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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6765862" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Good question! I have no idea what they would be like as players though, so I can't really say.Generally, what I like in players are those who are into role-playing their character believably (and if they are the method actor type, that's even better), and who are on-board with my world (whatever it might be in that case).This brings up a good point, that I think might be important enough to add to the original post (let's see if I get to it). Does it make a difference whether the world was created for your group of players, or whether you are coming into a pre-existing world, perhaps with years of development behind it, perhaps with players coming and going?I'm generally referring to the latter (which is where the examples of authors with developed worlds came from).I agree that the worlds of most novels are created differently than what I'm talking about. Novels are intrinsically and by definition about a story. I would assert that role-playing games are not necessarily about stories (nor are they necessarily games for that matter, but that's another topic).It seems those who potentially have issues (most of which are qualified rather than automatic) are in the situation where the DM is creating a campaign specifically with the intention of running it for a defined group to which they are a part of. From that perspective, I agree that it is pretty heavy handed to make a game that isn't going to appeal to their players.The types of world-building I'm primarily speaking of involve world-building distinct from any group of players. Even if you wanted to, you couldn't create the world specifically around players if you aren't sure who those players are going to be and you are planning on running the world extensively (and potentially with different groups). From that angle, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me if a player were to come into my Middle-Earth or Westeron (just an example, I actually have no familiarity with Game or Thrones) and ask to play a wookie. Maybe they just don't understand what my world is about. Generally, I try to make sure players are extremely clear on what the world parameters are before beginning the game. I also send out invitations to players, and I have more potential players than I can accommodate in a particular game. For that reason, I sometimes run short theme adventures with different characters and players not connected to the main campaign. Some of them are likely to be broader in scope, but they are generally set within my world (or at least multiverse) so there still aren't going to be wookies (for example; if Spelljamming is an appropriate element, I'm sure I could make up a wookiish type of race).I've also never personally experience a DM who didn't allow some degree of collaboration in the stage of character creation (unless there was an important thematic reason). For instance, its generally considered a desirable contribution to have your players come up with some family members (NPC creation), and defining a home village in general terms is rarely frowned upon. Having your village ravaged by gnolls, on the other hand, may or may not be appropriate based on a number of other world-specific concerns.It seems to me, then, that there are two specific additional things going on here:1) Confusion as to whether the world is being created now and to be used with a specific group, vs whether it is a pre-created world designed to be used for a number of potential campaigns with a number of potential players.2) Misinterpretation of how strict a world-building DM is likely to be regarding initial character situation in the world.</blockquote>

Verification