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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6018170" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Yes D&D has worlds.  Traveller had one.  Kind of like Glorantha was Runequests one world.  I'm not saying you couldn't play either without their worlds but the world was intrinsic to the design.  Whereas with D&D it was not.  I call players with your attitude troublemakers.  Whenever a world is created there is a lot of room for innovation.  But someone who insists on breaking the ground rules of a campaign is being selfish.   Perhaps you don't understand what I mean.  Here are some examples.1.  Wanting to play race X when it doesn't exist in a particular world.2.  Wanting to play a class but not in the way it fits the world.  For example, wanting to play a paladin but not wanting to be an outlaw in a world dominated by an evil empire where they are hunted.3.  Trying to make up some background detail that doesn't fit anything in the world and then complaining when the DM suggests the closest fit.My campaigns are not always vanilla.  I admit to recruiting my groups each time and not always having the same people.  Thats on purpose.  I usually have more wanting in than I have slots for them.  I give them a lot of the flavor and world concept and then they decide if they want in.   If the campaign is about pirates on the high seas, it's perfect fine to say your not interested.  It's not fine though to want to play a desert nomad when in fact there are only islands in a world made mostly of water.The final decision is the DMs.  No one is arguing players can't contribute ideas to the back story.  I'm not even against the player conceiving an idea based on what he knows of the world that fits and the DM going with it.  But if it doesn't fit the DM has the right to say no and then work with the player to try and find alternatives.  He doesn't have to just say yes and then bend his world all out of wack to accomodate it.I agree it's a joint process.  But any DM that lets a player take over the campaign and change it's essential flavor isn't much of a DM.  If the DM has really put in effort to make a fun exciting campaign concept then that should be defended.  Of course if the DM does no prep work then he can accept anything but thats not a DM I have much interest playing with.</blockquote>

Verification