It's a dishonest position for the purposes of the survey.
It is a non-answer for the purposes of the survey. Please try not to call people outright liars when it isn't really called for, okay?
It's a dishonest position for the purposes of the survey.
No campaign settings rife with themes of cynicism, cowardice, greed, and/or pragmatism?I think the "does not fit the campaign setting" and "does not fit an heroic RPG" are redundant.
But that's when you need some heroes! The contrast of the bright flame of heroism against the dark and wizened narrative skin of the setting creates a certain frisson.No campaign settings rife with themes of cynicism, cowardice, greed, and/or pragmatism?
No campaign settings rife with themes of cynicism, cowardice, greed, and/or pragmatism?
Ah, I get it now.No, you have it backwards.
I think "the PCs are heroes" is a setting conceit the GM could apply - not that all settings are such. And, IF the GM does make that conceit, then "does not fit the setting" already applies.
It is a non-answer for the purposes of the survey. Please try not to call people outright liars when it isn't really called for, okay?
I'm saying they are equivocating or "being intellectual dishonesty".
We must have a completely different idea of what a class even is, in terms of interaction with the game world.I'm not taking away options, because they were never player options to begin with. Classes are options for the DM to use, when building their setting.
Same. I try to find out what is appealing about the option in question, and then determine a place that option could live in the setting. I talk it over with the player, and we figure something out.The closest I come to controlling any aspect of PC creation is asking players to re-skin certain races and classes to fit my campaign world. For ex: I have a player that wants to do the samurai thing from one of the splat books and I said fine - just change the historical reference to fit my campaign and keep all the fun bits.