Custom worlds and limitations - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Custom worlds and limitations

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
disemvowel
Apr 05, 2011 19:25:17 Do any of you limit Race and/or Class options for your homebrew world? How do your players handle it? I know the general rule is that if it is in the books, it is in D&D, but some things just don't fit in certain setting ideas...or, do we hold on to sacred cows too much as DMs/World Builders?

For example, I have a world without Divine casters. And, no one really misses them.
#2
salla
Apr 05, 2011 20:20:39 I don't; I intentionally keep my homebrew world open enough that the players can drop in most anything.
#3
thanerhogar
Apr 06, 2011 0:43:22 I think dropping races from homebrew worlds is legitimate as long as you don't do it too excessively--maybe think of the Dark Sun race selection as a reasonable minimum, and be open to having your players sell you on why they want to play another race and where it might fit in. If I homebrew a setting from scratch, I don't think I should be required to populate it with Githzerai, Minotaurs, Kalashtar and Shardminds (yes, I'm mostly hating on PHB3 races because they're almost universally the least iconic and most "out there") just in case someone wants to play one. However, if I make a setting that includes none of those races, there are still ways a really motivated player could be one. Kalashtar can be easily reskinned as humans with telepathy that comes from pretty much anything you want it to. A Shardmind could easily be the only one in the world, and that's a plot point if you're willing to make it one. Minotaurs in my world might all be the bloodthirsty, semi-sentient variety, but if one of my players wants to Drizzt it up and be that weird outcast one who gets persecuted wherever he goes, I'll listen to his pitch. On the other hand, if everyone wants to play races that don't fit in your setting, you lose some of the party/world interaction you were hoping for, so there's nothing wrong with shutting them down on that, either.

Excluding classes changes a setting significantly, but if that solidifies an important thematic element of your world (as it does in Dark Sun, for example, where the gods are simply not present and it makes the whole thing much grittier), there's nothing wrong with doing it, as long as you warn people about it before they agree to play your setting. I've seen examples of DM's going crazy on class limitations just over classes they "don't like," and it makes the whole thing feel arbitrary and childish. To help with that, I'd say it's much, much better to exclude by power source than by individual class. If you tell me your world has no arcane magic, I can stomach that. If it has arcane magic, but there are no Warlocks or Bards, that just feels weird, because it reduces my options without having a real thematic effect on the setting.

Another example is the extended debate in the Dark Sun forum about the appropriateness of Artificers to the setting, with seemingly a solid half of DM's saying they probably wouldn't allow them because their theme just isn't appropriate to a plane with almost no magic items and magic nowhere near as studied and controlled as in Eberron. To that, I tend to say there's no reason to exclude Artificers, you just need to find a fluff that works in-setting for one to exist, and it's perfectly reasonable for the onus to be on the player to do that. I don't see a big problem with this one, since 4e Artificers don't feel so much like tinkers and builders to me, anyway. They're casters who plumb the nuts and bolts of arcane magic, spot-enchanting in combat and bending arcane energy to their will to create the desired effect. If Wizards are the racecar drivers of the arcane power source, Artificers to me are the mechanics. They don't throw together the big impressive applications of their tools, but they know how each fiber of them works and interacts, and they can put it right where it needs to be at any given moment. That seems just as appropriate on Athas as any other arcane class.

TL;DR: Go ahead and limit races, but don't go crazy, and be willing to consider someone pulling in an outside race if they have a good reason. If you limit classes, kill an entire power source and warn everyone before they start thinking about character design, rather than throwing it in once they all have ideas, or spot-removing particular classes.
#4
pluisjen
Apr 06, 2011 2:47:12 If you design your world and then look for players, go wild and limit whatever you want. Just don't be surprised if some players aren't interested in playing in that world.

If you first collect your players, and then tell them "you can't play this thing you enjoy because I'm going to design a world where it does not exist", you're being a bit of a jerk.
#5
slobo777a
Apr 06, 2011 4:36:28 I have a very different set of core races and religions in my homebrew world, and spent some considerable time creating a "map" between the D&D race mechanics and my world. It works well for game balance, but the players' race recognition for their own characters has been slower to develop (only after 10 sessions or so have they really got used to saying "Kerrin" instead of "Elf" or "Eladrin"). I also alllow exotic characters who can use any core D&D mechanic race, provided they accept that their appearance is unusual and will attract attention (and that the fluff for the racial background may simply not apply). Even the exotic races have default associations with my core races . . .

Note I only did this because I wanted the players to be able to use Character Builder . . . if I could homebrew the mechanics of my world's races and have them available conveniently to players, I would probably do that instead, because it would help with the race recognition issue.

#6
slobo777a
Apr 06, 2011 7:55:06
If you design your world and then look for players, go wild and limit whatever you want. Just don't be surprised if some players aren't interested in playing in that world.

If you first collect your players, and then tell them "you can't play this thing you enjoy because I'm going to design a world where it does not exist", you're being a bit of a jerk.

For long-term groups where the players and DM already exist, and we're picking a new game to play then there is no real "collecting" stage. We play. The DM gets to decide what we play.

For that group it is more down to trust on the players' part (that the DM has their ultimate enjoyment of the game in consideration) and consideration on the DMs part (that he/she is trying to design a fun world and game, which can be a time-consuming thing to do if you homebrew). As a player, I have taken part in several games run by friends where their plans for the game world restricted my choices - a low metal world for example, or a world where all the PCs had to have high Stealth skills. Both of the examples prevented me playing a classic Fighter character that I preferred. However, I went with it, I had fun and I do not think any of my friends are jerks for coming up with these ideas in the name of entertaining me. In fact probably the opposite - the characters became more fun to me due to the challenges I had, and I recall those games fondly.

However, I would say for an already-established group, you need clear guidelines well ahead of character creation if you want to have restrictions on what PC builds are allowed. If nothing else, that gives both you and the players some room for negotiation.

#7
pluisjen
Apr 06, 2011 8:34:08 As long as you're enjoying yourself, I think the DM does have the ultimate enjoyment of the players in his mind. He knows that you're going to enjoy playing in his campaign, and that's fine.

It gets less fun when you have someone who hates playing Humans or Dwarves or Elves and tell them "the next campaign is going to be Elves only" for example. At that point your forcing someone to play something they absolutely do not enjoy.

Most people have a few kind of characters they like to play, and as long as you let them play something that they'll enjoy, it should be ok, but as far as I'm concerned, if you already know who you're playing with their enjoyment should always come before story considerations.
#8
slobo777a
Apr 06, 2011 9:28:00 Yes we all have our limits. I might just have to sit out a game where my race choice was either halfling or gnome . . .

#9
pluisjen
Apr 06, 2011 9:31:52 Yeah when you already know who you're going to be playing with, don't ruin their experience by designing a world that you like and some of your players will hate.

When you have no players in mind; do whatever you want, but you might find that nobody actually wants to play in your game.

Also make sure you know the difference between "limitations" and "not in use".

"You can't play a Dwarf" is a limitation. "Since none of you play a Dwarf, I've decided that there aren't any" isn't a limitation. If nobody cares about it, and nobody will miss it, you can just remove it from the game without issues. Because you already know nobody's going to care.
#10
Houndstooth
Apr 06, 2011 13:56:35 Im about to run a game where I have removed a couple playable races as well as modified some. For this I worte out the history of my world, where the races came from and how they fit in the world now. Then started looking for players. In my game Goblins are one of the main player races and if you are firmiliar with Eberron, it is the Goblins who have the mark of making.
Changes like this have been welcome to my players because they were writen out, and explained in advance.
#11
Janx_14
Apr 07, 2011 1:11:51 I sort of have an unspoken houserule of "no-gith races". That said, I've never had to impose it or even bring it up, because none of my players want to play gith races.
#12
tequila_sunrise
Apr 07, 2011 12:10:53 Our group's Dark Sun DM asked us not to play divine classes, and we all obliged.

I myself don't allow Essentials classes in my campaign, but that's a personal taste issue rather than a campaign issue.

There's nothing wrong with eliminating options, but a lot of gamers play D&D because there are so many options. Cut off too many options, and a DM might find himself without a group.
#13
alitain
Apr 07, 2011 13:27:22 In my game I allow any races or classes, but then I have no reason to limit choices and I get irritated when that's done to me. Totally understand if the setting has limitations and that's fine as long as it makes sense.

A friend of mine is going to be DMing a game soon which is going to center on dwarfs. It's in our own created world so to speak where our main game has been set. As well as mine. Basically we started the game back in 3.5 and ended when 3.5 ended effectively a few months before 4th ed came out, then started a new part of the story with a 500 year gap between the two games. So my friend's game is set in that time but it centers on the dwarves(he's on a dwarf bender). He's not allowing almost any races aside from dwarves, one fae race(which is me), and another person is a tiefling but basically nothing else.

And arcane classes are pretty much nil because magic isn't really known well apparently, which is kinda against what we have established, so it's kind of rankling.

Sorry, went off on a tangent. Basically I'm all for open choice UNLESS there is a solid justified reason for not having something. Someone who denies a certain race or class just because they don't personally like that race/class, bugs me. DM or not, the player should be able to pick what they want to play, and what interests them not only what the DM likes.
#14
dave2008
Apr 07, 2011 15:02:06
Do any of you limit Race and/or Class options for your homebrew world? How do your players handle it? I know the general rule is that if it is in the books, it is in D&D, but some things just don't fit in certain setting ideas...or, do we hold on to sacred cows too much as DMs/World Builders?

For example, I have a world without Divine casters. And, no one really misses them.

I went the opposite direction: I let them play any intelligent creature in the monster manuals. Our party consists of a lizard folk, a yuan-ti, a drake, a halfling and soon, two elves. Oh, and a kobold NPC.
#15
slobo777a
Apr 07, 2011 18:24:40
Do any of you limit Race and/or Class options for your homebrew world? How do your players handle it? I know the general rule is that if it is in the books, it is in D&D, but some things just don't fit in certain setting ideas...or, do we hold on to sacred cows too much as DMs/World Builders?

For example, I have a world without Divine casters. And, no one really misses them.

I went the opposite direction: I let them play any intelligent creature in the monster manuals. Our party consists of a lizard folk, a yuan-ti, a drake, a halfling and soon, two elves. Oh, and a kobold NPC.

I've done this before in an earlier iteration of my gameworld I put a lot of focus on the "beast kin", and allowed players to design their own races (with DM review) - e-Tools at the time allowed data entry for custom races, so I could go wild. All bar one player went for a more exotic option. We had tiger beastkin, wolf beastkin, rat beastkin, a half-dragon, a player-created warrior clone race (sim to Goliath) and one token human. It was a fun adventure, but after a while did feel more like a day at the zoo than a classic fantasy story . . . next time round I toned things down a bit on the beastkin side.

#16
MechaPilot
Apr 09, 2011 1:02:29
Do any of you limit Race and/or Class options for your homebrew world? How do your players handle it? I know the general rule is that if it is in the books, it is in D&D, but some things just don't fit in certain setting ideas...or, do we hold on to sacred cows too much as DMs/World Builders?

For example, I have a world without Divine casters. And, no one really misses them.

I only limit player options when they're playing in a world that I have already created in my writing. Even in those instances though, I try to do whatever I can to accomodate a player so long as it isn't disruptive to the world I've created.

I've had several players want to play races that aren't available in one of my written worlds, and it's easy enough to fix by coming up with an origin that either makes the character unique (a mutant or magical experiment, etc) or that places the character's origins in another world (and they somehow got dragged into my world).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 disemvowel Apr 05, 2011 19:25:17	Do any of you limit Race and/or Class options for your homebrew world? How do your players handle it? I know the general rule is that if it is in the books, it is in D&D, but some things just don't fit in certain setting ideas...or, do we hold on to sacred cows too much as DMs/World Builders? For example, I have a world without Divine casters. And, no one really misses them.
#2 salla Apr 05, 2011 20:20:39	I don't; I intentionally keep my homebrew world open enough that the players can drop in most anything.
#3 thanerhogar Apr 06, 2011 0:43:22	I think dropping races from homebrew worlds is legitimate as long as you don't do it too excessively--maybe think of the Dark Sun race selection as a reasonable minimum, and be open to having your players sell you on why they want to play another race and where it might fit in. If I homebrew a setting from scratch, I don't think I should be required to populate it with Githzerai, Minotaurs, Kalashtar and Shardminds (yes, I'm mostly hating on PHB3 races because they're almost universally the least iconic and most "out there") just in case someone wants to play one. However, if I make a setting that includes none of those races, there are still ways a really motivated player could be one. Kalashtar can be easily reskinned as humans with telepathy that comes from pretty much anything you want it to. A Shardmind could easily be the only one in the world, and that's a plot point if you're willing to make it one. Minotaurs in my world might all be the bloodthirsty, semi-sentient variety, but if one of my players wants to Drizzt it up and be that weird outcast one who gets persecuted wherever he goes, I'll listen to his pitch. On the other hand, if everyone wants to play races that don't fit in your setting, you lose some of the party/world interaction you were hoping for, so there's nothing wrong with shutting them down on that, either. Excluding classes changes a setting significantly, but if that solidifies an important thematic element of your world (as it does in Dark Sun, for example, where the gods are simply not present and it makes the whole thing much grittier), there's nothing wrong with doing it, as long as you warn people about it before they agree to play your setting. I've seen examples of DM's going crazy on class limitations just over classes they "don't like," and it makes the whole thing feel arbitrary and childish. To help with that, I'd say it's much, much better to exclude by power source than by individual class. If you tell me your world has no arcane magic, I can stomach that. If it has arcane magic, but there are no Warlocks or Bards, that just feels weird, because it reduces my options without having a real thematic effect on the setting. Another example is the extended debate in the Dark Sun forum about the appropriateness of Artificers to the setting, with seemingly a solid half of DM's saying they probably wouldn't allow them because their theme just isn't appropriate to a plane with almost no magic items and magic nowhere near as studied and controlled as in Eberron. To that, I tend to say there's no reason to exclude Artificers, you just need to find a fluff that works in-setting for one to exist, and it's perfectly reasonable for the onus to be on the player to do that. I don't see a big problem with this one, since 4e Artificers don't feel so much like tinkers and builders to me, anyway. They're casters who plumb the nuts and bolts of arcane magic, spot-enchanting in combat and bending arcane energy to their will to create the desired effect. If Wizards are the racecar drivers of the arcane power source, Artificers to me are the mechanics. They don't throw together the big impressive applications of their tools, but they know how each fiber of them works and interacts, and they can put it right where it needs to be at any given moment. That seems just as appropriate on Athas as any other arcane class. TL;DR: Go ahead and limit races, but don't go crazy, and be willing to consider someone pulling in an outside race if they have a good reason. If you limit classes, kill an entire power source and warn everyone before they start thinking about character design, rather than throwing it in once they all have ideas, or spot-removing particular classes.
#4 pluisjen Apr 06, 2011 2:47:12	If you design your world and then look for players, go wild and limit whatever you want. Just don't be surprised if some players aren't interested in playing in that world. If you first collect your players, and then tell them "you can't play this thing you enjoy because I'm going to design a world where it does not exist", you're being a bit of a jerk.
#5 slobo777a Apr 06, 2011 4:36:28	I have a very different set of core races and religions in my homebrew world, and spent some considerable time creating a "map" between the D&D race mechanics and my world. It works well for game balance, but the players' race recognition for their own characters has been slower to develop (only after 10 sessions or so have they really got used to saying "Kerrin" instead of "Elf" or "Eladrin"). I also alllow exotic characters who can use any core D&D mechanic race, provided they accept that their appearance is unusual and will attract attention (and that the fluff for the racial background may simply not apply). Even the exotic races have default associations with my core races . . . Note I only did this because I wanted the players to be able to use Character Builder . . . if I could homebrew the mechanics of my world's races and have them available conveniently to players, I would probably do that instead, because it would help with the race recognition issue.
#6 slobo777a Apr 06, 2011 7:55:06	If you design your world and then look for players, go wild and limit whatever you want. Just don't be surprised if some players aren't interested in playing in that world. If you first collect your players, and then tell them "you can't play this thing you enjoy because I'm going to design a world where it does not exist", you're being a bit of a jerk. For long-term groups where the players and DM already exist, and we're picking a new game to play then there is no real "collecting" stage. We play. The DM gets to decide what we play. For that group it is more down to trust on the players' part (that the DM has their ultimate enjoyment of the game in consideration) and consideration on the DMs part (that he/she is trying to design a fun world and game, which can be a time-consuming thing to do if you homebrew). As a player, I have taken part in several games run by friends where their plans for the game world restricted my choices - a low metal world for example, or a world where all the PCs had to have high Stealth skills. Both of the examples prevented me playing a classic Fighter character that I preferred. However, I went with it, I had fun and I do not think any of my friends are jerks for coming up with these ideas in the name of entertaining me. In fact probably the opposite - the characters became more fun to me due to the challenges I had, and I recall those games fondly. However, I would say for an already-established group, you need clear guidelines well ahead of character creation if you want to have restrictions on what PC builds are allowed. If nothing else, that gives both you and the players some room for negotiation.
#7 pluisjen Apr 06, 2011 8:34:08	As long as you're enjoying yourself, I think the DM does have the ultimate enjoyment of the players in his mind. He knows that you're going to enjoy playing in his campaign, and that's fine. It gets less fun when you have someone who hates playing Humans or Dwarves or Elves and tell them "the next campaign is going to be Elves only" for example. At that point your forcing someone to play something they absolutely do not enjoy. Most people have a few kind of characters they like to play, and as long as you let them play something that they'll enjoy, it should be ok, but as far as I'm concerned, if you already know who you're playing with their enjoyment should always come before story considerations.
#8 slobo777a Apr 06, 2011 9:28:00	Yes we all have our limits. I might just have to sit out a game where my race choice was either halfling or gnome . . .
#9 pluisjen Apr 06, 2011 9:31:52	Yeah when you already know who you're going to be playing with, don't ruin their experience by designing a world that you like and some of your players will hate. When you have no players in mind; do whatever you want, but you might find that nobody actually wants to play in your game. Also make sure you know the difference between "limitations" and "not in use". "You can't play a Dwarf" is a limitation. "Since none of you play a Dwarf, I've decided that there aren't any" isn't a limitation. If nobody cares about it, and nobody will miss it, you can just remove it from the game without issues. Because you already know nobody's going to care.
#10 Houndstooth Apr 06, 2011 13:56:35	Im about to run a game where I have removed a couple playable races as well as modified some. For this I worte out the history of my world, where the races came from and how they fit in the world now. Then started looking for players. In my game Goblins are one of the main player races and if you are firmiliar with Eberron, it is the Goblins who have the mark of making. Changes like this have been welcome to my players because they were writen out, and explained in advance.
#11 Janx_14 Apr 07, 2011 1:11:51	I sort of have an unspoken houserule of "no-gith races". That said, I've never had to impose it or even bring it up, because none of my players want to play gith races.
#12 tequila_sunrise Apr 07, 2011 12:10:53	Our group's Dark Sun DM asked us not to play divine classes, and we all obliged. I myself don't allow Essentials classes in my campaign, but that's a personal taste issue rather than a campaign issue. There's nothing wrong with eliminating options, but a lot of gamers play D&D because there are so many options. Cut off too many options, and a DM might find himself without a group.
#13 alitain Apr 07, 2011 13:27:22	In my game I allow any races or classes, but then I have no reason to limit choices and I get irritated when that's done to me. Totally understand if the setting has limitations and that's fine as long as it makes sense. A friend of mine is going to be DMing a game soon which is going to center on dwarfs. It's in our own created world so to speak where our main game has been set. As well as mine. Basically we started the game back in 3.5 and ended when 3.5 ended effectively a few months before 4th ed came out, then started a new part of the story with a 500 year gap between the two games. So my friend's game is set in that time but it centers on the dwarves(he's on a dwarf bender). He's not allowing almost any races aside from dwarves, one fae race(which is me), and another person is a tiefling but basically nothing else. And arcane classes are pretty much nil because magic isn't really known well apparently, which is kinda against what we have established, so it's kind of rankling. Sorry, went off on a tangent. Basically I'm all for open choice UNLESS there is a solid justified reason for not having something. Someone who denies a certain race or class just because they don't personally like that race/class, bugs me. DM or not, the player should be able to pick what they want to play, and what interests them not only what the DM likes.
#14 dave2008 Apr 07, 2011 15:02:06	Do any of you limit Race and/or Class options for your homebrew world? How do your players handle it? I know the general rule is that if it is in the books, it is in D&D, but some things just don't fit in certain setting ideas...or, do we hold on to sacred cows too much as DMs/World Builders? For example, I have a world without Divine casters. And, no one really misses them. I went the opposite direction: I let them play any intelligent creature in the monster manuals. Our party consists of a lizard folk, a yuan-ti, a drake, a halfling and soon, two elves. Oh, and a kobold NPC.
#15 slobo777a Apr 07, 2011 18:24:40	Do any of you limit Race and/or Class options for your homebrew world? How do your players handle it? I know the general rule is that if it is in the books, it is in D&D, but some things just don't fit in certain setting ideas...or, do we hold on to sacred cows too much as DMs/World Builders? For example, I have a world without Divine casters. And, no one really misses them. I went the opposite direction: I let them play any intelligent creature in the monster manuals. Our party consists of a lizard folk, a yuan-ti, a drake, a halfling and soon, two elves. Oh, and a kobold NPC. I've done this before in an earlier iteration of my gameworld I put a lot of focus on the "beast kin", and allowed players to design their own races (with DM review) - e-Tools at the time allowed data entry for custom races, so I could go wild. All bar one player went for a more exotic option. We had tiger beastkin, wolf beastkin, rat beastkin, a half-dragon, a player-created warrior clone race (sim to Goliath) and one token human. It was a fun adventure, but after a while did feel more like a day at the zoo than a classic fantasy story . . . next time round I toned things down a bit on the beastkin side.
#16 MechaPilot Apr 09, 2011 1:02:29	Do any of you limit Race and/or Class options for your homebrew world? How do your players handle it? I know the general rule is that if it is in the books, it is in D&D, but some things just don't fit in certain setting ideas...or, do we hold on to sacred cows too much as DMs/World Builders? For example, I have a world without Divine casters. And, no one really misses them. I only limit player options when they're playing in a world that I have already created in my writing. Even in those instances though, I try to do whatever I can to accomodate a player so long as it isn't disruptive to the world I've created. I've had several players want to play races that aren't available in one of my written worlds, and it's easy enough to fix by coming up with an origin that either makes the character unique (a mutant or magical experiment, etc) or that places the character's origins in another world (and they somehow got dragged into my world).