reelo
Hero
What would you make of a historical game set in the Viking age, where men would be barred from, or at least heavily ostracized for becoming a magic-user?
Would you play in a campaign with racial/class limits of it fits the story?
- Thread starter Thunderfoot
- Start date
What would you make of a historical game set in the Viking age, where men would be barred from, or at least heavily ostracized for becoming a magic-user?
Thunderfoot
Hero
I would say that while that constitutes sexism in the modern sense of the word, it works in the setting. And there are other options as casting runes WAS allowed. By the same token women were never allowed in raiding parties but were allowed to train with weapons for home defense. That would mean, for me as a DM, that I would need to come up with an acceptable reason to allow a historical anachronism to exist in the context of the campaign.
Jd Smith1
Hero
I ban murder-hoboes. Would that count?
Thunderfoot
Hero
I'm not a singing hobo, I'm a stabbin' hobo...
Li Shenron
Legend
All the time.
"Anything goes" is a good idea (not the only option though) for a vanilla game of D&D for example when picking up a random adventure for a one-shot or when introducing the game to beginners. In other words, when you expect the game won't go far and therefore the setting doesn't really matter.
It is also a good idea as the starting point for a new campaign when you want to create a new homebrew setting but you don't have an idea yet: let the players choose anything they can think about, and use those as pivots for the whole setting, maybe even removing from the settings some staple races/classes they didn't choose.
The "cosmopolitan" setting approach is itself a valid fantasy setting but if done every time it makes all campaigns the same, thus for me it is not the best choice when expecting a campaign to last... unless I had ever only played a single evergreen campaign all my life (which I think many people in fact might have in mind when answering this sort of questions).
Diversity is good and should be encouraged on the game as a whole (i.e. in generic books), but too much diversity within each campaign every-single-time means too little diversity across campaigns.
"Anything goes" is a good idea (not the only option though) for a vanilla game of D&D for example when picking up a random adventure for a one-shot or when introducing the game to beginners. In other words, when you expect the game won't go far and therefore the setting doesn't really matter.
It is also a good idea as the starting point for a new campaign when you want to create a new homebrew setting but you don't have an idea yet: let the players choose anything they can think about, and use those as pivots for the whole setting, maybe even removing from the settings some staple races/classes they didn't choose.
The "cosmopolitan" setting approach is itself a valid fantasy setting but if done every time it makes all campaigns the same, thus for me it is not the best choice when expecting a campaign to last... unless I had ever only played a single evergreen campaign all my life (which I think many people in fact might have in mind when answering this sort of questions).
Diversity is good and should be encouraged on the game as a whole (i.e. in generic books), but too much diversity within each campaign every-single-time means too little diversity across campaigns.
Older Beholder
Hero
I‘m happy to play a game that is setting specific or has limited options. My preference is still for a wide selection of choice though, generally speaking.
If I’m running a game I try to be as open as possible in what I allow. Even when playing to a theme I’d rather just say what the theme is and trust the players to come up with something that fits rather than give a list of things that are/aren’t allowed, as sometimes players can come up with interesting ideas that fit, but I may not have thought of.
If I’m running a game I try to be as open as possible in what I allow. Even when playing to a theme I’d rather just say what the theme is and trust the players to come up with something that fits rather than give a list of things that are/aren’t allowed, as sometimes players can come up with interesting ideas that fit, but I may not have thought of.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
The classic medieval patriarchy is also an example of sexism. It’s present in many current d&d games.
So I think Reelo had something a bit more narrow in mind with his comment.
I've found it takes a very specially skilled and knowledgeable GM to make "historical RPG" an engaging tool for teaching cultural history. Unless we are talking about such a GM, then thanks, but I'll pass.
HaroldTheHobbit
Hero
I'm a forever DM since the eighties, and I have never ran a campaign without restrictions, looser or tighter. For me it's a necessity to be able to have some kind of campaign focus.
Some folks might enjoy having parties of somber loreheavy dwarves together with whimsy flying octopuses with big eyes and small mouth in a totally open sandbox without goals or direction, but it's not my kind of fun.
Some folks might enjoy having parties of somber loreheavy dwarves together with whimsy flying octopuses with big eyes and small mouth in a totally open sandbox without goals or direction, but it's not my kind of fun.
Baron Opal II
Legend
Limitations are fine.
I once played in a Star Wars game where the DM disallowed force users. That was disappointing for me given my proclivities nearly always playing a wizard of some sort. I discussed his goals and asked if I could play a gadgeteer. He was all smiles with that and we had a great game.
I once played in a Star Wars game where the DM disallowed force users. That was disappointing for me given my proclivities nearly always playing a wizard of some sort. I discussed his goals and asked if I could play a gadgeteer. He was all smiles with that and we had a great game.
