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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Krensky" data-source="post: 5433831" data-attributes="member: 30936">Which is still a world building descision. You have decided to set up elements of the game world to support certain sorts of player characters. It's no different the saying, "I want gunslingers, so black powder and guns exist," and working back from there.And that goal or desire determines the answers to the questions I listed.Seems like a meaningless distinction to me, but to each their own.Those are completely different questions, not really related to world building. They're really more about running the game then designing a world.If a PC gains power as a result of a deal with a more powerful NPC, it's the GM's job to adjudicate that deal. If a Divine caster gains power by following the tenants of his faith, or a knight by upholding his oath of fealty, or a monk by following a stringent philosophy, or an infernalist by signing a pact with a devil I'd venture that it's generally accepted that it's the GM's job to decide how well the PC is living up to that deal.... I bet you thing this thread is about you. Sorry, coldn't resist. Anyway, not all GMs like collaborative world building. I personally don't have strong feelings on it, although when I'm designing a wold I hold final approval. Typically though, in my experience, most players don't have a lot of interest in it, especially on this level.Most of my answers have there basis in my most recent play, which has been Fantasy Craft, but I've tried to keep it more generic then that. Alignment in FC is mostly a mechanistic and targeting element in the rules. It's up to the GM when building the world to determine the nature of alignments (including which ones exist and what they do), what they mean in society, how they interact with each other, if divine magic exists at all, etc.And I'd argue that alignment, or rather religious dogma, does play a roll in 4e. The whole divine power source for instance. Or would you let a Cleric or the Raven Queen who started working for Orcus in play still claim he was a member in good standing with her church? Yes, the cleric's powers and such can be left intact, etc, just say their patron shifted to Orcus from the Raven Queen, but I'm addressing the non-mechanical aspects.Not really. You're assuming I don't have a similar relationship with mine. But as I said, by letting the players decide if they're living up to their churches tenants in a world where doing so gives them power (I'd guess almost every D&D world, Eberron and similar distant deity worlds are the exceptions here) means that to be consistant, you have to let them decide if the powerful NPCs they make deals with think the PCs are living up to their oaths, pacts, contracts, etc themselves.Now, you like the more, mechanistic and distant deities ala Eberon. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact it's how my current home brew works. Regardless of why that descision was made for any give world, it's still a world building choice. You make it for maximum PC archetype access. Eberon made it to be different then the other campaign settings and to support a more pulpy feel (if I remember right). I made it because it fits in with the cosmology and metaphysics (or rather, the lack there of) of the world I've been building.</blockquote>

Verification