saying that a setting does not *need* that amount of lore is just voicing your *own* preferences; you, as DM, perhaps do not need that lore, but I do. And that should be fine, too, right?</blockquote>

Verification