Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2889616" data-attributes="member: 26473">I don't know that a D&amp;D game is inherently less subject to setting constraints, but since I'm an inveterate homebrewer, it's fairly easy for me to say, &quot;No, doesn't exist, sorry,&quot; given that I am THE authority on the game-world. Playing in a published setting with a number of supplements (sometimes a very LARGE number of supplements!) does remove the &quot;easy out&quot; as you say.Still, it's the game master's call, whether for reasons of setting or campaign management or personal experience or whatever.Which is in fact what I did - I agreed that a character with strong religious convictions would be an asset, and that perhaps he could consider a character with a different connection to a religious institution, and suggested as a starting point examples such as a former priest or minister who left the church, or someone who was contemplating entering the seminary, et cetera following a stint in the Legion.In any case, the onus for change was on the player, where, IMHO, it belongs.Like what?Be specific - what changes would YOU make in this case to make the &quot;rest of the issues go away?&quot;Your repeated use of the phrase &quot;control issues&quot; comes across as a backhand slap at those who choose to limit what material goes into their games. Wanting to play in an internally-consistent world is not about &quot;control,&quot; Shadowslayer - it's about fostering that suspension of disbelief I referred to earlier. Most &quot;kitchen-sink&quot; settings strain my credulity beyond the breaking point with their lack of internal cohesion. It takes me out of the game - I stop seeing the world through my character's eyes, and start seeing it as an encounter table with window-dressing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Shaman, post: 2889616, member: 26473"] I don't know that a [i]D&D[/i] game is inherently less subject to setting constraints, but since I'm an inveterate homebrewer, it's fairly easy for me to say, "No, doesn't exist, sorry," given that I am THE authority on the game-world. Playing in a published setting with a number of supplements (sometimes a very LARGE number of supplements!) does remove the "easy out" as you say. Still, it's the game master's call, whether for reasons of setting or campaign management or personal experience or whatever.Which is in fact what I did - I agreed that a character with strong religious convictions would be an asset, and that perhaps he could consider a character with a different connection to a religious institution, and suggested as a starting point examples such as a former priest or minister who left the church, or someone who was contemplating entering the seminary, [i]et cetera[/i] following a stint in the Legion. In any case, the onus for change was on the [U]player[/U], where, IMHO, it belongs.Like what? Be specific - what changes would YOU make in this case to make the "rest of the issues go away?"Your repeated use of the phrase "control issues" comes across as a backhand slap at those who choose to limit what material goes into their games. Wanting to play in an internally-consistent world is not about "control," [b]Shadowslayer[/b] - it's about fostering that suspension of disbelief I referred to earlier. Most "kitchen-sink" settings strain my credulity beyond the breaking point with their lack of internal cohesion. It takes me out of the game - I stop seeing the world through my character's eyes, and start seeing it as an encounter table with window-dressing. [/QUOTE]

Verification