Player's adding to the world is not a bad thing

Any time there's a That Guy thread it seems like there's at least one forever GM that has an autistic meltdown over a player contributing to the world in some way, whether in their backstory or in a passing comment.
example:
>Player: I was born in a village that was attacked by orcs
>GM: NO VILLAGES HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY ORCS REEEEEEEEEEE
Your job as GM isn't to craft the next big fantasy epic, your job is providing players with opportunities and stories in a fantasy world.
Stop being That DM.

You're right, but to a lesser extent, a player who forces this opinion on someone is no better.

That's a given OP.

A stubborn DM who refuses to let the players play around in their world or a player who goes to outlandish and refuses to back down
examples inurgashPlayer:i quote the philospher urgash to unspire the soldiers
DM: REEEEE
DM:Im sorry jim, but your character can't be a magical japanese fox girl from the future armed with an anti tank rifle this setting is set in the crusades
player:REEEEE

No, fuck that. You just shoving things in means you don't want to consider anything but some pre-built backstory you probably reuse in every game.

You want to make the setting, you run the game.

Why disallow something if it would fit in your setting? If you don't want any input from players, write the novel you've probably been planning for the last decade rather than playing a collaborative game.

That's bullshit laddo. I've had some say in the lore and setting of a current game to make a character idea I've never used before work, and it's made things more interesting for all involved.
To use OP's example, instead of saying "no villages have been attacked by orcs" the GM would say "alright, but orc attacks are really unusual, so we'll have to go over what happened there".

Communication and compromise is important!
To take your example, perhaps in the GM's version of the world Orcs are an unknown threat from the remote regions of the world. Having a pc's village attacked by them might not work for the plot the GM has planned, so the two should discuss whether the story would still work if the hero's village was attacked by human bandits instead. If the player really feels that Orcs in particular are what works for this character, then the GM can modify the story to fit that.
Still, you're right, and I really wish my players felt more free to toss up little extra details in my games. I usually find myself adding weird little details that they then capitalize on, but I'd like it they just suggested weird stuff more often.

A big part of what makes RPGs fun is immersion. If a player ruins the coherence of the game universe with something totally wacky and out of place, then the immersion is broken. I'm not a canon lawyer, but there are limits.

Not him but collaboration is a two way street faggots, if I'm not telling you how to play your character, you shouldn't be telling me how to run my setting. If I say that orc villages don't happen in this setting, either remake your backstory or GTFO.

>A big part of what makes RPGs fun is immersion. If a player ruins the coherence of the game universe with something totally wacky and out of place, then the immersion is broken. I'm not a canon lawyer, but there are limits.
This. I run a detailed and logical world, where things are interconnected and there's almost always more going on than the players are aware of. This is not because there is some conspiracy to keep them in the dark, but because they find out things stuff by dealing with them, and there's deeper history and such that nobody has investigated (and nobody wants to sit through an hour-long lecture of the realities of trade in the western kingdoms unless it has some direct significance to them -- and probably not even then). While I'm not theoretically opposed to more than minor player contributions on campaign setting development, they rarely seem to put much thought or care into things. They don't have to be autistically devoted to detail (that's my job), but they need not to decree illogical shit that clashes with the order of things or that subverts the tone of the game.

>Player: I was born in a village that was attacked by orcs
>GM: NO VILLAGES HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY ORCS REEEEEEEEEEE
Usually, an orc attack is pretty reasonable, though there may be some areas on the map where it wouldn't fly (in which case I'd suggest that it was goblins, or bandits, or whatever). This one, at least, doesn't seem very hard to accommodate.

This

Maybe in this setting Orcs dwell in caves and are more similar to trolls, or perhaps Orcs and other humanoids get along with each other making such a random orc attack something that couldn't possibly happen. Oh but nevermind you already decided the character you wanted to play in the DM's setting without attempting to understand his reasoning or go through with any kind of discourse beforehand. It's really inconsiderate for any player, DM or otherwise, to spring new information on the rest of the group without giving a little explanation first.

Or I'm just wrong and the DM is just acting like an autist.

>Player: So yeah, my character is a Kitsune.
>DM: What's that?
>Player: It's a fox-girl from this anime-
>DM: No, there are no "fox-girls in this setting"
>OP: I'M GONNA GO WHINE ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET, REEEEEEEE-

Here is your (you).

>ITT: No reasonable examples of either side whatsoever.

While I play the way you recommend- taking player ideas and integrating them into the world.

It's stuff like when the players enter a new town, or meet a character from their character's past, I ask them about the character.

>"Ashleigh, you recognize the halfling- he's an old friend your past. Tell me about him."
Or something like that. In situations where they want to do something silly- like make a kitsune character- I usually try to convince them otherwise.

Then I bend over backwards, though strange races definitely get more attention paid to them. It got to the point where a Sirene character actually made themselves up to look more like a blue dragonblood (A much more common race in the setting), since she had blue scales and everything.

>no letting the players basically write your novel for you.

This. Give players the outline of the world and let them build stuff for you. Gives them something to do and takes a little of the forever DM edge off.

>Right Party: Hey, I'm being reasonable and calm.
>Wrong Party: AND I AM UNREASONABLE AND WRONG REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I wonder how much of this thread comes down to inherently different viewpoints when it comes to gaming, and how much of it comes down to different experiences in play (one side with autistically uptight GMs who see reasonable player contributions to the setting as a threat to their authority, and the other with self-involved players without any awareness of or respect for the internal workings of the setting).

In my last game of M&M I wanted to play a black jazz singer who had the angel metatron imbued in his body against both their wills (his and Metatron's).
The GM calmly explained to me that in his settings the biblical angels and thus do no exist exactly like that so we just worked it out into a similar concept that still worked and it also helped him into making a deeper, more interesting lore that affected all characters equally and we all enjoyed.
Aren't things easy when people just talk stuff?

Do DMs really keep their players from adding to the world in some way? Why would you ever do that? If something's within reason within a setting I let it go. Hell I'll build off it if need be.

>My character was not always a fearsome warrior. He had a brother once, but he died in a great battle to defend our home from a powerful death knight, only to suffer a mortal wound and perish days later.
>Later in the story the antagonist, a powerful enchantress, has sent forth her knight, who has been given the very same sword that landed that mortal wound on the characters brother.

Allowing your players to participate in world building engages them and gets them invested in the context of the game, and as a DM it lets me create an experience that's more interesting to the player and the story.

>Do DMs really keep their players from adding to the world in some way? Why would you ever do that? If something's within reason within a setting I let it go. Hell I'll build off it if need be.
Because 9 times out of 10, it isn't within reason within the settings, and is just stupid crap made up on the spur of the moment.

I've only ever heard of this kind of thing happening on Veeky Forums's word.
Do people not just ask for key details on the setting background, come up with a first draft and get feedback from that? Or is that uncharacteristically reasonable?

>mfw my gm is fine with half animals
>Can play my foxgirl or guy whenever i feel like it
Feels good playing in a group of friends.

It's Veeky Forums. We don't do logical explanations and nuanced critiques, we assume the person we're debating with is a knuckle-dragging imbecile and take everything they're saying in a way that the worst possible light seem flattering by comparison.

>Because 9 times out of 10, it isn't within reason within the settings, and is just stupid crap made up on the spur of the moment.
Even when it isn't within reason an acceptable middle ground can be reached in all of 10 minutes.

As a player, you should start an adult communication with your GM about elements you might want added to the world, and be prepared to negotiate for some alternatives.

>I want to have my character's village burnt down by orcs
>this world does not feature orcs
>okay, is there another type of bad guy that could work? trolls perhaps?
>yeah, I was thinking, human soldiers of XYZ nation might have gone through that area and committed some atrocities during the Great Fire War
>okay, so my character hates the Grand Duchy of XYZ and not orcs? Hm, I could make it work..

And also have these conversations long before the first session, ideally as soon as you think of it. When it can be avoided, GMs generally don't want to bend over backwards literally mid-game to rewrite their whole worlds over one piece of backstory. You're likely to get better results by giving your GM as much time as possible to consider what you want.

>collaboration is a two way street so listen to me or get the fuck out

>making such a random orc attack something that couldn't possibly happen

DM could always roll with it and come up with a reason for the attack, or if it really is impossible offer the player some guidance to keep the basic backstory but replace the orcs with something that makes more sense in context.

I do this with my DM all the time but we've been friends for over a decade and he'll make it work somehow, either my information is inaccurate or he'll tweak things or just leave the truth ambiguous.
I'd allow the fox girl. But the gun has no ammo, and she has to hide her disfigurements or be burned as a witch

ITT: GMs with no friends

>I'd allow the fox girl. But the gun has no ammo, and she has to hide her disfigurements or be burned as a witch
You seem like a really cool guy.

Nigga, my setting's timeline is basically adapting what happened during past campaigns as Cycles.

The very first players are now the cultural heroes which defied fey dominance and pulled mortals out of the Lithic Cycle.

That's not what you said though, idiot. Nor did I imply you can just insert whatever you want into the setting.

If your setting cannot handle a player inserting a minor detail then it wasn't very good to begin with.

So what you're really saying is "collaboration is a one-way street." Yes?

To play the doubles advocate, it could just be because they want to nip the behaviour in the bud before it gets damaging.
Saying no once and letting everyone know where you stand is much better than a grudging yes that gets taken too far and results in a potentially heavy handed resolution.

*devil's advocate

It's doggy dog world, user. You have to get used to people having different expressions, because they're practically a diamond dozen.

You are just putting my leg.

If you're unwilling to compromise and change your backstory to fit the setting, you're no better than the morons who try to insert their kitsune waifus into a political campaign.
This isn't a 50/50 partnership here, it's more like 80/20, with the GM being the one who does most of the goddamned work. The only thing that you're expected to do as a player is show up to game on time and not be disruptive while I have to deal with literally everything and anything that could happen within the setting, up to and including whether or not orc raids are a thing or not.

If you can't respect my setting by creating a backstory that fits, why should I respect your presence when it's obvious that you're only here to push your snowflake at the cost of everything else?

read >either remake your backstory or GTFO.
Nobody said that you couldn't remake your backstory to fit within the context of the campaign, but if you're going to be a stubborn dick about it then you can pack your shit up and leave.

ITT: Players who can't handle the word "no."

A good DM looks for a way to say yes.

>How many years ago was the Elven-Human alliance forged, DM?
>Yes.

Altenatively-
>Hey DM, can I come over to your house and fuck your sister?
>Yes.

And sometimes, you can't find a good way to say yes, and you have to say no. When the players want to do something retarded, you don't humor them, you put the foot down and move on as quickly as possible.

No, a good DM looks for a way to say 'yes but' or 'yes and'.

You mean a shit GM, right?
A GM who is simply a yes man will produce whiny, spoiled players like OP who can't take no for an answer, who go on to ruin other games with their childish bullshit.
A GM's job isn't to fellate you.

There are lines.

If I'm running a game like Beyond The Wall And Other Adventures, I expect my players to contribute. I expect them to offer thoughtful ideas to build the setting, because that's part of the game. When somebody sits there and shrugs shoulders and does nothing, I try to encourage them with ideas. I know my group; some of them have trouble with stuff on-the-spot, and need a couple starters to get going.

By the same token, if I'm running a setting I spent hours making, something intended to be a large-scale campaign, I don't expect the players to offer up major campaign details and invent massive new structures of power I have to account for. Now, I'd like to think I'm pretty good at winging it, so sometimes I don't mind this, but a lot of the time what players offer is just unworkable, and I tell them so.

The greatest gift I ever gave my players, though, was when I learned how to improv. It makes working with any of the stupid, pants-on-head ridiculous bullshit they come up with a hundred times easier. I co-opt what I can use and I scrap what I can't and if they give me a "but that's not how I imagined it" I give them a quiet look over my glasses and frown at them. Learning how to improv means being able to steal the workable and discard the unworkable at a moment's notice. It means every contribution has some merit except the blatantly stupid ones.

Sometimes, also, players eager to contribute actually want to be DMs, and just need some encouragement. Don't forget that an idea not working for your setting doesn't inherently make the idea bad, and sometimes it's a good idea to tell the player "man that's pretty cool; it won't work here but it sounds like the basis for a good campaign."

It's happened! I've instilled in one of my players a deep-seated desire to GM with this very method. He still hasn't worked up the confidence to stand up and start talking, but he's getting there.

fucking hell I know that feel

>playing human warlock
>want my character to be in his 90's but due to the nature of his pact has an extended life span which leaves him looking like he's in his 20's
>DM: no humans can't live that long, I'm not going to let your character live for ever just because you're a warlock
>tell him it's just fluff and it doesn't really change anything
>rule 0, you can't be 90 and still look young

why, what is the difference. why do people do this.

another same DM different campaign

>tell DM that my character is looking for a heir but can't have children himself.
>he tells me thats weird and he's not going to allow it

again why

>humans can't live that long
>fuckin humies you cant live that long reeeeeeeeeeeee
>bow down to superior elven seed.

Lol

Also what is so weird about cant having children? That is the problem of most couples from time immemorial.
I think your dm has more problems than what is apperent in the surface

The first one is just a case of autism and an inability to allow anything outside of the books.
The second one is probably a kneejerk reaction to what they felt could/would devolve into magical realm, or thought you'd try to find an heir over helping the party do whatever.

I do that kind of thing all the time and I've never had a GM sperg. I've even written whole countries worth of political intrigue without issue. Obviously it depends on the game, but if it's appropriate I've never had to deal with autistic tantrums.

I love collaborative world building, conceptually, I really do, but in effect at the table it seems to always turn into "over those hills there is a town where my character is the most important person" or, even more commonly, "in those mountains is a super special magical item that's relevant specifically to me"

In my opinion GM doing most of the work is doing it wrong. GM's job is to parse the player actions into the game mechanics, and to keep the pace of the game flowing steadily, but otherwise he shouldn't interfere with the players doing their thing in their world too much.

But what if my player wants to be the last surviving prince of a dragon born kingdom that was destroyed by another kingdom when the setting does not have dragonborns and the kingdoms he wanted were not one of the twenty in the setting? And he has a secret surviving powerful brother helping him.

A player of mine actually wanted that. As a level 1 character. I did not know what to do so I denied it. It was just going to be a campaign more about exploring mysterious dungeons that led to the dwarves secret kingdom.

Yes but we're autistic and polarized; talking and compromise not only are impossible, they are a sign of weakness.

> NO VILLAGES HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY ORCS REEEEEEEEEEE

yet another orc war crime denial thread?

>karak eight peaks=not true
>hellblasters=war crime
>humies killed more
>sigmarite propaganda
>no humie rape happened
>humie lies
>humie
>HUMÄ°E

I usually see
>Here's something of which you don't know all the answers just yet
>THE ANSWER IS X! I HAVE DECREED IT!

The only part that isn't going to work is the dragonborn in a setting where none exist, the rest is just gravy because it means the character is in deep shit and his enemies are very powerful. Also, turns out it was the brother who betrayed the kingdom and led to its destruction in the first place (he has daddy issues or something) and him being nice is just an act.

My last backstory was that as a teenager my character fell in virgin love for one of those water nymph things that drown you but she wasn't interested even in killing him because he was too hideous. That really hurt his feelings and so he became mute, covered his face, and went adventuring because no one cared who he was until he put on the mask. Also he still loves the nymph because of oneitis.

Rate and complain.

>tfw I love orcs
>mfw my character was an orc rape child
>mfw I have to pretend like my parents were happly married both in game and out as not to make people uncomfrotable.

I too like to make sure my players don't get very invested in the games I run

I wish that I could have used his character because he was really earnest in using it, but at the time I really did not know what to do.

Besides, in another one off I let him brew the game and be a water elf from a sunken kingdom with his own pet Kraken, and most of the session devolved into really interesting ways of getting a kraken to storm an inland castle.

>In my opinion GM doing most of the work is doing it wrong.
Well your opinion is "wrong." Consider for a moment all the players have to do...
>Show up on time
>Not be disruptive
>Understand the rules relating to their character.
vs. all the shit the GM has to do
>Create/Run a setting
>Roleplay every NPC the players interact with
>Play the various enemies they fight
>Describe the outcome of every decision a player commits to
>Understand the rules, both from the player's perspective and from the perspective of the GM.
>Maintain consistency
>Maintain the narrative in a way that's railroading but not
Among other things.

I mean, a good group will make the job much easier to manage but it still doesn't change the fact that most of the work is being done by the GM.

I think that letting the players have some hand in the world definitely helps with buy-in, but with big, general setting aspects it's entirely within the GM's realm to exercise some veto power.

If the GM says there's no dragonborn in his world, for example, I really can't conceivably come up with a way where trying to browbeat the GM into letting you play a dragonborn isn't being a dick.

If you lose investment just because the GM tells you that an element of your backstory wasn't relevant to the campaign, chances are you weren't all that interested in getting invested in anything beyond your character in the first place.

See, and this is why I built a system that adds onto just about system that is meant to let players add world details. You put rules in place and the autists calm down.
It basically goes
Player declares a detail.
Gm interprets the detail, or gets to deny it.
No fucking whining about "that's not what I meant!"
Stuff like
>p: my character is a noble!
>gm: fine, but you're fourth in line, as your older siblings are being kept safe at home. They're jealous that dad will let you adventure.

A good DM will know when to put his foot down and stop players from acting like spoiled children.

Players contributing to the story is not a bad thing
GMs saying "no to some players contributions is not a bad thing
Players shaping the whole setting is not a bad thing
GMs having complete control of the setting is not a bad thing

IT
DEPENDS
ON
YOUR
GROUP
PLAYSTYLE
AND
INDIVIDUAL
PREFERENCES

>Create/Run a setting
This is something the GM shouldn't be allowed to do on his own. Everybody around the table makes the setting together as they play.

>Describe the outcome of every decision a player commits to
This, too, is wrong. The possible outcomes of actions are negotiated between the GM and the player before rolling, and the result is sacrosanct.

>Understand the rules, both from the player's perspective and from the perspective of the GM
These are the one and same. There are no 'player rules' and 'GM rules', just the game mechanics that are transparent to everyone around the table.

A good GM knows to influence the game as little as possible.

The odd thing is that when designing 5e, they definitely thought of immortality as end game. Druids get 10x slower aging as an 18th level feature and clone is an 8th level spell which requires 3000gp in material components. The only way to be really immortal or at least ageless is to spend a fucking epic boon on immortality.

immortality has never meant a damn thing in DnD.
elves live for up to 850 years.
that means that means an old elf in our world could tell me what naval combat was like before cannons.
a middle aged elf in our world would be able to tell me what it was like when queen elizabeth the first was on the throne.
an adult elf could tell me what everyone thought when the new world was discovered
a young elven adult could tell me what the wild west was like and tales of the oregon trail
and a teenaged elf could tell me what the great war was like.

Immortality is overrated.
It is better to die with a satisfied smile on your lips than curse at the cruel universe when the light of your star has dwindled.

From the sound of it, the guy wasn't even asking for immortality, just extended lifespan. Appearing 20 while 90 is easily elf lifespan or even half of that.

That's not really that drastic when he probably sold his soul to get it, has to watch everyone he knows die, and has to do all sorts of whatever in service of his patron.

I could understand the GM not wanting to deal with it, but its not exactly a balance concern

Go fuck yourself. My job as GM is to make sure everyone at the table has a good time. That means we agree as a group what kind of feel we want for the game. If we decide "medieval fantasy," I'm NOT fucking saying yes to the retard who wants to play a fucking terminator. I'm so sick and fucking tired of hearing this stupid drivel be praised like it's written on golden tablets shat out by God himself. There are multitudes of valid reasons to say FUCK NO to a player, because players are fucking children who don't think about other people's fun half the time.

well seeing as humans reach "adulthood" at 16 and elves reach "adulthood" at 100 half sounds about right.

one thing to take into consideration though is that it's not just biological it's also cultural. elves phsyically mature at the same rate as humans do but mentally develop very slowly. meanwhile gnomes mature at the same rate as humans and live to 450-500 and yet are only expected to act like adults at 40 so who knows exactly when elves actually fully mature mentally.
no one could say that a 16 year old is mentally mature so it's hard to really say when elves mature based on the short sentence the PHB gave us.

Here, lemme boil down people's major arguments against each other!
>if it's a small detail and I discuss with dm, is fine, no?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DAMN NO SENSE SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE HUGE CHANGES

There's a scale to this stuff. I believe that determines how accommodating the DM should be.

>mfw I have to pretend like my parents were happly married both in game and out as not to make people uncomfrotable.
Does this seriously happen? It's a game, it's make-believe, how does mentioning rape make people uncomfortable when they may well be committing genocide all the live long day in-character? I just don't understand.

god I agree with this.

heres a little story, I'll green text it to make it short.

>DM invites friend to play 5e
>friend hates fantasy games
>DM says he'll try to fluff him a jedi knight
>gets a completely broken character
>all the melee benifits of a fighter, all the utility benifits of a monk including + wisdom to AC without being limited to armorless
>mystic like spells but all way more powerful, again rolls off wisdom
>cherry on the cake is he can add his wisdom to his weapons attacks as well as his dex
>spends the whole game pretending it's a space opera
>tries to mind trick absolutely everyone despite my character being high charisma enough to convince most NPC's
>DM goes to far and changes his mind trick from the suggestion spell at will to a perminate plus 10 to persation and plus 5 to intimidation not including his charisma and profissancy modifer.
>guy ends up quitting because he can't trick himself into ingoring the fantasy theme

there has to be a moment where the DM says no.
where I draw the line is when brand new classes and races come into it.

using a race from the Monster manual is acceptable but coming up with a brand new special snowflake race is horse crap and the DM has every right to ignore it, the same goes for classes. in my book classes like artificer and mystic could have easily been subclasses of rogue/bard in the case of artificer and monk/soccerer in the case of mystic.

>Not letting your player be a half dragon/ lycanthrope
>not using that mere race mix to write an entire side quest for the players to tackle down the road.
fuck sakes this place is full of shit DMs

yes this happens. someone left the campaign I was running just because during an after game drinking party I said that half orcs would be a lot more common than half elves due to that the fact that nomadic human tribes would often get raided by orcs and orcs would take human slaves.

I generally let my players run as far afield with backgrounds and such as they like, but I restrict them to one.

It helps a lot that many games have codified the "One Unique Thing" characteristic now. Because realistically, there ought to be one unique thing about any hero, even if it's as mundane as "hates copper coins." For the ones who go big "I'm a fallen star" you reward them by hooking the shit out of that.

Congratulations Fallen Star, you're now the most wanted being in the entire world. Kingdoms will go to war to control you. But in better news, your type is now Construct.

Narrative-default games (like Fate) handle this natively, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you from welding these sorts of things onto D&D. Frankly, given the mess that D&D and alikes are, your players are unlikely to even know you made that shit up.

>your type is now construct

but why not celestial.....?
As in stars, angels, and heaven......?

Cause you're a fallen star

Seems like you had a liberal at the table who couldn't handle that life hasn't always been sunshine and rainbows and shit like murder, death, war and rape were rather common before the modern era

Because that is a /template/ with level adjustment in virtually every D&D-alike, whereas construct just means he can't be critically hit by mundane weapons, automatically succeeds at death saves, and doesn't require a ton of extra bookkeeping from me.

oh

Now the question is was he a white dwarf? A yellow sun? Was he big enough to go supernova? Could he collapse into a black hole?

Oh god, could he actually collapse into a black hole?

>influence the game as little as possible.
>while controlling literally every aspect of the game that isn't a PC.

No. This is a fantasy world. No need to concern yourself with facts.

Go full Republican.

>roll a fort save to not collapse into a black hole and consume the party
I mean I'm in a game where a player has a cursed gauntlet where he has to make a will save whenever he looks at women for the first time each day (Female DM, won't tell me what happens if he fails so i assume its some rape fetish shit) and then another save to suppress the gauntlet summoning demons (failed it last session and we had to fight 6 bearded devils )

>This is something the GM shouldn't be allowed to do on his own.
Says who?
>This, too, is wrong.
Says who?
>There are no 'player rules' and 'GM rules', just the game mechanics that are transparent to everyone around the table.
Oh, you're an idiot, gotcha.

>Oh god, could he actually collapse into a black hole?
No reason for him to. If you're allowing players to play fallen fucking stars just because you're scared of hurting their feelings then your campaign has already collapsed into a black hole on its own.

Players adding to the world is great.

Its DM fodder for future encounters.

...

My GM fucking loves when we come up with shit for him.
>"Hey is this background for my kobold cool?"
>"Dude I have literally nothing in my setting about kobolds yet. Whatever you do is canon from here on out."

>"He asks you how you and your people came to embrace and control your lycanthropy. Gimme a Shifter creation myth."
>"Neat."

>"So here's my idea for the Paladin order I'd like to run with."
>"Hey this is a really cool system, it's informing the creation of an entire region I hadn't touched yet, thanks."

Legacy characters are the biggest load of shit in a tabletop RPG campaign. They're always stronger than you, always more influential to the plot, cannot be beaten no matter how many levels you gain, and they only exist as fanservice to players who may or may not even be players in the campaign anymore.

Things like Red showing up in Gen 2 only works in vidya, because vidya doesn't have to deal with 2-6 other players being bored out of their skull while the GM trades winks and nods with another player about how badass their character is.

I like this post
This is a good post