Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayOfTheFourElements" data-source="post: 8087289" data-attributes="member: 6904757">Star wars doesn't have spell books. Being in jedi is something inborn as grows steadily over time. It doesn't necessary require long ours of study to awaken (level 1 in said class), though it might require long hours of study to master (i.e. more than one class level). My example referenced wizards and spellbooks, not jedi.My own personal aesthetic is paramount. It is the fun. I play for the world-building aspect more than anything else.It's only authoritarian if I force players to join my table and chain them in my basement. Otherwise, it's simply the way my game/my world is. Why can't you play a glamour bard? Because they're obnoxious. (Though I'm open to being convinced otherwise.) Why can't you play a dwarf? Actually, if you ask, you can. My general guideline is &quot;human only,&quot; but I'm open to exceptions. 8 humans, a minotaur fighter, and a pixie wild magic sorcerer sounds like a fun party - but I'm not a fan of Mos Eisley, where everyone's a monster.As for options, I have a player handout that summarizes the options I allow in the game. I'm also open to other suggestions, so long as they fit the themes and logic of the world. (I've had someone play a flying sentient dollhouse before - that was fun. It also made sense in the contest of that game.)If that feels authoritarian, that's fine. Then I'm authoritarian. If the game wasn't fun, my players would have quit. I'm also very specific about the potential players I choose to invite. Some might call that gatekeeping. If so, I'm a gatekeeper. I simply find it prudent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayOfTheFourElements, post: 8087289, member: 6904757"] Star wars doesn't have spell books. Being in jedi is something inborn as grows steadily over time. It doesn't necessary require long ours of study to awaken (level 1 in said class), though it might require long hours of study to master (i.e. more than one class level). My example referenced wizards and spellbooks, not jedi. My own personal aesthetic is paramount. It [I]is [/I]the fun. I play for the world-building aspect more than anything else. It's only authoritarian if I force players to join my table and chain them in my basement. Otherwise, it's simply the way my game/my world is. Why can't you play a glamour bard? Because they're obnoxious. (Though I'm open to being convinced otherwise.) Why can't you play a dwarf? Actually, if you ask, you can. My general guideline is "human only," but I'm open to exceptions. 8 humans, a minotaur fighter, and a pixie wild magic sorcerer sounds like a fun party - but I'm not a fan of Mos Eisley, where everyone's a monster. As for options, I have a player handout that summarizes the options I allow in the game. I'm also open to other suggestions, so long as they fit the themes and logic of the world. (I've had someone play a flying sentient dollhouse before - that was fun. It also made sense in the contest of that game.) If that feels authoritarian, that's fine. Then I'm authoritarian. If the game wasn't fun, my players would have quit. I'm also very specific about the potential players I choose to invite. Some might call that gatekeeping. If so, I'm a gatekeeper. I simply find it prudent. [/QUOTE]

Verification