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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 9083610" data-attributes="member: 9053">Sure. Players make choices for skills/backgrounds/species/class/sub-classes with the idea that they are going to be relevant. If those choices don't mix with what the DM plans for the world, the choice doesn't matter. Now the DM may be able to help mitigate this by telling the group that a particular choice won't apply to the game, but how many do that? And if you do that, depending how much of that you do, you can severely restrict what options are in play.I think the best example I can think of that may make sense is how a character can pick favored enemies or terrain types. If the campaign never includes those options, the player is going to feel like they have less of a character as a result. Or (in previous editions) how a character playing a rogue feels like they have less of an impact in an undead or construct heavy game.If a DM designs the world and doesn't collaborate with the characters that are going to play in it, a character might make a choice that lines up with the game and get a lot of extra connection to the campaign.  The rest of the group is likely going to feel left out.The real difference for me is the world that's not designed with the players in mind is something that you visit, where as one where they do matter feels like something you live in. The difference is that the first feels like a D&D game and the second feels more like a world.There's nothing wrong with a game feeling like a D&D game (that's what it is, after all) but it also means that I'm less invested in it. I care less about the world elements, since they're just places and names. If I'm lucky enough to have a character that fits in with the world, that will help, but I'd much prefer that to not be due to chance.</blockquote>

Verification