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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2528715" data-attributes="member: 22779">^ So you figure that a priest, a rogue and a paladin all find themselves in the same place frequently enough that the makings of an adventuring party doesn't stretch the bounds of random chance.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Does sound like the good start to a joke though:A priest, a paladin and a rogue walk into a bar...  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Seeing your example though, I can see why we have such a problem coming together on this.  I've always designed my campaigns based on the mechanics, even in my 1e days I did this.  One of my favourite homebrews was an outgrowth of an arguement with a friend of mine over who would win between clerics and wizards.  A purely mechanical arguement led to a five year campaign under a number of different groups.  But, I've never started from the point of view of, "This is the world as it is." rather than "How would the world be if X is true?"In the end, it's more a question of personal preference.  I have difficulty ignoring the impact of mechanics on a campaign setting.  Obviously.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I don't like the idea of ignoring the RAW and making the RAW shoehorn into a campaign setting.  I would rather work from the other direction, simply because it reduces the amount of work I have to do.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  IMO, when you start with a setting and then try to make it fit into a particular ruleset, then you wind up with a boatload of house rules and ad hoc reasons for the existence of various elements.  I don't like that.  It's not my style of gaming.  Mostly becuase different settings would claim X and then completely ignore it.  The 1% concept being a particularly obvious suspect.  I understand where you're coming from, I just don't subscribe to those assumptions when creating a campaign setting.  I would much prefer that an element fits with existing mechanics than make an exception for a particular element, particularly if the only reason I'm making that assumption is narrative based.I'm not saying you're wrong S'mon.  At least, not anymore <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> .  Just that the assumptions you start from are radically different than the ones I come from.</blockquote>

Verification