>Create a generic evil God as Big Bad.
>My players find it quite original
Is that good or bad now?
>>44171733
Well, how did you present the guy? They might find him original because of the way you acted him out of wrote him, even if the basis of his design is really generic.
I mean, do they enjoy it? Then it's a really really good thing. Hold onto those friends, anon.
>>44171733
they're scrubs and you shouldn't play with them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots
stop talking about being original
>>44171733
perhaps they haven't fought a thousand cyrics, banes, Llolths, saurons or other murderhobo-gods yet so the thing still works for them and having the attention of an actual god makes them feel good and make their characters feel important like it should, not going "lol evil god prepare to die i'm gonna kill you and steal your portfolio" or some shit.
Definitely hold on to that group, they seem like they reward atmosphere, not the fact that you can sperg out the most edgy, plot-twisty, evil-but-good-so-grey-desu antagonists or inception plots.
>>44171733
Are you sure they meant "original" and not just "good"? I know people confuse these words, but they can exist independently
>>44171733
They were sarcastic you sperg.
>>44171960
If you wanna get super reductive and remove any potential for originality, then sure, nothing is orignal. Those seven could themselves be boiled down to "man does thing". It's easy. All you have to do is discard anything contrary to your point and claim you're right.
>>44171831
This is always the answer, no matter the question.
>>44171733
Someone on /tg/ once wrote this as a reply to a post I made a long time ago, and I've always held on to it as a good piece of advice.
>Some people try so hard to not be LoTR that they completely miss why they're playing in the first place.
I'd say the same can apply in just about any situation at the tabletop. Sometimes we over complicate things so much that it's refreshing to return to the basics.
>>44171733
Not original, refreshing maybe
