Would this bother you?

[roguerouge]

That was a suggested compromise. The DM has played in an Age of Worms game she has all the dungeons with them so she suggested she run that. She looked at some others but it came down to what she or I own. Budgets are real tight right now and so buying anything new is just not possible.

That's a shame, 'cause The Curse of the Crimson Throne looks very good and it's an urban campaign, which looks like it would fit your party to a T.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I wouldn't have any issues with that. Please tell me that the person complaining isn't the wife of the problem husband from your other game.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Harmon]

It bothers me to no end to play in a world that I do not know. Esp. if the GM doesn't care that i don't know it, if the GM (and other Player) do care and are helpful with common knowledge and other things then I have no problem with it.

As far as the game having a central characters- every game I have ever been in has a central PC, the trick is for the non centrals to work in their own time and the GM to work with them so they can get their glory time as well.

I know in my past I have gone into games that I did not like the setting, but because my friends were involved, and it was something I loved, I dove in (this is not the same as my hatred of some systems).

Good luck, and hope everything works out.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

My question is would it be an issue for you to play in a setting where one player knew the setting and the others did not?

Not by a long shot. There are two ways to get wet: Test the water with your foot then climb in OR jump in.

Sometimes the best way to get exposure is by jumping in.

 

[The Eternal GM]

Unless you play one hell of a competitive game, I can't fathom why one player having a lot of setting knowledge is a negative...

We tried playing Dragonlance on 3.5, but quickly stalled as only the DM understood the first thing about the Age of Mortals period for it, and we had 0% immersion.

If one player knows it all and the rest don't, then make his character knowledgeable so that you've got a good in-game reason to seek his wise council on matters of history, politics, culture, etc.

 

[RFisher]

One of the players did not want to play Kalamar because she and the other player didn't know the setting and I did and that would give me an unfair advantage.

(O_O) A gamer who didn’t want to game? ()

Of all the gamers I’ve played with, I’ve only ever seen two people turn down a game for reasons other than higher priorities. <shrug> Their loss.

 

[amethal]

It makes no sense.

There are always things the player knows and the character doesn't, and vice versa. You simply trust your fellow gamers to do their best not to metagame.

What next? Refusing to have the characters ride anywhere because one player knows more about horse riding than the other players do?

 

[DragonLancer]

It wouldn't be a problem for me. In fact, having someone at the table with some knowledge of the setting is a good thing, surely?

 

[WayneLigon]

But I am still concerned about why she feels this way. I guess I was hoping to find another reason other then the glaring one and that is she does not trust me to play fair or my roommate to run a fair game.

I assume from what you've said that she's played lots of other games with other people? Has she seen or been in a campaign ruined by someone who insisted on using metagaming knowledge of the setting to snatch the spotlight or to undermine the other players? She might be afraid that's going to happen again. Has she ever been in the position where she was the one with the special setting knowledge?

 

[Mallus]

Wouldn't bother me at all. I like to explore new things in RPG's.

Except, of course, LARP'ing where you dress as cat-people.