Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snoweel" data-source="post: 4340437" data-attributes="member: 4453">I'm well aware that settings are defined by their limitations (I was once an obsessive worldbuilder myself) and agree with your examples of published settings.However my question was about your homebrew. And specifically, why you feel it is superior to detail your setting so much that you are left with the same limitations you would have if you used a published setting - ie. arbitrary restriction of player choices.How are they all the same? The could differ by history, geography, cosmology, current events, etc.They will most certainly differ by the tales told about the exploits of your PCs once they get to work.How does including the 'kitchen sink' make them all the same?Fair enough.Sure, but where do the players get their say as to what kind of campaign they want to play in?By starting in your overly detailed homebrew (or in most published settings) you limit the players straight off the bat before they even begin discussion of what they want out of the campaign.If you start with less concrete detail you can accomodate the players first and then apply your arbitrary restrictions for flavour.This is just my point - if you didn't start with such a stockpile of unnecessary detail then you're less likely to have to tell the players that what's fun for them doesn't fit.My conclusion is drawn from the information you've provided - according to you your players seem devoted to touring your homebrew much like the fanboys of any published setting, and as the sole author of your setting how could your decisions be anything but arbitrary?We're not talking about your rights here, we're discussing functionality.Every decision you made in the creation of your homebrew was by definition arbitrary.Once again you're missing the point - the decision to run Midnight in the first place is arbitrary. From there any decisions made in light of setting cohesion are contingent on the initial arbitrary decision to run Midnight.See my point above re: Midnight.I have played in (and DMed I'm sure) games where this was ostensibly the intent of the DM. I'm sure that if a DM was having enough fun unveiling his creation he might be able to convince himself that the players were equally as invested in the experience. Who knows.No, instead you're beholden to what you've already written about your own setting.I know what theme means. Please try not to be so snarky.My question to you was why does your homebrew need to ape published campaign settings by including rigid themes that dictate the types of campaigns that can and can't be run? It's your homebrew - why go to such effort filling it with the kind of unnecessary detail that ultimately limits your opportunities and those of your players?It's a creative outlet for me too. I'm just trying to illustrate how being 'married' to your setting unnecessarily restricts what you (and your players) can do with it.Don't be so self-righteous princess.For the record, I think such narrow settings as Hyboria, Midnight and Dark Sun are all examples of settings that have atrocious replay value.I've enjoyed playing in each of them but never want to again. Actually, I might give Dark Sun another crack but I want to feel like I'm able to affect the setting.I couldn't agree with you more. But having such emotional investment as you obviously do in your 'precious' (for want of a better term) limits your players' input into deciding those boundaries.</blockquote>

Verification