So why can't you help make a restricted campaign world your own?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

In the locked thread there were some posters who talked about a campaign being built by both the DM and the players. They were acting like a restricted campaign can't be built by the players and the DM. Why can't a game of nothing but elven PC's still make the world their own? Why do the admission of other races as PC options, for example, equal working together and building the campaign world?

What is restricted is the race or class, there is nothing wrong with using what you have been given and working from their to build that world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obviously you are not talking to me, so I cannot, adequately, answer your question.

However, I imagine there are numerous individuals who do not want to create restricted campaign settings and that alone is sufficient to merit a desire not to participate in the process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm Grimmy and I approve this message.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So... if you make it together, was it really that restricted? If you made it together, that was a decision you all made. I would think. Otherwise you didn't all make it together... If that makes sense.

So yes, you can work together to make a restricted world.

However, if you were given a restricted world and then told you could work on it together, you did just lose quiet a bit of that ownership thing. I mean if you agree to it its probably okay, but its sort of awkward to call it your own if you didn't get a say in something.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

IMHO there is no right or wrong way to create a game world there is only what works for your group or does not work for your group.

Silver Crusade

MrSin wrote:

So... if you make it together, was it really that restricted? If you made it together, that was a decision you all made. I would think. Otherwise you didn't all make it together... If that makes sense.

So yes, you can work together to make a restricted world.

However, if you were given a restricted world and then told you could work on it together, you did just lose quiet a bit of that ownership thing. I mean if you agree to it its probably okay, but its sort of awkward to call it your own if you didn't get a say in something.

What I am talking about is a DM, for example, says he is going to run an all elven campaign. Everyone agrees to this. Now, that the restriction has been established, you are able to help shape the world by your actions, while staying with in that racial restriction.


shallowsoul wrote:
MrSin wrote:

So... if you make it together, was it really that restricted? If you made it together, that was a decision you all made. I would think. Otherwise you didn't all make it together... If that makes sense.

So yes, you can work together to make a restricted world.

However, if you were given a restricted world and then told you could work on it together, you did just lose quiet a bit of that ownership thing. I mean if you agree to it its probably okay, but its sort of awkward to call it your own if you didn't get a say in something.

What I am talking about is a DM, for example, says he is going to run an all elven campaign. Everyone agrees to this. Now, that the restriction has been established, you are able to help shape the world by your actions, while staying with in that racial restriction.

Okay, but you all worked together to decide that it was elven. So it works fine. Sounds the same as someone saying "Guys can we all be elves?" and everyone says "Yeah sure thing!". To me anyway.

Is this another one of those threads that's supposed to infer someone is having bad wrong fun or doing it wrong or something? I mean... Technically you can do it whatever way and as long as everyone is cool with it who cares.


shallowsoul wrote:
MrSin wrote:

So... if you make it together, was it really that restricted? If you made it together, that was a decision you all made. I would think. Otherwise you didn't all make it together... If that makes sense.

So yes, you can work together to make a restricted world.

However, if you were given a restricted world and then told you could work on it together, you did just lose quiet a bit of that ownership thing. I mean if you agree to it its probably okay, but its sort of awkward to call it your own if you didn't get a say in something.

What I am talking about is a DM, for example, says he is going to run an all elven campaign. Everyone agrees to this. Now, that the restriction has been established, you are able to help shape the world by your actions, while staying with in that racial restriction.

Well, in that case, the person who doesn't want to play an elf is going to have the same problems he would if the world was being made strictly by the GM.

But yes, there is nothing specific to a setting being restrictive that keeps players from contributing/collaborating on it. Whether they collaborate on setting the restriction or just on filling in the details once the limits are defined.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never had any problem with running restrictive settings or stories.

Any time I've said something like "this game takes place in a fantasy-history based on greek myths" no one has said "I wanna play a half-orc! Stop stifling me!"

If they did, I'd say something like "how about a semi-monster type character like Kalibos from Clash of the Titans?"

I don't get where all the recent argument is coming from.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
I don't get where all the recent argument is coming from.

Exaggeration, escalation, and thread lock-ination I'd imagine...ation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To echo others on this thread, there's no right way, wrong way, better way, or worse way to do it.

My own preference will always be for the GM to build the world and the players to influence that world through their characters, with anything else being by specific agreement.

The fun part of the game for me is seeing how the characters interact with that world, how their actions (or inactions) change it. Generally though, I prefer not to give players "god powers" outside of what their character can directly influence. One exception would be when they've asked for a race to be introduced and I've agreed, in which case I usually want them to help set that race and its homeland up, another would be letting them set up their hometown or anything else specific to their background if the setting only has sparse information on it.

Any restrictions, be they race, class, or whatever else tend to be flavor-based.

Beyond all of that though, I want the players to go out, explore, and poke and prod at that world via their characters as much as they want. If they end up influencing the course of a world war, the creation or destruction of an empire, or the opening of a portal to hell that leaves the place swarming with demons that's exactly the sort of thing I want to see them doing, and the type of player that enjoys that sort of thing is the type of player I look for.


MrSin wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
I don't get where all the recent argument is coming from.
Exaggeration, escalation, and thread lock-ination I'd imagine...ation.

And probably badwrongfunination more than anything else. People just don't seem to like finding out that people play the game differently to themselves and either want them to conform to their own preferences or want to shove that displeasure in their face rather than politely acknowledging "that style isn't for me, but all that matters is that you enjoy it, and your preferences are no less valid than mine are."

It may well be down to frustration that they, personally, can't get into a game that plays the way they want to play - but it's incredibly selfish for them to take that out on everyone else that plays differently and imply that somehow other people should put their preferences aside to accommodate their own. It'd be like me going on a rant on how Warhammer 40K players have ruined wargaming by insisting on fighting fair games with balanced sides and rules that are written for gameism before simulation. They haven't "ruined wargaming" at all, they're doing what they enjoy and any issues I have with that are my problem, not theirs. (Oh, and just for the record, I actually enjoy a 40K game just as much as the next guy*)

*Edit: At least, I do if you don't mind using rules from ten years ago, I haven't bought a new rulebook in aaaages ;)

Project Manager

Removed some posts calling out individual poster. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Silver Crusade

My apologies on that one.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Which locked thread? There are so many of them...

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Which locked thread? There are so many of them...

Well, they all seem to touch on the same subject and get the same active posters ;-)

(except for those locked Rules threads AFAIK)

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:


Is this another one of those threads that's supposed to infer someone is having bad wrong fun or doing it wrong or something? I mean... Technically you can do it whatever way and as long as everyone is cool with it who cares.

Yeah pretty much. Then when it goes on for 2000+ posts or so gets locked. Then it starts up again. I sometimes wonder if the OP had some sort of truly major falling out with a player(s). Its a issue the OP just cant seem to let go. Nor accept that their might be a difference of opionion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this is a fallacy of notation.

If everyone agrees to be an elf then what happens when someone doesn't agree to be an elf...

Divide by zero... That's what happens. Subscript out of range. If someone has not agreed to be an elf then everyone has not agreed to be an elf.

If the question instead is 'can tables agree to restrictive campaigns' then the answer is absolutely yes. It happens 99.9% of the time. The only times it doesn't happen are

  • race is a button issue for the player so his consent to an elf was a lie or begrudging acceptance with a hope to change your mind

    or

  • Player that knows race is a button issue for you
  • That player loves pushing your buttons so invalidates original race agreeement to see how you'll react.


  • 7 people marked this as a favorite.

    The reason this issue keeps spawning threads like a rabid Everquest server spawns mobs is because every time someone tries to resolve this with some reasonable approach such as "Well, it really all just depends on whether the group you are playing with are reasonable, mature, empathetic adults", all that does is spawn a series of thread derailments to define "group, reasonable, mature, empathetic and adult". And then each of those spawns subthreads to argue the finer points of language, rhetoric and misapplied logical fallacies.

    Because after all, it's not about finding a solution. It's about beating down the opposition and spiking the football in the endzone while the crowd goes wild.

    Silver Crusade

    Now in all fairness these are message boards and if nobody is posting anything then they have failed as said board.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Joshua wrote:


    Interesting game... The only way to win is not to play.


    You'd think the moderators would have a defense technique against people who post simply for the purposes of getting people riled up.


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:

    The reason this issue keeps spawning threads like a rabid Everquest server spawns mobs is because every time someone tries to resolve this with some reasonable approach such as "Well, it really all just depends on whether the group you are playing with are reasonable, mature, empathetic adults", all that does is spawn a series of thread derailments to define "group, reasonable, mature, empathetic and adult". And then each of those spawns subthreads to argue the finer points of language, rhetoric and misapplied logical fallacies.

    Because after all, it's not about finding a solution. It's about beating down the opposition and spiking the football in the endzone while the crowd goes wild.

    You just described 90% of this forum.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Such a low percentage. We must try harder.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    I am afraid that I have to admit that sometimes I enjoy watching the carnage myself. I find myself fascinated by the way these debates go, and I have my own triggers so find myself leaping onto the field from the sidelines on my own pet peeves or hot buttons too.

    So I certainly can't claim to be taking the high road. Although lately I've really tried to stop doing end zone dances and spiking the ball in the cornerback's face. Really. I've tried.


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:

    I am afraid that I have to admit that sometimes I enjoy watching the carnage myself. I find myself fascinated by the way these debates go, and I have my own triggers so find myself leaping onto the field from the sidelines on my own pet peeves or hot buttons too.

    So I certainly can't claim to be taking the high road. Although lately I've really tried to stop doing end zone dances and spiking the ball in the cornerback's face. Really. I've tried.

    Face isn't the best place for spiking anyhow.

    Liberty's Edge

    Adamantine Dragon wrote:

    The reason this issue keeps spawning threads like a rabid Everquest server spawns mobs is because every time someone tries to resolve this with some reasonable approach such as "Well, it really all just depends on whether the group you are playing with are reasonable, mature, empathetic adults", all that does is spawn a series of thread derailments to define "group, reasonable, mature, empathetic and adult". And then each of those spawns subthreads to argue the finer points of language, rhetoric and misapplied logical fallacies.

    Because after all, it's not about finding a solution. It's about beating down the opposition and spiking the football in the endzone while the crowd goes wild.

    Well said AD well said. Its not even so much posting a thread about a topic I disagree with. I may disagree yet respect that. Its that its the same topic reworded differently. Too bad the flagging options dont inlcude a flamebating or trolling option.

    Josh M. wrote:


    You just described 90% of this forum.

    i would not putthe percentage so high. Maybe 70-80%. Either to get a reaction. Increase post count. Or a echo chamber validation thread. Im all for debating a topic. Yet if before posting a topic a posters that creates the thread mind is already made up on the topic. Well it seems reduandant to ask for feedback. Espcialyl if nothing said in a thread even remteoly has a chance of changing the person mind.


    Ruick wrote:
    IMHO there is no right or wrong way to create a game world there is only what works for your group or does not work for your group.

    +1

    This should end the thread. There really is nothing else to see here or say when it comes to these silly "why can't you play the way you want to?" threads.

    People must be really bored to keep hammering away at these horse bones.


    Vincent Takeda wrote:

    I think this is a fallacy of notation.

    If everyone agrees to be an elf then what happens when someone doesn't agree to be an elf...

    Divide by zero... That's what happens. Subscript out of range. If someone has not agreed to be an elf then everyone has not agreed to be an elf.

    If the question instead is 'can tables agree to restrictive campaigns' then the answer is absolutely yes. It happens 99.9% of the time. The only times it doesn't happen are

  • race is a button issue for the player so his consent to an elf was a lie or begrudging acceptance with a hope to change your mind

    or

  • Player that knows race is a button issue for you
  • That player loves pushing your buttons so invalidates original race agreeement to see how you'll react.
  • It can also mean they agreed then reneged.


    Arssanguinus wrote:
    Vincent Takeda wrote:

    I think this is a fallacy of notation.

    If everyone agrees to be an elf then what happens when someone doesn't agree to be an elf...

    Divide by zero... That's what happens. Subscript out of range. If someone has not agreed to be an elf then everyone has not agreed to be an elf.

    If the question instead is 'can tables agree to restrictive campaigns' then the answer is absolutely yes. It happens 99.9% of the time. The only times it doesn't happen are

  • race is a button issue for the player so his consent to an elf was a lie or begrudging acceptance with a hope to change your mind

    or

  • Player that knows race is a button issue for you
  • That player loves pushing your buttons so invalidates original race agreeement to see how you'll react.
  • It can also mean they agreed then reneged.

    Generally, I suspect it's not really about agreeing and/or reneging, it's about wanting to play in a game with this particular GM and/or group but not really being happy with some of the restrictions, implicit or explicit. "My character concept is so cool, he'll have to make an exception for me!"


    thejeff wrote:
    Arssanguinus wrote:
    Vincent Takeda wrote:

    I think this is a fallacy of notation.

    If everyone agrees to be an elf then what happens when someone doesn't agree to be an elf...

    Divide by zero... That's what happens. Subscript out of range. If someone has not agreed to be an elf then everyone has not agreed to be an elf.

    If the question instead is 'can tables agree to restrictive campaigns' then the answer is absolutely yes. It happens 99.9% of the time. The only times it doesn't happen are

  • race is a button issue for the player so his consent to an elf was a lie or begrudging acceptance with a hope to change your mind

    or

  • Player that knows race is a button issue for you
  • That player loves pushing your buttons so invalidates original race agreeement to see how you'll react.
  • It can also mean they agreed then reneged.

    Generally, I suspect it's not really about agreeing and/or reneging, it's about wanting to play in a game with this particular GM and/or group but not really being happy with some of the restrictions, implicit or explicit. "My character concept is so cool, he'll have to make an exception for me!"

    But by agreeing to the campaign you sort of implicitly agree to its strictures. If you feel "well, I'll agree but I shouldn't be held to it, because' I'm not all that sorry for your disappointment.


    Arssanguinus wrote:
    thejeff wrote:
    Arssanguinus wrote:
    Vincent Takeda wrote:

    I think this is a fallacy of notation.

    If everyone agrees to be an elf then what happens when someone doesn't agree to be an elf...

    Divide by zero... That's what happens. Subscript out of range. If someone has not agreed to be an elf then everyone has not agreed to be an elf.

    If the question instead is 'can tables agree to restrictive campaigns' then the answer is absolutely yes. It happens 99.9% of the time. The only times it doesn't happen are

  • race is a button issue for the player so his consent to an elf was a lie or begrudging acceptance with a hope to change your mind

    or

  • Player that knows race is a button issue for you
  • That player loves pushing your buttons so invalidates original race agreeement to see how you'll react.
  • It can also mean they agreed then reneged.

    Generally, I suspect it's not really about agreeing and/or reneging, it's about wanting to play in a game with this particular GM and/or group but not really being happy with some of the restrictions, implicit or explicit. "My character concept is so cool, he'll have to make an exception for me!"

    But by agreeing to the campaign you sort of implicitly agree to its strictures. If you feel "well, I'll agree but I shouldn't be held to it, because' I'm not all that sorry for your disappointment.

    Nor am I, to be honest.

    But it's human nature. You get excited about an idea and think there must be a way to fit it in. And sometimes the GM will like the idea and with some tweaking find a way to make it fit. And sometimes he won't.

    Nor are all limits as blatant and obvious as "No Drow" or "Only core races". Maybe the GM didn't mention banning half-celestial driders because he didn't even imagine the concept. Maybe catfolk are cool in general but when he realizes you're planning an anime style catgirl, that won't fit in.
    Conflict arises and limits aren't always what they were thought to be at first. In either direction.

    And honestly, as a GM, I'm as likely to turn down a specific character concept as not fitting than to issue blatant bans on whole races or classes.


    thejeff wrote:
    Arssanguinus wrote:
    thejeff wrote:
    Arssanguinus wrote:
    Vincent Takeda wrote:

    I think this is a fallacy of notation.

    If everyone agrees to be an elf then what happens when someone doesn't agree to be an elf...

    Divide by zero... That's what happens. Subscript out of range. If someone has not agreed to be an elf then everyone has not agreed to be an elf.

    If the question instead is 'can tables agree to restrictive campaigns' then the answer is absolutely yes. It happens 99.9% of the time. The only times it doesn't happen are

  • race is a button issue for the player so his consent to an elf was a lie or begrudging acceptance with a hope to change your mind

    or

  • Player that knows race is a button issue for you
  • That player loves pushing your buttons so invalidates original race agreeement to see how you'll react.
  • It can also mean they agreed then reneged.

    Generally, I suspect it's not really about agreeing and/or reneging, it's about wanting to play in a game with this particular GM and/or group but not really being happy with some of the restrictions, implicit or explicit. "My character concept is so cool, he'll have to make an exception for me!"

    But by agreeing to the campaign you sort of implicitly agree to its strictures. If you feel "well, I'll agree but I shouldn't be held to it, because' I'm not all that sorry for your disappointment.

    Nor am I, to be honest.

    But it's human nature. You get excited about an idea and think there must be a way to fit it in. And sometimes the GM will like the idea and with some tweaking find a way to make it fit. And sometimes he won't.

    Nor are all limits as blatant and obvious as "No Drow" or "Only core races". Maybe the GM didn't mention banning half-celestial driders because he didn't even imagine the concept. Maybe catfolk are cool in general but when he realizes you're planning an anime style catgirl, that won't fit in.
    Conflict arises and limits aren't always what they were thought to be at...

    Sure. But one reason for not fitting is nonexistence of the particular race.


    Arssanguinus wrote:
    Sure. But one reason for not fitting is nonexistence of the particular race.

    Of course, but it's far from the only one. And they're not all as obvious and neatly defined as "No X exists".


    Call of Cthulhu is, by the logic shallowsoul has a problem with, the worst setting in the world.

    But that works, because those who play it accept that they have very little control over the setting.

    Almost as if we need to stop going after people's playstyles just to defend our own.


    I find I'm more restrictive when it comes to player backstory. You tell me what race and class you are and I'll tell you where you're from and what your life may have been like, and you can run with it or pick another thing. It works because only a few of my players are familiar enough with my setting through playing in a lot of games that they know any of that information to choose for themselves.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
    shallowsoul wrote:

    In the locked thread there were some posters who talked about a campaign being built by both the DM and the players. They were acting like a restricted campaign can't be built by the players and the DM. Why can't a game of nothing but elven PC's still make the world their own? Why do the admission of other races as PC options, for example, equal working together and building the campaign world?

    What is restricted is the race or class, there is nothing wrong with using what you have been given and working from their to build that world.

    Presumably, if you are running a game where everyone is playing an elf PC, they agreed to play that race. I would like to think that you didn't just guilt or force an elf only campaign on them. In fact, from what I recall of past discussions, hardly anyone ever argued that restrictive game were wrong, it was just that some of the starting assumptions of race and class should be decided by group consensus. If all but one person is gungho about elves only, than the one dissenter should either play an elf, look for some sort of compromise that works with everyone else, or sit out the game.

    But to get back to the point, there are various degrees of healthy collaboration, at the most restrictive, the PCs are only influencing the world through their actions. Somewhere in the middle Players are designing the nations, where races/classes they are interested in fit, inventing gods that fit their race, etc. At the most extreme they are showing up with homebrew races and classes, or creating variant rule systems to fit their feel. Either method is fine depending on the DM and the group


    I think there's a difference between: "I already made up this setting and it is inviolate and I will not change anything nor bend anything in any way, do you agree to play in it? Yes or no!"

    vs.

    "I have this setting I've been working on; I wonder what you guys think of it -- do I need to add anything? Is there anything else you'd totally want to see in it?"

    I've been told more than once that I'm probably one of the only people in the history of gaming who has ever tried the second approach, though, so I stopped participating in all the threads that assume the first scenario is the only one that can ever happen.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    I think there's a difference between: "I already made up this setting and it is inviolate and I will not change anything nor bend anything in any way, do you agree to play in it? Yes or no!"

    vs.

    "I have this setting I've been working on; I wonder what you guys think of it -- do I need to add anything? Is there anything else you'd totally want to see in it?"

    I've been told more than once that I'm probably one of the only people in the history of gaming who has ever tried the second approach, though, so I stopped participating in all the threads that assume the first scenario is the only one that can ever happen.

    Of course the reality is that most games are not at either end of these extremes, most are more like:

    "I have this setting I've been working on; I'd love to run a campaign in it so I'd like to review the setting with you to get a feel for it. I haven't had time to introduce every possible race, class, or rules addendum, but it's pretty extensive and should satisfy most requests. If you really want to do something that I haven't yet incorporated, I may or may not be able to adjust the setting in time to play this campaign, and if I do have time, I'll need to work with you a lot to make sure we're on the same page. Here's my campaign world guidelines, let me know what you think."


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    "I have this setting I've been working on; I'd love to run a campaign in it so I'd like to review the setting with you to get a feel for it. I haven't had time to introduce every possible race, class, or rules addendum, but it's pretty extensive and should satisfy most requests. If you really want to do something that I haven't yet incorporated, I may or may not be able to adjust the setting in time to play this campaign, and if I do have time, I'll need to work with you a lot to make sure we're on the same page. Here's my campaign world guidelines, let me know what you think."

    The question is whether "I may or may not be able to adjust the setting" means "I will try very hard to do so" (as I've said) or "I might claim I will but it's not my job to do so and you know I damn well won't" (as shallowsoul has stated more or less point-blank). It's not an absolute thing, but people do tend towards one or the other of those. In other words -- you're either willing to let players add stuff, and/or redo stuff for them, or you're not. Or, as I've been told by at least 4-5 different people now, "either your setting is fully-formed and pure, or it's a kitchen sink."


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ellis Mirari wrote:
    I find I'm more restrictive when it comes to player backstory. You tell me what race and class you are and I'll tell you where you're from and what your life may have been like, and you can run with it or pick another thing. It works because only a few of my players are familiar enough with my setting through playing in a lot of games that they know any of that information to choose for themselves.

    An angry mob is probably headed your way by now.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    "I have this setting I've been working on; I'd love to run a campaign in it so I'd like to review the setting with you to get a feel for it. I haven't had time to introduce every possible race, class, or rules addendum, but it's pretty extensive and should satisfy most requests. If you really want to do something that I haven't yet incorporated, I may or may not be able to adjust the setting in time to play this campaign, and if I do have time, I'll need to work with you a lot to make sure we're on the same page. Here's my campaign world guidelines, let me know what you think."
    The question is whether "I may or may not be able to adjust the setting" means "I will try very hard to do so" (as I've said) or "I might claim I will but it's not my job to do so and you know I damn well won't" (as shallowsoul has stated more or less point-blank). It's not an absolute thing, but people do tend towards one or the other of those. In other words -- you're either willing to let players add stuff, and/or redo stuff for them, or you're not. Or, as I've been told by at least 4-5 different people now, "either your setting is fully-formed and pure, or it's a kitchen sink."

    Or you really are in the middle and require more information. There are some few of us who exist there in the middle. And may or may not really can mean may or may not. Just because someone wants it doesn't always mean they get it. Should you try? Sure. Should it be a cinch that it will absolutely happen? No.


    knightnday wrote:
    There are some few of us who exist there in the middle.

    In your case, KND, your posts have consistently shown this to be true. And I salute you for it. However, you're in a minority, because most of the people claiming to be "in the middle" then turn around and go on and on about not being willing to "ruin" their "setting purity," as shallowsoul and Arss and Sissyl and I don't know how many others always do.

    Silver Crusade

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    I think there's a difference between: "I already made up this setting and it is inviolate and I will not change anything nor bend anything in any way, do you agree to play in it? Yes or no!"

    vs.

    "I have this setting I've been working on; I wonder what you guys think of it -- do I need to add anything? Is there anything else you'd totally want to see in it?"

    I've been told more than once that I'm probably one of the only people in the history of gaming who has ever tried the second approach, though, so I stopped participating in all the threads that assume the first scenario is the only one that can ever happen.

    This is exactly how I propose my games.

    Okay lads, I have a game I would like to run and it consists of everyone playing elves only. Are you interested?

    Yes: Okay lets get started with character creation.

    No: Okay, I'll put the game to the side incase anyone changes their mind.

    So who's running instead?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
    shallowsoul wrote:
    This is exactly how I propose my games.

    Which is different from Kirth's second example, the one that he says has been called out as never being encountered outside his games.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Which is different from Kirth's second example, the one that he says has been called out as never being encountered outside his games.

    Right. It's in fact a textbook example of the first scenario: "Here's the campaign, take it or leave it." The setting is totally fleshed out before the players ever get to look at it, so there's no opportunity for them to say, "let's put a tribe of elves over here!" or "can we make some giant waterfalls over there?"

    The second scenario is what I did with silverhair in my game: "Can we put some orc tribes up here in viking-land so I can be a half-orc? And can we add Monte Cook's runeblade class for him?" And I made these happen, without "damaging" the setting at all.

    Silver Crusade

    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    shallowsoul wrote:
    This is exactly how I propose my games.
    Which is different from Kirth's second example, the one that he says has been called out as never being encountered outside his games.

    Must not get out much then.

    Silver Crusade

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Which is different from Kirth's second example, the one that he says has been called out as never being encountered outside his games.
    Right. It's in fact a textbook example of the first scenario: "Here's the campaign, take it or leave it." The setting is totally fleshed out before the players ever get to look at it, so there's no opportunity for them to say, "let's put a tribe of elves over here!" or "can we make some giant waterfalls over there?"

    It's not the job of the players to tell me there should be a tribe. If they want one then theyneed to form one 'in-game'.

    1 to 50 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / So why can't you help make a restricted campaign world your own? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.