Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9091434" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I'm not sure I see all that much collaborative world building in Critical Role, unless you have info I do not.&nbsp; Matt is a pretty old school DM.&nbsp; Matt and his players obviously work together a great deal on backstories (if Matt uses Backgrounds it's not obvious) and the players have a lot of freedom on choosing what they do.&nbsp; I do the same with my players and pretty much always have.&nbsp; But there's a difference between Sam building a backstory where in campaign 2 where he's [ISPOILER]playing a goblin that was originally a halfling that had been cursed (reincarnated?) as a goblin[/ISPOILER] and having narrative control over the world outside of his PC.&nbsp; Other than the occasional &quot;How do you do this&quot; of course.&nbsp; But Matt is definitely the referee and makes the final call on what the players can and cannot do.Detailed backgrounds? Check.&nbsp; Personal goals? Check.&nbsp; Character and inter-party relationship growth? Check.&nbsp; All those things being stuff I've seen in D&amp;D for decades?&nbsp; Check.These kind of things are nothing new because D&amp;D rules have always been just the starting point for the game.&nbsp; It doesn't tell you how to build relationships, political alliances or any number of other things that some games have rules for. But when people sit down to play make-believe things like this will happen unless there are guardrails in place to stop them.NOTE: I haven't started campaign 3 of Critical role.&nbsp; For whatever reasons I started with 2 and then went back to 1 which I'm still working on.&nbsp; But I'm assuming nothing dramatic has changed between 2 and 3.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9091434, member: 6801845"] I'm not sure I see all that much collaborative world building in Critical Role, unless you have info I do not. Matt is a pretty old school DM. Matt and his players obviously work together a great deal on backstories (if Matt uses Backgrounds it's not obvious) and the players have a lot of freedom on choosing what they do. I do the same with my players and pretty much always have. But there's a difference between Sam building a backstory where in campaign 2 where he's [ISPOILER]playing a goblin that was originally a halfling that had been cursed (reincarnated?) as a goblin[/ISPOILER] and having narrative control over the world outside of his PC. Other than the occasional "How do you do this" of course. But Matt is definitely the referee and makes the final call on what the players can and cannot do. Detailed backgrounds? Check. Personal goals? Check. Character and inter-party relationship growth? Check. All those things being stuff I've seen in D&D for decades? Check. These kind of things are nothing new because D&D rules have always been just the starting point for the game. It doesn't tell you how to build relationships, political alliances or any number of other things that some games have rules for. But when people sit down to play make-believe things like this will happen unless there are guardrails in place to stop them. NOTE: I haven't started campaign 3 of Critical role. For whatever reasons I started with 2 and then went back to 1 which I'm still working on. But I'm assuming nothing dramatic has changed between 2 and 3. [/QUOTE]

Verification