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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9083306" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Yes, I understand that. My point is that the DM is the one that decides what makes sense in the setting. Adhering to your concept of the setting isn’t wrong. It’s perfectly fine. All it means is you care more about that than about player agency. No one’s suggesting that. I mean, whenever there’s a blockade like this, there are people looking to break (or sneak) through. I think the big question here is, what’s the reason for the blockade? Is it meant to be some kind of obstacle to be dealt with? Or is it more of a meta construct, meant to keep the characters contained in some way? If that’s the case, what’s the reason for keeping them there? I don’t think I’m placing too much on the DM here. I acknowledge that some players may be indifferent to their character’s background. But even if they are, it doesn’t mean the DM needs to be. Nobles (and many other backgrounds) suggest all kinds of potential fodder for play. Family members, obligations, powerful enemies… the DM should bring this stuff into play. Doesn’t have to be all at once, but ease them in. Get the players used to the idea. Show them what backgrounds should be. Then maybe they’ll start picking them for more than just the skills.I think it’s more that I’m saying the DM shouldn’t ignore when the player does the work.I don’t really get how someone could care about their character but not their background. In my experience, sometimes players are far too precious about backstory. I’m not faulting anyone. It’s a choice. Both choices are valid. But those circumstances were crafted by the DM. So I don’t know if I can agree with the distinction you’re making here. It would seem that most people only want the solutions the DM has already imagined to work.</blockquote>

Verification