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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5024820" data-attributes="member: 8835">This is also a good question.One of the things I find is that I tend to play core rules, and when I start a new campaign, it's usually pretty basic.  I've figured out where elves come from, some fluff for all the main classes, etc.  As a result, I tend to not like new campaigns with new rulebooks (that I haven't seen before).In the same vein, I don't tend to like wierd races and such, because I haven't heard of them to consider where they fit into my world.At least in an initial campaign.  Once the game's been going for a bit, everyone's got the hang of what makes sense, a new book comes out, and I have time to ponder incorporating elements, then when Joe the fighter dies, and you need to make a new PC, it may make perfect sense for it to be a Lizardman SpellChaser from that lizardman country you just became allies with.I tend to GM with the mindset that it doesn't exist until I figure out where it fits and how.  Whereas my friend and fellow GM (of which I've played in numerous and lengthy campaigns) tends to let anything published into the game and doesn't tend to worry about fitting it in first.  Different approaches.Consider that one of the fluff bits I wrote for my campaign was an entire martial arts style and dojo with history, just to cover "where monks come from"  It's in my blog, somewhere.During world building, I'll figure out where each race comes from, what the clerics worship, and since clerics get so much attention, I'll take a look at making sure the other classes make sense, unless they are "socially self-explanatory."  Thus, a monk dojo or two, a wizard's guild or tower or some such, etc.  These in turn let PCs tie into the game world (because I try to give them something to hook into).</blockquote>

Verification