I've been wondering whether some DMs just don't trust players, viewing players who question the DM's choices as menaces who are only trying to step around limits and smuggle in PCs that wreck the DM's carefully crafted setting.
How accurate is this rather cynical view of players and their motivations? Is the DM really obliged to clamp down hard on any perceived insubordination or have to endure being dictated to by the players each session? The fear of 'munchkin' or overpowered PCs is as old as D&D, and there's been some angst about the prospect of "setting-inappropriate" PCs, which may not be mechanically superior but clash with the DM's intentions. If the DM wants to run a Feywild campaign featuring fey races, does she have to strictly police player choices or be faced with a party of humans, half-orcs and dragonborn - anything but fey?
The contrary view is that players want to co-operate with the DM, respect the effort she puts into the campaign setting, and are more interested in having a fun time playing than wreaking havoc. When a campaign is specifically focused, this type of player wants to work with the DM to ensure they get a PC that they enjoy playing and makes sense as part of the DM's creation. Saying yes to them leads to a better game, not a broken game.
These are only two depictions of expected player motives, and many other possibilities exist, either along a continuum between these two points, or different axes altogether.
How do you generally view players and their motivations? Mostly the former description, with not much of the latter? The other way round? A mix of both? Capable of either, dependening on the situation? Do other major factors not mentioned above influence the typical player, such as the urge to be drawn in by a compelling story or explore as much of the gameworld as possible?
5e seems to view players as being mainly the second type, but tends towards a desire to not make the PCs lives too comfortable, due to a number of occasions where DM fiat is specifically invoked.
Personally, I think DMs, on the whole, are far too protective of their campaigns and their campaign settings. I also think there is a world of difference between a player who wants to try new and different things, some of which may be unexpected or contrarian, and a player who is out to wreck or otherwise undermine the DMs efforts.
Most players, in my experience, want to respect the work the DM puts into the campaign, and don't want to "step on his toes", so to speak. They want their character to be a natural fit into the campaign and the setting, and if they come to the table with a concept they will adjust their concept to fit the setting as the DM describes it. When a player is coming to a DM with ideas (ideas for the setting, ideas for his character, ideas in general), he is "showing his hand", revealing what interests him, and what would keep him engaged. It behooves the DM who wants this player in his game to include the player's ideas into the campaign, if only to more engage that player's interest.
Nautilus wrote:
A trend I've noticed that is pretty common 'round these here parts is unwarranted lumping. A select few take extreme stances on a topic. Then others join in, partially agreeing or disagreeing. Then the "camps" are decided. Then suddenly those extreme views are being attributed to everyone in one of the two "camps". I think if you'll go fine comb your way through any of these threads, you can't seriously contend that there's anything amounting to a majority asserting that Players are out to ruin everything. Similarly, there aren't people lining up to accuse DMs of being insufferable tyrants.
I think it's disingenuous to try and frame the discussion with two divisive and absolute schools of thought unfairly attributed to people who don't actually hold those views—implying that a majority turn their nose up to player enterprise. Honestly, attempting to frame anything as varied as DM-Player relationships with an absolute position of right or wrong is unwieldy at best. Those narrow and contrived examples don't even come close to encompassing actual relationships at the game table.
Now, if you want to talk about specific ways of enabling Player (or DMs, for that matter) enterprise in the game, that's a decent topic for debate. Just lose the dead weight of the baseless accusation that came attached with it.
Nautilus wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I've removed any allusion to other threads, and added a mention that the two schools of thought mentioned are not the only ones.
You hope for players that will work with your game and maintain your desired theme & tone.
But you prepare for players that will only rampage over your campaign.
Somewhere in the middle.
Here's what I've found about players:
1. They like to come up with character ideas, and then they, remarkably enough, want to try out those characters.
2. There exist multiple character ideas for just about any player to enjoy, some of which may be more or less appropriate for any particular campaign.
3. Some players (usually newer) don't realize that #2 is true (though it is).
In addition:
4. Some players allow themselves to get fixated on a particular concept, and want to play it even when it isn't appropriate.
5. Experienced players are more likely to set aside a character concept in order to play one more appropriate for the DMs campaign, if told that their character concept isn't the best for this campaign.
6. Most players fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between #4 and #5. Often this is manifested by trying to change aspects of their character to the minimum extent required for DM approval, rather than simply picking a different character for this particular campaign.
7. #6 tends to create a compromise that neither player or DM is particularly happy about, and may or may not end up working.
Here's what I've found about most DMs:
8. They like to come up with campaigns and setting ideas, and then they, remarkably enough, want to try out those campaigns.
9. There exists, in most cases, a wide variety of character types that are appropriate for any particular campaign.
10. DMs usually know what characters do or do not fit #9.
In addition:
11. DMs who allow characters they know don't fit into their campaigns often have an ongoing struggle to maintain integrity of their campaign.
12. Players who play character that don't fit particularly well into a campaign often have an ongoing struggle to maintain the integrity of their character concept.
In my experience, inserting a poor fit of a character into a defined campaign (and I'm guilty of this as a player), hurts the campaign. The DM whose group I play in is a pushover in this respect. He comes up with a focused campaign idea, very specific in intended tone and content, clearly has very specific ideas on the types of characters he wants in it, but then will bend over backwards to allow players to do something completely different, even at the detriment of his campaign. As a player in those campaigns, I think I'm fairly qualified to say that it has been detrimental to my experience to have another player (or even myself) play a poorly fitting character.
There are three relevant elements, the characters, the campaign, and the party. The main conflict I think is about what elements are predetermined. All three of those elements must match to have a coherent campaign. You can't independentally predetermine all of those at once, and expect it to go smoothly. Instead, you can do one of the following.
A. The players come with predetermined character ideas. You create a party from those characters and create a campaign appropriate for the characters and party.
B. The DM has a predetermined campaign idea. The players need to create characters appropriate for it, that form a party appropriate for it.
C. Nobody comes with anything predetermined, and you brainstom an idea for a new campaign, characters, and party
I think we see disagreement on whether A, B, or C is right. Which is absurd because there is no right on this. It is preference. If I as a DM have a well-developed campaign idea, it's going to go as B, or not at all. If I as a DM don't have such an idea (for example, I'm going to be running Lost Mines of Phandelver, and if the campaign continues after the adventure it's wide open to whatever interests the players), then it is A. If we just randomly decide, "hey, let's have a new D&D campaign!" then C seems like a good angle to take.
Failure to recognize that is the source of philosophical debate on the issues.
Practical disgruntlement is caused by the DM not clearly recognizing and consistently applying his preference in a particular campaign. If he is thinking B, but players are thinking A, or C, you're going to have issues.
Here's what I do when I'm DMing a condition B campaign.
a) I set clear boundaries as to what sorts of choices are disallowed, and I stick to it.
b) If anyone asks or wonders why the restrictions are in place, I will answer in as much detail as they like, and explain that it is a part of my campaign.
c) I explain that the party is going to have to jive together with each other and with the campaign.
d) If possible, I request each player to either come to the character and party planning session with two or three different character concepts (or often, with none at all if they can handle that).
If a player is stuck in the grip of #3, #4, or #6 above, I might have to ask that player to wait until my next campaign in order to avoid #7, #11, and #12. Maybe you as a player think that I'm being a big meany, but you know what? It isn't all about you. There are multiple other people involved here (and I as the DM who presumably put more work into my campaign than you did into your character) is just one of them. The other players are also going to suffer from a poor mismatch, as I am aware of from my own experiences as a player.
When I'm a player, I just assume condition B unless I'm told or see otherwise. And under those conditions, a), b), c), and d) are exactly what I want to know about so I can make a character and have it fit well into the players' party and the DM's campaign.
Now, if I had a particular character concept I wanted to play that didn't fit a particular campaign, or maybe didn't even fit an overall campaign world, I think it would be perfectly appropriate for me to ask the DM if he would run an adventure or campaign that might allow that sort of thing. So if I wanted to play a gnome and my DM didn't have gnomes in his world, rather than attempting to convince him to let me have a gnome pop in from another plane, I'd ask him if there was any possibility of him running a later campaign or adventure in a different setting with gnomes. If he said no, then I'd just accept that. My DM doesn't exist to fulfill every one of my personal gaming desires, and I wouldn't expect them to. If I had the chance, I could play a gnome game with another DM, and still play gnomeless games with the current one.
JC999 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Well my default races are basically the AD&D ones. You can ask for something else but most of my players would not know what a Goliath is for example or Kender either. We skipped 4E entirely and did not own most of the race type books in 3.5 so no Races of Stone/Dragon etc. Exotic for us is things like Drow, humanoids, Genasi, and Tieflings/Aasimar. I think we played Eberron once ????
Basically 3rd ed core books are the defualt to ,my players, some have also played AD&D and for the last 3 years or so it has been Pathfinder (core books only for the most part) and retroclones and we have mostly ignored the goofy splat books of 3.5 (Races of XYZ, Bo9S) and an entire edition beyond a few games where we decided we didn't like it.
Because of Comics like Penny Arcade, Dork Tower, Knights of The Dinner Table, Order of The Stick which all reinforce bad and jerkish player behaviour that may have been common back in the early days (and which I highly suspect) by turning them into jokes, but you all know the adage, right? 'It's funny because it's true'. Which simply reinforces the belief, and because of the popularity of these comics, they and their antics remain ingrained on the gamer population.
Nautilus wrote:
Noon wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
I'm so happy that I've never encountered a situation where the topic of this thread is relevant.
Y'all need to find some new gaming friends, I think.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Foxface wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Overall, the DM has to be more tolerant, flexible, and forgiving, when it comes to having long term success. But with that stated, a DM can save themselves alot of grief if they have strong opinions to make those preferences clear at the very beginning.
Passive-aggressive crap, aside, no, I have never witnessed these horrendous activities.
I have never played organised events, maybe that matters, relating to this absolute terrible concept going-on within these boards, rubbish, revolting,
Uchawi wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Noon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
iserith wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
While everyone does seem to be focusing on the class/race restrictions as the source of disruptive players (aka any of them who ask about why a restriction is there or ask about a character concept that may not fit exactly with the list of allowed content by the DM) in my experience the disruptive players aren't the ones who question restrictions, they're ones who are disruptive despite fitting within the restrictions.
From my early days (many many moons ago): a player who joined the ongoing campaign and attacked everything on sight. He didn't even learn his lesson when the DM tried to show him through in-game penalties that what he was doing was disruptive. The DM and other players finally agreed something drastic had to be done so I got the task (which I actually enjoyed because this player had taken over 2 of my characters because we only had 3 players once he joined in) of killing off his characters during a nighttime "wandering monster" encounter. The player never rejoined and we had fun once more with our campaign, minus 2 PCs of the original party.
From a long running Encounters group more recently. We had one player who always played a rogue and was always trying to find ways to steal and sabotage player progress. He even got us a TPK against the dragon at the end of the Neverwinter Encounters season when trying to steal/wear the Crown of Neverwinter himself.
The only other disruptive players I've dealt with were similar, they were well within the boundaries of the DM's campaign parameters but it was their personalities and playstyle that was disruptive, not their character concepts (with one exception but his concept was a bit too "special snowflake" and he didn' tlike it when he got singled out for his background facing the negative consequences of setting himself up as some unique and valuable member of a race, though the rest of the party didn't mind it too much as it did at least provide an interesting encounter in an inn involving naked fighting).
No campaign plan survives contact with the enemy...err...players.
-- Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, DM and originator of "Helmuth's Realms of Whimsy" campaign setting.
Grazel wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Thanks to everyone who's responded. It seems as though the intentionally disruptive group is a myth, and that DMs do not expect it regardless of how they set up and control their games. Disruptive players do exist, but they are rare and their disruption tends not to be related to DM restrictions. Which is what I expected, and it leads me to the following conclusion.
A permissive approach to PC acceptance has little or no chance of disrupting your game.
This doesn't mean you have to do it. If strictly adhering to campaign restrictions works for you and your group, keep on keeping on. 'A permissive approach' doesn't automatically mean 'anything goes', either. It means that saying yes is the default in response to player proposals, with saying no only used if it has to be. If you take the plunge and open the door to negotiation with players on the suitability of their PCs, your game may end up slightly different. But it will still be fine.
Nautilus wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
If your players ruin everything then you should just play with yourself.
I've found that on these boards there are lots of people that I would fear would ruin my game. In practice though there is no one in my area that I have that worry over. I am willing to boot a player who I feel is uncooperative. I am in favor of trying to figure something out but the final decision for any campaign is the DMs. That doesn't mean some compromise and some discussion will not bear fruit. It just means that if it's something the DM is unwilling to bend on then it's important and I feel the players should ascede to leave the game. Since I have far more players than I can fit around my table, I am not worried if someone wants to play a half gnome half warforged jester monk and they leave my game because I say no. Usually someone who is willing to leave the game over their character concept vs the world would be someone who has a playstyle that is antithetical to what I want for my game anyway. So even if I gave in to their wishes, I would just keep encountering obstacle after obstacle in trying to make the game fun for the entire group.
I'm for DMs finding their niche and players seeking out DMs that tickle their fancy. That is the approach I use both as a DM and as a player.
Of course players are out to ruin the game. They ruins the monsters and takes their stuff!
As a general rule, If a player is trying to push the limits of a setting you just smack them down. I had a friend in a campaign of mine who was a summoner and insisted on walking around with a gaint frog monster with him. I loved the character design so I let him have it but considering they were fugatives he was very harshly punished when it came time to blend in with a crowd. As a DM you hold all the power, If your players are wanting to do unfair things just do even more unfair things.
That said there will always be that one player... I once saw a guy argue with a DM for over half an hour over him not wanting the DM to know where his invisible chracter was.
Foxface wrote:
The best DM I've ever played with had a simple idea. Play whatever you want as long as it wasn't "known" to be broken, and he would let you know if it caused a problem. Almost all the players more or less respected his call and it rarely was ever a problem. I think his thinking was the goal is for the players and the DM to all have fun. I've seen it said that it isn't the players vs the DM, but that is often how it comes across with a lot of DMs (and players too). Now if you had a character who did a billion damage with one trick, and just repeated it over and over, he would let you have your fun for a session and then tell you it needed to go/be change/whatever. This is not to say no one ever said something along the lines of "how do you do that". Frequently, the issues work themselves out and I believe having respect going to the DM and from the DM can solve most issues without the need for boxing gloves in the backyard.
Emerikol. wrote:
Zappy wrote:
DLfan wrote:
DLfan wrote:
If Zardnaar's players aren't satisfied with the game experience Zardnaar provides they are free to play elsewhere. The fact they enjoy his games enough to devote several hours a month/week to it says to me we have no business dogging on Zardnaar. The wants of the player need to be weighed against the needs of the group. The DM is an integral component of the group.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Note that the following only works with experienced players, with whom we have worked out a social contract.
I let my players select their stats; not roll, not point buy, just write down whatever numbers they feel are accurate for that PC.
I never ask to see their character sheets. Ever. I trust them to keep track properly, and don't really care if they don't.
My players can add to my world as well. They can create NPCs, locations and objects that are consistent with the parameters of my settings.
That said, I only want to game with players who are there to primarily PLAY the game, and not just there to BEAT the game. I've had horrible experiences at Encounters and conventions where taking the time to actually role play is frowned upon, because it's seen as frivilous and not furthering the party's goals. I consider those types of players to be the ones ruining the game, in that they are ruining the experience of others at the table. It's a ROLE PLAYING game. If you don't want to role play, go find another game, or at least, other players.
iserith wrote:
[quote="SwampDog"]I mean saying things or taking actions that don't specifically relate to furthering the party's goals. In real life, I sometimes speak on off-topic subjects, or tell a joke, or get food, etc. Not everything needs to be, nor should be about getting the quest done. There's far more to playing a role than just completing goals.[/quote]
What is the in-game incentive for players to do things that aren't in furtherance of seeking out XP and treasure? Inspiration, perhaps, if the DM gives it out for sitting around pretend-eating and telling jokes instead of adventuring. Your position strikes me as the same as being annoyed that people don't take the time to explore Baltic Avenue's night life when Monopoly only rewards moving forward and acquiring money and property.
In other words, don't hate the playah - hate the game.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
There can be bad DMs or bad players. Both can hurt a game, but I tend to think a bad DM is worse, because a DM has much more power than any individual player. This why I dislike giving more power to the DM, as 5e does, because having a bad DM is worse than having a bad player.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
It's very simple, there are just some people you can't play with.
JohnLynch wrote:
bawylie wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
What I feel that a number of contributors to this thread are failing to grasp, is that is not generally the conflict between the DM and the "special snowflake" that is the problem but the imposition upon other players that the "SS" can cause eg. the DM designs a tight campaign setting all the players spend time desiging characters to fit that setting, then along comes the "SS" and says "but I will scream & scream & scream unless I get what I want" whether or not the DM feels willing to accomodate them is not the sole or indeed the most important point. It is the annoyance caused to the other players at the table.
Of course in organised play these discussions are moot.
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Tia wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I don't play with min-maxers, strangers. or rules lawyers.
I play with close friends and the one rule that trumps all rules is having fun and being nice to each other. When I DM (which is most of the time) I either use 2e/4e RAW Dark Sun, or our own setting that has been group-created over 15 years. The idea of DM vs. Player or whatever is some BS that I only encountered at LGS's, on RPG forums, my high school's gamer club, and Gen Con. Never in my livingroom. It does exist, and elitist powergaming jerks turn off tons of potential players to the hobby every day...But so what? Every group of fans of something has tons of jerks, and tons of nice, caring people.
Also, it's a cooperative game, IMO, if you're being competitive/combatitive/disruptive you're doing it wrong, lol.
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
I like the Uncommon Races sidebar on page 33 of the PHB. Races like dragonborn are specifically called out as Uncommon; they don't exist in every world and even then, they're less widespread than the Big Four. It describes how people commonly react when say, a dragonborn wanders into a smaller town or village. A dragonborn could easily be mistaken for a monster but unless he or she starts breathing fire, most people simply remain cautious (and won't run for their lives).
The sidebar is just a suggestion though. In some settings, dragonborn may be actually scary (rather than just strange). In other settings (such as our 4e homebrew 
), dragonborn (or dray as we call 'em) are a common race (along with tieflings, devas, genasi, changelings, and humans). There are no dwarves, elves, eladrin, drow, or halflings in that setting.
In historical and/or non-magical settings, all races will need to be re-evaluated (except humans o' course); both common and uncommon races. Dragonborn wouldn't be appropriate in a setting inspired by Old Testament stories but neither will dwarves, elves, or halflings.
Anyway, I just like that sidebar. Really gives a common reference point. From there, we each go our own way.
Orethalion wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
'...of course you can play a dragonborn in a Greco-Roman historical campaign, you simply have a terrible skin-condition, and some weird calcium growth around your head, and yeah, your breath weapon, it is just the power of your burp, the power of the burp was passed down to you from many generations of epidermis-challenged forefathers.'
.................*blows brains out*
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I find when players are not given obvious directions from the GM during times of boredom, they will start to figit and start to break things.
Wait . . . Dragonborn are Disney? And dwarves aren't?
Artifact wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Just my two cents, but I've never had a player get upset because I refused to let them play a certain race or class. Whenever a new campaign starts we sit down and discuss the guidelines for the setting, what races/classes are allowed, etc...I think in all my ancient years of playing I've only had to go into detail about why somethng was absent from the campaign twice. And both times, after the explanation, there were no issues at all.
Orethalion wrote:
Citizens murdering dragonborn, because they look monstrous? This would make sense if the people are unable to identify the real source of their problems and have latched onto dragonborn as a scapegoat. If they know their foes are orcs and goblinoids due to a history of raids, but have never been persecuted by dragonborn, then the appearance of a strange dragon-headed individual would indeed be more likely to result in caution than in homicide. When you're hard pressed with the enemies you do have, making more for no reason just isn't smart.
Though if dragonborn are known villains in the setting, such as in a Dark Sun campaign where dragonborn are often slavers, then a lone one being mobbed and killed by a group of slaves or ex-slaves would make sense. If people are so spooked by individuals of particular nonhuman races that they kill them on sight (would genasi face this fate, I wonder), then I'd prefer a more substantive reason than "they look monstrous", which is a little too close to "showed up as evil on paladin radar" for my comfort.
It's just the usual shtick of spouting off reasons why something can't work in an imaginary world rather than reasons why it can.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Aren't Saurials technically second edition?
Things can't work in am imaginary world when the world is populated by a Dm who choses not to use such things. If a player believes a particular class or race does belong in the game then it is up to that player to run a game with those rces and classes in them. While a Dm creates a world for everyone to explore, including the Dm, it is always forgotten or shrugged off that it comes at the expense of a Dm's free time and for anyone who says that a player spends as much effort in creating a character as a Dm does in creating a world really does not understand nor does he/she have any desire to do so.
grendel111111 wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Personnally I feel that it is important to remmeber that D&D is a game, not a liberal arts/social sciences seminar with compulsary Kumbayar chours every short rest.
iserith wrote:
Emirikol wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Noon wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Eveybody's out to ruin everything. Always.
I have the impression some people feel this way because they might be too gorram defensive about what they bring to the table. "B- But... I poured my soul into this completly unique and detailed setting/character! Changing the most minute detail destroys its very essence! You can't force me to!"
Loosen up a bit, talk it out and find a compromise. I don't think anything is so special that it can't be tweaked a bit.
iserith wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
While all DM's can have these problems, they can mitigate the problem by framing the limits of the game. Set the rules before the PC"s are written. One of the mission statements of 5e seems to be to empower the DM. I like it.
Thunaer wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
When I run a game, if I have restrictions on classes, races, feats, etc. it's 99.9% of the time a thematic reason that fits into the story. I'll have a reason why Dragon Sorcerers are banned or that Paladins aren't around or why Drow can't be used by player characters. Often it's because there's no place for them in the setting (such as Dwarves, Halflings, and Half-Orcs in my Ravnica: City of Guilds 4E game). However I'd never ban something from the table because I personally don't like it. I find that sort of attitude.........immature at best because there's absolutely zero reason for me, even as a DM, to exclude an option where there is no viable reason in the setting just because I don't personally like them. Looking back at my games, I can say that I really don't like Gnomes. I mean, I really hate them as a race and I'd probably never play one. But when we run Forgotten Realms there are Gnomes in the setting and me saying to player X "No, can't play gnomes because I think they're dumb" is so short-sighted, childish, and a complete antithesis to what I feel is D&D.
Honestly, I don't care what others do at their tables. People wanna ban Dragonborn or Warlock or Cantrips or whatever....psssh OK, I care because.....? And if your players are fine with that, GREAT! I will say that getting new people at the table with such limited restrictions for reasons of "because I said so" will be much harder than someone else who says "Cool, I think I can work a Dragonborn Warlock into the setting of my story."
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Tia wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Diffan wrote:
The Glory of Rome was a historical supplement, describing a historical setting. So, no non-human races.
That said, it was left up to the DM to decide if magic was real or simple trickery. If wizard characters were allowe, there was a Roman Witch kit available. As expected, no fireballs or lightning bolts, but hey,
The designers left the door open (or at least ajar) to the possiblity of magic,, even in an otherwise historical setting. I think the fact that witches are given actual consideration in a Roman inspired setting, speaks volumes. Sure, the splatbook is gonna be seen by lots players (not just one table), so they'd want to be as accomodating as possible but they could've easily slammed that door shut. Real World Historicla Era. No magic. Period. Instead, they left it up to the DM.
As DM, that's what I like to do, leave the door ajar whenever possible. So, dragonborn in a glorious Rome setting? Sure, it's odd but then again, so are witches in such a setting. Maybe . . .just maybe.
Gatt wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Artifact wrote:
In my shortish stint in 4e, we just made dragonborn and tieflings look human. The problem was solved temporarily. ;)
jh
Orethalion wrote:
I see no reason to treat the "unusual" races as monsters (besides the tieflings and their devliish ties, perhaps) just because they'd be treated as monsters in this world or other worlds that don't have them walking around commonly. Common sense to me would say that if they're plentiful enough then people regardless of race will just them like people regardless of race (now, that could still be bad, of course :P).
Now if the player wanted to play a race that was like that, then he and the DM (and the other players) should all work together on that. And if the players don't want to worry about playing a "monster" race (despite how non-human the race may be) but the GM still wants to treat a race that way I'd recomend the GM to use a race that isn't selected as the scary, even if it's one of the core four, which I bet would make for a much more interesting story anyway.
Artifact wrote:
In my games, tieflings are not common at all and are treated appropriately given the situation. If the PC's are in a huge city that sees many races on a usual basis then the tiefling would get on much better than if it were to stroll through a small village in the middle of no where. Now depending on the concept such as being raised in "that" small village, then they may accept him.
Nautilus wrote:
Honestly? In my setting, tieflings were distrusted. They were seen as nearly universally powerful and dangerous, their fiendish blood making them inherently unpredictable and, if not actively malevolent, at least traitorious.
Then, during my playtest campaign, one of them helped save the Republic of Darokin from the Hulite raiders. Then, to top that off, she helped kill Asmodeus and prevented a full-on orcish invasion of the Known World.
Ten years later, things are, needless to say, a little different. 
Because saying yes opens up possibilities for really, really good stories you wouldn't have gotten to tell otherwise.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
What direction might the conversation be taking if the thread had been titled "DMs: Out To Ruin Everything?" ?
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Suppose I was talking to my players and the following conversation took place.
DM: Hey guys, I was thinking about running a campaign set in pre-War of the Lance Dragonlance.
Player 1: Sounds good, I shall be a knight of Solamnia.
Player 2: Awesome, I'll be a kender rogue. *groans from all around the table*
Player 3: I want a challenge, so I'll be a heathen cleric.
Player 4: Hell yeah! Dragonborn sorcerer in the hizzouse!
Would I be a bad DM for saying "No" to player 4?
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Some should consider that not everyone who plays D&D has read all of the lore and knows everything as you seem to. Perhaps consider explaining why their choice is a bad idea or doesn't fit the theme...or just be a douche and say no with no explaining involved. Either way works, one makes you cool and educational, one makes you a jerk.
Diffan wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
iserith wrote:
.......Aaand we're back to square 1.
What's the point of this discussion again?
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
My view is that I'm there to run the environment. The players are there to explore the environment. I'm more than willing to let the players make any character they want, within the confines of the rules themselves. Munchkin, over-powered, whatever, it doesn't bother me. I trust the players not to screw around, and the players trust me not to railroad them or try to 'nerf' them. I make sure all the players have a chance to shine, everyone has a chance to be involved, and everyone has fun.
I don't try to make a 'story' for the world - I run the world as if it were just that... a world. Not everything has to be built on a 'story', the world functions with or without the PCs, and the PCs get to be involved as much as they wish. I'm not worrying about the PCs derailing the setting. There's plenty for them to do, they get to decide how invested they are in the events being laid out in the world, and they get to choose what is important to them.
This all comes from an "Illegal AD&D" game that ran when I was in Junior High. I was running a fairly basic, BECMI campaign, and some players from the AD&D campaign wanted to bring their characters in. Being new at this - I was always the GM, never the player, and was GM from 'day 1', I thought it would be fine.
The characters were in the hundreds of levels, had their attributes around 18 to 25, had AC in the negative double-digits, and had thousands of hit points. They had laser weapons, death stars, mecha, grenade launchers, and their own pet 'baby Tiamats'. Weapons and armour were 5s, or more, and ... well, it was over the top.
And I let them play. And I had to learn, quickly, how to make a campaign interesting for everyone when you have these gods walking among mere mortals. And I did. It took effort, I couldn't challenge them with combat, but I learned how to make the game engaging, showing them interesting places to see, and over time they pared back their over-the-top stuff, and got invested in my games. This showed me I didn't have to worry about 'munchkins' in my game, or power gamers - if the setting is interesting, if the concepts I bring out are engaging, and the players are enjoying themselves, then everything's fine. The players don't want to screw your game - they want to have fun. The trick, as a game master, is to know what they'll enjoy.
Orethalion wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Zappy wrote:
You were a bad DM for not banning the kender. That dragonborn sounds awesome.
Orethalion wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Jvance420 wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Huh, thinking about the Dragonlance setting, I don't think I'd allow Sorcerer or Warlock PCs if I was holding 'true' to the setting. I remember the 1E book detailing the differences between Dragonlance and the other campaign worlds - magicians were clerics in all but name, really - since they were servants of the three gods of the moons, and I think the paladins were replaced with the Knights of Solamnia - who didn't get spells, that I recall.
I'd be very interested in seeing what Krynn would be like in 5E.
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
iserith wrote:
Compromise isn't a "well it could work, therefore you HAVE to compromise!" thing.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Noon wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jvance420 wrote:
I've found over the years that players who show up with a character concept that conflicts with the setting I sent them to read have already demonstrated they are not the type of roleplayer I want. I want players who are excited about the campaign setting and are eager to engage that setting with characters appropriate to that setting.
I provide a great campaign setting. Most fantasy authors do less than I do in crafting my world. I provide all sorts of interesting things to draw upon in designing a character. The game is the rules + the setting as far as I'm concerned.
So if people want to play something that doesn't fit my setting I suggest they find a DM that offers what they want. Of course in choosing that other DM, they are far far more likely to get a far far less immersive world otherwise. I've found if you give the players a great and deep world with a lot of originality that they will gladly accept the strictures you place upon character creation. If not then they are absolutely not the players I want in my game.
Edited by Orc_Barrons: Inappropriate Content violates the Code of Conduct: http://company.wizards.com/conduct'
Emerikol. wrote:
Jvance420 wrote:
Iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
For me, D&D is a game of collaborative storytelling. This includes discovery, adventure, mystery, character development, etc.
Rule Zero is in place to run and manage the game. It's a kind of IMO judicial system over disputes and interpretation of RAW & RAI.
Consequently, for me, Collaborative Storytelling is a first-order importance. Rule Zero is down at like 5th.
So, whatever my campaign pitch, I WILL collaborate and work with a player. Most of my players know I ban wizards from all my games by default. Some still come with wizard character pitches. We discuss out particular desires and goals and try to find a workable solution. Generally, I find I'll have to veto a few spells and get the "flavor" away from the Gandalf-y, Elminster-y thing or the "protect our precious glass canon" thing.
But I wanted to play A WIZARD!! A WIZARDY wizard!! 
Iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
As someone new to the community and with very little knowledge of the game. I have to say that a DM who is moderating a group isn't a bad thing. It allows new people to get a grasp of what is and isn't allowed in certain scenarios as well as still giving space for them to learn. But that is only if the DM explains why they aren't allowed to do what they want.
ForgottenSpecter wrote:
Iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ForgottenSpecter wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Ah validation.
Another of my guiding principles is to ask myself "If I were playing, how would I want the DM to be? How would I want them to adjudicate?"
What I want as a player is a DM who is out of the way - who facilitates my actions and ideas (finds ways in the rules to make it work) instead of explaining why things won't or can't work.
As ever, I often fail to live up to my own principles (see my hatred for wizards), but damn it if I don't try.
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
I do not think a DM should compromise a setting because a player wants his oompa loompa, now!
Thank god I have never been at a D&D table with anyone gauche enough to demand to play a specific anything, regardless of the setting.
Kugnar wrote:
Iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Centauri wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Centauri wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I could care less what Iserith has to say JohnLynch. I don't need Iserith's approval nor does anyone need it. No one needs mine either for that matter. If I have happy engaged players then I count it a success.
I honestly do not know whether that is true of Iserith or not. If he has found a way his group likes then go for it. I do find his "one true wayism" of DMing and setting approach to be tiresome and that is why I ignore his posts these days.
I don't worry over much about my group because at campaign design start I don't have a group. I won't have a group for months. Sure if I had exactly five players and no others were even a possibility I'd probably run an overall concept past the group to see if they liked it or not. My liking it though is an absolute must. Not because I'm more important but if I don't like it then I'm going to be boring and being boring is not good. To me having an excited and engaged DM is worth far more than any concept. I love elves but I'd abandon elves in a second if I had a DM like I like. They are hard to find. That is why my players are loyal and pretty much accept what I offer. I promise to do my best not to bore them.
I have many potential players though. I've said before I could nearly run a group every night if I wanted to do that. I don't. My theory on DMing is that if you do what you do well and your goal is fun for all then you will have players that like what you do. That even goes for Iserith's games. It wouldn't be for me but roleplaying tastes are not unique.
A good example is that collaborative world building exercise a guy was doing at Gen Con. I gave up about half way through. The process and the approach didn't appeal to me. Do I think I could do a better job by myself. Yes. Without hestiation yes. But that is just my opinion. If though it were true for even 10% of the people there then I'd have all the players I'd ever want. Trying to make everyone happy all the time is a surefire way of turning D&D into gruel. I'd prefer DM's find their niche and do it well. That will grow the game. I dislike it when anyone but especially the designers assume one view point on things. It's not healthy.
JohnLynch wrote:
ForgottenSpecter wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Kugnar wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
To continue the awful food analogies:
Those of you saying, "No." to players with ideas that are outside of your ideal campaign world sound like folks who invited people to a hamburger party and are getting upset because someone wants a cheeseburger. The person who wants the cheeseburger isn't out to ruin your hamburger party. Your party guest loves your hamburger, they think the hamburger party is awesome. They just really like cheese on their burger.
I guess that's my biggest beef (ugh, accidental puns) with this whole thread. The title immediately assumes that players with "strange" or "unique" ideas are out to destroy your hard work. They're not. They're here to experience it and enjoy it. But they should be able to enjoy it the way they want.
iserith wrote:
I still get funny looks when I ask to play a Mul in FR campaigns. It isn't like genetic tampering is done only by the Dragon Kings.
Chakravant wrote:
If the campaign exists before the character, and the player asks to bring something in that the DM has already stated is not in the campaign, the player is being a jerk.
If the character and the campaign are created concurrently and the DM says "Nope, don't like that, you can't play it" then the DM is being a jerk.
Primacy of creation is the key point in jerk determination.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
sailoroswald wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
"Well said. D&D's great in that it offers us the flexibility to include the ideas of others at the table, or not, depending on what makes for a better game at your table."
Improved that for ya.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
An idea from a player that contravenes something already established by ANYONE at the table - including the DM - is not offered in good faith.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
For the discussion of the need to reject things from settings that use specific canon in D&D's history (be it muls from Realms or dragonborn from Dragonlance), I'd like to remind you of something fairly important:
Canonically, all the major D&D settings except possibly Eberron exist in the same universe. Spelljammer and Planescape connect the lot of them, and allow travel from one to the other. There may be no dragonborn on Krynn, no muls on Toril, but they can get to those worlds - and the fact that they can is canon, because Krynn sits in Krynnspace and Toril sits in Realmspace and both share a universe with all the other settings created for 2e and all earlier editions and a thousand other worlds besides.
So it's not just possible to allow a dragonborn in a canon Dragonlance game, it's easy, and saying that a dragonborn in canon Krynn isn't possible is itself a violation of canon.
I started this thread with the intention of exploring DM attitudes towards players who express a desire to run PCs outside the set parameters of the campaign. You've said "No dragonborn", so why the hell is this player saying that they'd love to play a dragonborn, right here and now? Maybe they're not "out to ruin everything" (an admittedly hyperbolic coinage for being disruptive), but the request can't be from a good place. Maybe they never learnt to accept the word 'no', they want to be treated as a special snowflake, they're a born contrarian, they have no respect for your authority as a DM, no respect for setting integrity, et cetera...
In fact, I can't remember a proponent of restrictive games expressing any positive interpretations of player requests that don't fit campaign restrictions. When motivations are attributed to the player, they're reliably negative - the player is only doing this for bad reasons. Any counterexamples would be welcomed.
There's another way to view such requests. Instead of thinking of them as insubordination, an annoyance, an attempt to draw a mustache on your campaign's Mona Lisa - think of them as an opportunity.
You said there's no dragonborn. A player really wants to play one. Right, that means you have an opportunity to include dragonborn.
You're running a campaign of bandits. A player wants to run a lawful good paladin of devotion. You now have an opportunity to discover whether such a mismatched character could actually fit in.
Opportunities can always be foregone. Say no to the dragonborn PC, and the chance of finding out what your world could have been like with dragonborn in it walks by. But before saying no, I think it's worth having a think about whether taking the opportunity could lead to a better game for everyone.
Brock_Landers wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I guess the way I play is this:
My players have near-complete agency over their characters.
My power of agency is in the story. I create the stories and adventures for them. They can take them or leave them as they like (and I want to give them something that entices them), but I am the one that presents them.
And while I have not DMed as much as I would like over the years, none of my stories have ever revolved around any restrictions added to a campaign. My stories never relied on, "No Dwarves in this setting." But even if one did (somehow), I wouldn't be against someone wanting to play one. That ingrains their character into the story. Where are the other Dwarves? Why were they left behind? Do they have a dark past and the other Dwarves abandoned them? Are they the "village idiot" as it were and don't have a clue?
Those possibilities sound way more awesome than, "I guess I'll play something else then."
I guess that's where my feelings on this stem from.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
@ sailoroswald: Right. Is it a problem of a player assailing your precious ideas and trying to ruin them? Or is it an opportunity to combine your ideas with theirs and make something great?
I think it's the latter and I welcome such opportunities.
Chakravant wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Nautilus, I do apologise for referencing the title of the thread as I did in my initial post.
I do know you were only hoping to draw attention to/begin this discussion.
I would have been better to point out that those who truly hold that viewpoint are starting on the wrongfoot instead.
Once again, my apologies.
sailoroswald wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
sailoroswald wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Neptune0923 wrote:
Neptune0923 wrote:
If you're running 3.5 and banning things for balance, and Natural Spell is allowed at your table, I pretty much immediately doubt your feel for balance.
Brock_Landers wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Well it looks like the same people are still telling other people how to play their games.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Centauri wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Jvance420 wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
...but... but... but if I can't play my latest character concept, the Dread Pirate Robot (warforged captain of the pirate ship Rev Engine), in your new desert fey setting campaign, I'll just... just... DIIIIIIEEE!!!1!
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Jvance420 wrote:
Centauri wrote:
A man who was seen chiseling a rock into a beautiful horse was asked, "How do you make a sculpture of a horse?" The artist responded, "I simply chisel away everything that doesn't look like a horse."
A DM's job is simple. By default, you have everything. It's just a giant ugly rock. The DM must chisel away every part of the game that is not their precise vision for an interesting and entertaining world.
Some DMs, however, feel that removing anything at all from the game is a criminal act. These DM insist on keeping the giant ugly rock, and refuse to chisel anything away, no matter how out of place it might be. This, in itself, is fine. They have big ugly rocks, but they like the big ugly rocks, and they have players who also like big ugly rocks. Not everyone can appreciate art.
However, the problem occurs when they see another DM chiseling away. They yell "stop! You can't chisel! You are ruining your big ugly rock!" They do not understand that the chiseling DM would rather have a beautiful horse than an ugly rock.
Centauri wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Jvance420 wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Jvance420 wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Jvance420 wrote:
Funny thing aout you mentioning Boba Fett surviving the Sarlacc Pit. That is considered canon for the EU, aka novel and comic book, Star Wars IP.
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Karnos wrote:
Centauri wrote:
For the past eighteen years I have found it exceedingly easy to find multiple full groups that create collaborative fiction not only in a non-terrible way, but in a way that exceeds the quality of half of the NY Times best seller fiction list for the past eighteen years. Once you engage the group, you find collaborative fiction literally comes naturally, as in it is a natural byproduct of the same social constructs that result in primitive tribal culture/society. Once you bring those highly developed elements of the collective unconscious to the gaming table, it becomes difficult to yield a poor result.
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
iserith wrote:
@ Thunaer: Again, we're not talking about players who are bought into the DM's restrictions. We're talking about a player who wants to "ruin everything" by asking for an exception. How does one deal with that? Some say work with the player to make it work. Others say that player ideas are likely inherently inferior to the DM's and so the DM should say "No."
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Diffan wrote:
sailoroswald wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Noon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Noon wrote:
Not sure if commentary on JJ Abrams or about RPGs...
Centauri wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
What I have noticed is that given the option of running their own game and actually doing the work for that game or accepting the limitations of my campaign and getting to play, most choose to play. There is no winning when you force something on a DM. If he accepts, he will be resentful, unmotivated, and the world will end up going to pot in all likelihood anyway. So who really won? Nobody. If the DM is resisting a change then it's important to him and you are going to suck the life out of the campaign by forcing the issue. If the DM does enough stuff I don't like then I dont' join the campaign. Most of the time I wouldn't be that picky. If what he does offer is good then I'm happy regardless of what is left out.
I do feel like the game played by the create the world as you go second by second crowd is a different game. I definitely won't say that it's not roleplaying and I definitely won't say that they aren't playing D&D. I will say they aren't playing D&D in a traditional way. The reason I'd call it a different game is that the motivations and rewards for playing are so different that I don't see one ever filling in for the other.
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Jvance420 wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Gatt wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Centauri wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Cebtauri wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Centauri wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
My experience is that any one player in a game of D&D would produce a better world alone than what would be produced with everyone collaborating. Consistency and verisimilitude are really important to someone like me. I get that most of the people in the "other" camp really could care less especially as I see it. They might say they believe in it but what they are believing in is not what I am talking about anyway.
So I totally believe that not getting to add your idea to the game is a tiny price to pay for a good world with a lot of verisimilitude. It's pennies on the dollar for a vastly better experience. Again as I see and value gaming as a form of entertainment.
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Centauri wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Okay, looking at the thread and coming up with my own thoughts:
1) When the game master says 'we're playing in world X', that lays down some ground rules. Typically, this involves what exists in the world and how the world operates. For people who know the setting, this gives them an idea of what's going on and what's available.
Dragonlance
- With Krynn: No Halflings, yes Kender. No Orcs, thus no Half-Orcs. No Dragonborn, yes Draconians.
- Pre War of the Lance: No Draconian PCs (unless the PCs want to be constantly chased by opponents who probably very much outclass them). No Clerics. No Paladins.
- Possibly: Minotaur PCs.
If I lay out 'this takes place before the War of the Lance', then I expect my players to build within the parameters that are set out. If someone tries to make something which doesn't exist in the setting, I feel fairly justified in saying 'no, you can't do that'. The answer to 'why' is very simple. It doesn't exist in the setting. Sure, someone can argue that they Spelljammered in, or went through a door from Sigil, but if you're going that route, there's two things to consider:
- Does the game master want to introduce that kind of element into the game?
- Is the player willing to roleplay the disorientation and culture shock that would come from such an event?
I'd presume the players are starting out 1st Level. If someone who's spent 16-20 years in, say, the Forgotten Realms were to suddenly show up on Krynn, there would be a lot to get used to suddenly. For example, the different languages may be, in fact, very different. Another example would be getting used to local customs, currency, and the different way things are done from one world to the next. Not to mention the different pantheons.
A character from a different world may find himself a target. You're a Sorcerer from the Forgotten Realms? Great. Expect the wizards of Krynn to want to have words with you. You're a Paladin who came in pre War of the Lance? Well, expect to be hunted down by inquisitors, you're using 'heretical magic'. You're a dragonborn? Cool, expect to see the Dragon Highlord Army looking for you. Yes, these could be great adventure hooks - but the question is, does the game master want to run that kind of hook, and do you as a player want this kind of attention on yourself?
In one campaign setting I run, the god of Death is a collector. This is known. If someone 'unique' shows up in that realm, he sends his clerics to get them and bring them to him. So, if someone decides to buck the setting and be a snowflake, I've got a plot hook all set for them - and I let them know it. "Congrats, you're the first X to ever set foot in this setting. There's someone who wants to meet with you." If the player still wants that character, I'm fine with it - there are ways to get in from the outside. It just means the divinities are drawn to the person in question.
And, as always: setting trumps. As far as I'm concerned, you make characters to the setting. I don't care if there's rules for three toed Barbarian Sloths in a rulebook - if they're not in setting X, the game master is the only one who decides whether or not they're allowed in the setting.
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think what people are saying is that if a player can just pick up a dart and throw it any ol' where off the board, then he's likely to throw it into that back of the DM's head.
Many games proscribe roles. Roles are not bad. Even in a game about fantasy, consistency and verisimilitude are valuable features.
I believe the IC consortium's approach would go this way in many games.
1. Every game would end up being the same setting even when the DM started out with something original.
2. The DM has to throw away any approach that involves limiting what is in his world and thus he loses all the potential benefits of that approach.
3. The DM cannot plan or work on the world at all because it will change under his feat. Thus his work is shallow and unimaginative. Since the players are doing everything off the cuff they don't produce much better results.
Create two groups. One has a single author. The other has five authors. Allow the first group with the single author, to write a story, using all the planning they want. Force the other group to alternate world creation and force them to do it off the cuff with only a few seconds for reflection. Which approach will produce the better story?
I realize it's not the exact same thing as playing a game but there are lessons to be learned. Improvisation is rarely as good as well planned. I won't say never but on a consistent basis it is not. Obviously the actions of the characters (unlike a novel) are not scripted nor can they be planned. The setting though (like a novel) can be planned out and scripted ahead of time. The latter approach gives the players a deep more immersive canvas on which to plot their off the cuff moves. If both the world and the players moves are off the cuff then the result is far less satisfying.
JohnLynch wrote:
Noon wrote:
I've got an idea for solving the sanctity of the rules versus the DM crowd.
Rule 0 - The DM decrees his entire setting as defined whether known or not part of the official rules of his game. If a player transgresses this rule the DM can tell him no. If you take issue with this approach just take solace that you are following the actual rules.
Done.
Tashiro wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Hmm.
I'm going to mention a campaign world I designed, and go from there.
In this game world, there were elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans. The humans were the 'primary race', the elves and dwarves had been made by the gods to protect humanity, and the halflings had literally 'washed ashore', and were adopted by the humans. None of these four races even knew this background - the dwarves and elves had a racial urge to effectively shield the humans. The halflings were kind of grateful that humanity had chosen to help them, and humanity as a whole tried to be decent folk.
What nobody knew was that these four races were effectively trapped in a demirealm. The realm itself had been wiped off the map - taken over by a hostile force. The surviving gods had made this realm specifically to keep humanity alive, hidden away from the incursion. There were two entrances into this demirealm - the dwarves guarded one, where waves of undead constantly tried to push in, and the dwarves battled to keep the undead at bay. The other was through the ethereal realm, where faeries tried to slip into the world, only to be repelled by the elves.
In this demirealm itself, there are no monsters.
Instead, from time to time a lilim would slip through the cracks of reality. These looked like normal humans, elves, dwarves, or halflings. They would integrate into society, and mingle with the people there. Their children would look normal as well -- until they either came of age, or tasted their lilim parent's blood, at which point they'd transform - becoming a monster. Each lilim created a specific type of monster - humanoids, giants, dragons. However, the strength of the monster depended on the strength (level) of the demihuman / human parent. So, a lilim with a 1st level commoner produces perhaps a goblin. A lilim with a 12th level warrior might produce a troll - with class levels.
The setting had a few other rules. No gods. The PCs who wanted divine magic had to be part of certain orders, following the oaths of those orders for spells. Mages had to be registered - unregistered mages were killed. Nobody was allowed to summon creatures, because anything summoned was always Chaotic Evil, and you were forced to make a test to control the creature. Also, summoned creatures didn't 'unsummon' at the end of the spell - they broke free. So, summoning was considered a capital crime.
The PCs were members of the human's inquisition, sent to hunt down cases of rogue magic, and the odd 'monster' which cropped up. They eventually learned of the lilim, though not how the lilim showed up or the reason these creatures existed, and began hunting lilim to put an end to the threat.
---
So, the players came in knowing that there's only four PC races. They didn't know the setting particulars (since most characters in the setting don't know either). If a player showed up wanting to play a half-orc, what should I do? My instinct says "considering the nature of the setting, no. No half-orcs". Why? Because there aren't orcs. There's no half-elves, either. The elves/dwarves/halflings/humans can't cross-breed.
But yeah. The setting has a specific feel, so of course, to keep that feel you need to kind of cling to the setting.
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
The answer is clearly "no", but they squirm and dodge so hard just so they can avoid actually saying "no" on these forums.
Real DMs know when and how to say "no".
Bad DMs claim to never say "no", but instead use excuses, weasel words, and redirection to effectively say "no" without actually speaking the word.
grendel111111 wrote:
Iserith wrote:
Actually, thinking about this, I wonder how the Warblade would look in 5E. That was one of my favourite classes. <.<
iserith wrote:
Beldak wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Iserith wrote:
Actually, to be 'fair' in my games, it seems I tend to be the one to roll attributes for the players. And even if someone else is GMing, if I roll for my character, people expect me to roll for theirs. The reason is I'm apparently "god with dice" when it comes to rolling attributes, and the players don't think it's fair if they were forced to roll their own attributes. :D
I find it funny as hell, actually.
JohnLynch wrote:
Ha! I'm glad to see you, in the end, are consistent. You seemed hidebound to what was in the Rulebook earlier but clearly I just misunderstood you.
i still find your continued assertions of DMs being weak or unskilled if they fall outside of your accepted standards to be bullying. But I do Thankyou for taking the time to more clearly explain your position.
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
I'm familiar with collaberative settings - I've written and published an RPG system which relies on that as the central focus of the game engine - every player is a game master of sorts for the game being run. However, I don't think that's 'baseline' for D&D. When I'm running a D&D game, I try very hard to stick to RAW - and that means if I'm using a campaign setting, then the RAW for that setting is what applies. This way, all the players are on the same page.
If a player things the details of the setting are 'arbitrary' and 'unimportant', then there's a good chance they're not going to be in my game. My players understand that the setting is important, and how the characters are integrated into the setting is important. Culture, Religion, Politics, these all matter in my games. If someone couldn't be bothered to learn about the region their character is from and how society works, then they're going to not enjoy the game - because these are forces that come into play often.
And yes - a world is a big place. But that doesn't mean everything has to be in it. Earth is big, but I don't see gnomes walking around on any part of this world. In my setting, the god of the realm made the conscious decision to not have gnomes. Thus, there's no gnomes. This is a known quality of the world.
Tashiro wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
The players have enough information to make the characters - they know what kingdoms exist, they know what races exist, and they know that once in a while a 'creature' might show up, but that there's no 'wandering monsters' or 'dungeons' or anything of the sort. They know it isn't that kind of game. They know there's no gods, no pantheons (well, there's three gods, but the mortal races don't know that, so the players don't need to know that either). Yes, the players can keep the information separate, but then you're also ruining the surprise for the players when something they didn't suspect suddenly pops up.
And no, the situation isn't sticky. The players know the limits, and they accept them. I've never, ever had a situation come up where a player's dug in their heels to play something that's not in the setting. I've rarely (not in the last decade, mind you) have a player make a character that broke the setting's paradigm. And when they're informed, they go make something new. I'm fine with this, my players are fine with this.
Though, to turn this around. Collaberative games. If your player brings something unexpected to the table, and you allow it - how do you adapt the setting for this new inclusion, so that it makes sense in a 'big picture' sort of way? If you were running a Krynn campaign, and allowed a PC to bring in a half-orc PC, how would you incorporate orcs into the setting, and how did the setting change to allow for them? That is, after all, a big change.
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
These kind of questions are important, because they set up the context for how the character exists. If I'm making a Jedi in Star Trek, I need to know what that means. Who trained me, who trained them, how many other Jedi are there, and who have I encountered? Do I know what Sith are? Have I ever encountered one? Have there been Sith Wars?
The campaign isn't about my character - but every character has a background, and that background impacts who the character is in the present, and what they are looking towards in the future. So, if I'm a Jedi in Star Trek, then I'm a Jedi, and that comes with baggage. Just like if I said I'm playing a Klingon, then the entire concept of what a Klingon is becomes important in defining what my character is - the Klingon empire, their traditions, culture, enemies and allies, their view of the world, and so forth.
No character exists in a vacuum. A good character has background, and that background is integrated into the setting and is integral to everything that character does.
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Both positive and negatives affect the enjoyment of a game. If a group of players show up wanting to play in the Star Trek universe and one guy brings in a Jedi then it's likely going to be a negative for everyone but that guy. We all wanted to play in the Star Trek universe. So our desire to avoid something is as valid as your desire to have it. When I as DM, present a campaign world the players all show up expecting that campaign world. I've sent them the info they need to come up with a character that fits. The second I allow someone to change that setting and play something that doesn't fit I'm going to have unhappy players.
In fact I believe negatives are far more important than positives. If I go to a buffet and I hate spinach and love chicken, I'm okay if I have to settle on pork but if I have to accept spinach then the meal is ruined. People's ability to play a subset of their preferred tastes is easy but having to accept something they hate is not so easy.
Tashiro wrote:
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Tashiro wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Centauri wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
@ Centauri: Right. Things are important when they're relevant and that's when they can be fleshed out. It doesn't really need to be done beforehand, though it could be. I prefer elements of the world and character backgrounds be established as players are inspired by the events of play. To that end, I keep my setting material broad and request players share backgrounds no longer than a Tweet so that everyone has flexibility to grow and change. I'd rather be shown who they are than told and the less prep work anyone has done, the less anyone has a reason to block the ideas of others.
iserith wrote:
This discussion is making no progress at the current rate.
Lets try a different view.
You (as DM) get together with your players, and one player (we can call him "player B") pulls out a deck of Magic cards instead of a character sheet. Player B explains that he wants to play Magic: The Gathering.
Are you going to accept that, and somehow rework the game so he can play Magic: The Gathering along with the rest of the group (that is still playing D&D) and make it work?
I am guessing the answer is no. If somehow you can pull that off with a "yes, and..." I'd love to hear how you handle it. Anyway, if this is a reluctant answer of "no", then I think the reason is obvious: the group was getting together to play D&D, not to play M:TG. All the other players and the DM want to play D&D, so it's not fair to change their game around to cater to Player B, who knowingly signed up to play D&D but insisted on actually playing M:TG at the time of the event.
If you can understand that, then it shouln't be a huge leap to see where the "consistent campaign setting" view comes from. When we arrange a group to play DRAGONLANCE, and all the players agree to play DRAGONLANCE, and then a player actually shows up with an ORC character (or something else absurdly out of place for the setting), we tend to say "no". We wanted to play DRAGONLANCE, not some generic D&D setting that resembles dragonlance but which also includes orcs.
Karnos wrote:
I have been skimming the 60 or so new posts a day in this thread for the last few days.
Not a single time has anyone posted anything new.
Let it go, guys. Either agree to disagree, or post something that you haven't posted five times before.
iserith wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Karnos wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Okay, to put this into perspective, so I'm on the right page.
----
GM: So, I'm going to run a D&D campaign. I think we should use Dragonlance. Everyone okay with this?
Players: Yep.
Player 2: Sure, whatever.
GM: I'll send you guys the setting document for the game tonight.
Time Passes
GM: Okay, let's see your characters. Err, player 2, did you look at the setting document? It says no orcs, and no warlocks, but you made a half-orc warlock.
Player 2: Yeah, I didn't read it. It doesn't matter. But I had this great idea for a half-orc warlock, so I made him.
GM: But there's no orcs in the setting.
Player 2: So what? I'm sure you can fit him in, he's cool! He's got a 17 Strength, And I took the Spy background, so he's extra sneaky.
GM: What does any of this have to do with the setting?
Player 2: I don't know, that's not my problem. I just want to play a half-orc warlock. He's cool!
GM: Okay, so what's his background?
Player 2: Eh, I don't care. It isn't important.
GM: So, you're ignoring the setting, made a 'cool' character, and haven't really made any history for him?
Player 2: Yeah.
GM: Err, no. Can you make a character that actually fits?
Player 2: What? Why? I want to play a half-orc warlock! You're so unimaginative!
---
So, am I on the right page? The GM, in this case, is in the wrong, and should just accept Player 2's character? ;)
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
I assume that a player is aware of any agreements, honestly does not feel they're violating those agreements, and is attempting to improve the game for everyone. In other words, I assume they're acting in good faith. Assuming that, I see no reason to treat one player's offer any differently than any other's, until the player has demonstrated that one of those assumptions is not true.
Tashiro wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Centauri wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
iserith: "Canon Violation Police, freeze! Dice and pencils down! You there with the steampunk Batman shirt. You are to redact your character's current action as it would unravel the time stream as laid out in book six. And shame on you. Do your parents know about this?"
sailoroswald wrote:
I wouldn't call the player a troublemaker. I rarely consider players troublemakers. I may presume the player's missing some important information, which I'm more than willing to provide. The player may have the wrong idea about the kind of games I run, in which case I'll inform them. I've had players bow out of a game after one or two sessions, because they don't like the setting. I'm not offended, and they're in other games that I'm running, so it's all cool.
I have had troublemaker PCs. I've had people who have put 'cool' before 'setting' or even 'group'. I've broken such players, when I was a player, and when I was a game master. One game was Shadowrun - where the GM allowed me to run an adventure. The player brought in some nifty new device, and planned to use it to show off. The device itself actually broke the background for the game about what the device could actually do - so I made a judgement call based on realism. The actual GM backed my call, and the player got upset - but neither of the GMs flinched. (Specifically, he wanted to have a dikote-treated blade on a naginata with a flare on the end. The problem is, dikote is made by heating metal and adding a diamond-dust layer to give it an extra edge. Extreme heat warps the dikote and renders it useless. So... the flare, when right next to the blade, screws the dikote.)
Anyway, troublemaker PCs, I have a simple method of dealing with. I follow the rules. I follow the setting. I don't budge. I enact consequence - a character's actions will have consequences appropriate to the actions taken. I don't single out the character for "treatment", I don't deliberately take action against the character. It isn't 'me vs the player', roleplaying games aren't supposed to be adversarial. But I become very, very neutral. Normally, if a player is adding something to the game, I'll make sure the players have every chance within the context of the rules to succeed. I'll give the players opportunities to save their bacon, presuming such opportunities exist, and I'll even offer advice as a game master in case they missed something I think their characters would know. With troublemakers, I'll be less engaging - they'll still have their opportunities, but it is more the other players who make the decisions on how much they want to help the problem player.
But, fortunately, this is a very few and far between thing.
As for "making a case". You're the game master, you are the judge for the game. You are the person that decides what is and isn't in your campaign. You're the one who decides how the environment interacts with the characters. You're the one who makes the judgement call on how NPCs act and react, what monsters show up, what tactics they use, and what is happening in the world that is beyond the control of the players.
That makes you a judge.
And sure, you can trust a player - there's nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean that players get carte blanch.
sailoroswald wrote:
Centauri wrote:
This all reminds me of a player who brought my Star Wars RPG game to an end because "A trandoshan would never do that."
In all seriousness though, the only destruction of canon that has ever upset me is when Disney announced that all the old comics/books/etc. of the Star Wars expanded universe were no longer canon.
But even then, I knew a friend that played Saga Edition, and I wanted to play in his pre-Prequel Trilogy where they ended up killing Jar-Jar (and a few other characters).
I don't see a problem with breaking canon.
And I don't mean to say that I don't get where other people are coming from in wanting to "preserve" a setting.
We all have our own priorities. What's fun for us.
I have played in no restriction campaigns and had fun.
I've played in restricted campaigns and had fun.
I've also been miserable in both.
Story is number one for me. The War of the Lance is a story. One that I don't find to be ruined by a non-canon character.
Everything else will be the same. Same power players, same struggles, same victories and defeats to be had.
JC999 wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Sometimes 'canon' can me misread or misinterpreted anyway. When I was making my first Eberron character like ten years ago, I misread the section on the city of Stormhome, thinking that the magical rennovations to the city had happened recently in-world, rather than a hundred years prior. I liked the idea of my character returning to the desolate island home he loved only to discover a gaudy tourist paradise.
When I told the DM about my backstory, he didn't say "Stormhome was rebuilt a hundred years ago, pick somewhere else to be from." Instead he said "Ok cool, in our campaign Stormhome is a recent development."
In some campaigns this may have had drastic consequences for house Lyrindar, but that organization didn't factor into our adventures much, so nothing was really affected.
sailoroswald wrote:
I get how that goes. My player played the KOTOR games and thought he knew everything about a NPC's race including, "They're all dead, they can't exist."
And ugh, don't even get me started on the fights about Mandalorians we had.
But this is starting to get off topic, haha.
sailoroswald wrote:
sailoroswald wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Yeah. Canon is a difficult machine with lots of fiddly bits that break easily and are hard to replace.
As I stated in one of my posts, my games wouldn't be a canon game and the guy would still fuss.
Admittedly I never brought the issue to a higher level of understanding; shame on me.
I think the only definition I could give for a trouble player is "a player who disrupts the game during play."
We're all here to play the game and have fun. Don't throw stones at the sleeping giant.
Just be chill, man. Don't break the social contract, ya dig? Then it's all groovy.
Centauri wrote:
Well, time for me to take off.
I'll try to keep up on my mobile phone,
but that never seems to work out.
I'm going to get to a response to a single post in a moment, but I wanted to open up with something else. What I'm saying here, above the post I'm responding to, isn't specifically to the person to whom I'm responding - in fact, I'm not sure Emerikol has ever used the phrase I'm objecting to. But here we go:
There are certain phrases that just get under my skin that get tossed around on these boards. They're the Generic D&D Content Insults - things people say about mechanics or artwork or playstyles that they don't like that are meant to be insulting but have no real meaning because everyone uses them differently, and are actually intended to just insult the people who do like those things. "Anime," "cartoon," "MMO," World of Warcraft," "video game," things like that. I wish people would stop using them, because they're insulting (and not just to people who like games that are being called those things - they're also insulting to people who like those things!) and don't actually communicate anything.
There's one that I'm seeing more and more and that I'm coming to hate more than any of the others, though, and that one's "special snowflake." It's thrown at specific playstyles (and derives from mostly-Conservative strawmen about education and competition - strawmen with no basis in reality and that are used in political debate to harm both educators and children, which gives me extra reason to detest the term) where the player wants their character to be special - to be unique, to be the protagonist of the story.
In other words, where the player wants their character to be a player character. Where a player's inspiration is drawn from actual stories - books, movies, games, legends, myths - where the protagonists nearly always are inherently special and unique, and wants an experience in the game similar to those stories.
We shouldn't be insulting that. We should be celebrating it, because it's what makes D&D worth playing, what makes novels based on people's campaigns worth writing, what makes our hobby the wonderful escape it is. So stop using that term. Just... stop it.
Emerikol. wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
I'm a consortium! Rarrr!
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Centauri wrote:
sailoroswald wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I'm hoping to see advanced technology of some fashion in this edition. d20 Modern was interesting, seeing it using current rules could be awesome.
Tashiro wrote:
Well, taking dragonspawn as an example. If the GM decides there's no impact - then the shock troops of Takhisis become... what? They're draconian. The PHB says that the draconians are dragonspawn of the Krynn setting, but that draconians don't have firebreath. So... people look at them and go 'oh, there's a bunch of evil dragonspawn'?
Considering the way draconians are made... I'd presume dragonspawn are done the same way. This method was a huge revelation in the setting, and Takhisis was using the eggs of the good dragons as hostages to prevent the good dragons from intervening. However, if all dragonspawn are created this way, the good dragons would have a very good idea of where these draconians are coming from. This means the good dragons get into the fight way earlier.
I don't know... simply allowing things without thinking the details through... feels wrong somehow.
Centauri wrote:
Karnos wrote:
This is a non-issue, unless it is this mysterious tournament play or what-have-you, it comes down to a D&D campaign being presented, and you join in or not,
Tashiro wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm kinda surprised (though then again, maybe not...) that this thread has gotten so huge and heated. This really isn't that hard:
Players are not out to ruin everything.
DMs are not out to ruin everything.
Allowing anything or disallowing anything can both work - as long as the entire table buys it.
Sure, a Greco-Roman campaign probably wouldn't have dragonborn (or really any of the other races - if you allow some oddball races, should make sense to allow others lol). But if you propose running that campaign setting, you should talk it over with you players and make sure that they want to play in that setting - you don't just say "oh, btw, this setting cuz I like it k thanx bai." And while there are DMs like that out there, I certainly don't think it's a large amount. Most people go with the flow a little bit, or are using some of the pre-built settings (which for D&D tend to be inclusive). And if they aren't, I honestly think they'll say "something like "hey guys, I saw this new Dark Sun setting and it looks really cool. Only catch is, no divine characters - sorry Tim haha. Anyways, what do y'all think? Wanna give it a shot?" In the vast majority of cases, DMs are not tyrants.
(Also want to note that as far as reasonable races go, honestly Dragonborn and Tieflings (since they get the most hate) seem like the hardest to exclude, since if you have dragons, then half-dragons = dragonborn, and if you have devils/demons, then the offspring of humans and them = tieflings, so unless there are no dragons or no devils/demons in your world, then it would be hard to imagine that sort of offspring not happening lol).
On the other side of the screen, players are being portrayed as whiny brats who demand something and sit in a corner and pout if they don't get it, but that is also a very rare case. Sure, Dave wanted to play an Elf cuz he really likes them. But in the setting you were working on that subverts normal fantasy tropes, your elves are crazy evil and have been subjugating other races, so it is probably a bad idea for Dave to be an elf. So... just talk to the player. They're human - they'll listen to what you have to say. If you are polite and explain some of the setting and that it could be really disruptive (even if he wants to play an elf going against his own kind) because everywhere they go people would try to hurt his character, etc, then a) he'll likely listen and understand the issue or b) maybe the other players in the group go "hey, that sounds cool. we're willing to roll with the trouble." If the player does say okay, I understand the problem, then the best thing to do is, again, talk with him or her to help them find the next best thing to play, so that you know that they will have a great experience anyways. And couldn't hurt to guarantee them an elf if they want it next campaign lol.
And the same idea goes for DM style. Some players like running around in a 100% detailed sandbox world where they go about everyday adventuring life and trying to get by. Some players like getting involved in an adventure through a mostly defined world where the DM feels free to toss in interesting elements as the story evolves and new/unexpected ideas show up. Some players like playing a game where they have (direct or indirect) input/involvement in the story unfolding (and to varying degrees), so as to create really intricate and unexpected plots. Whole spectrums exist, and no style is inherently better than another. My group leans a little more collaborative (we even did one campaign where each player was given a plot token that they could turn in at any time to declare something happening in the story, and I would have to roll with it, though I could add my own twists on the details/backgrounds/future happenings related to it. I honestly found it fun having to be on my toes and working to suddenly slide in a new and unexpected plot element - for us, it made the story more alive and evolving. Of course, others would HATE something like this), but anything is fine - even completely plot-less and setting-less Friday night dungeon delves - as long as that is what the table wants.
DMs, talk to your players and see what things they are interested in experiencing. Players, talk to your DMs and see what kinds of worlds they would like to build or run. And both sides be willing to have a little compromise to have a fun and exciting party in a great and flavorful world. Whatever your playstyle, be open, be communicative, and have fun.
iserith wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gatt: Tia responded how I would have. And as far as specific races go, last I checked at least some of the 'uncommon' races have been given spots in at least FR.
But I don't care about that. I've never played in/ran a published setting. I will repeat what I said: story matters. And to me, races being allowed won't affect it, or will in an awesome way. Tashiro actually brought up a bunch of awesome story ideas on what happens when you include.
Orethalion wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Also, remember that some of the short stories and such in the Dragonlance series are considered non-canon. Tasslehoff meeting Demogorgon for example, is non-canon. They don't have demons like that in the Dragonlance setting. Raistlin's daughter, I believe, is another one. So you've got to check to see which ones are considered official.
Edit: Looked him up. Officially: "Kholos (? AC - 348 AC) was a male Human who was an officer in the Dragonarmies, who held the rank of Company Master. He was rumored to have Goblin blood, since he had sallow skin, which was seemingly tinged with green, as well as a protruding lower jaw, overhung brow and small beady eyes. Kholos was a powerful fighter, who was cunning and also ruthless. In the formative years of the Dragonarmies, he was a trusted officer of Ariakas, who had the general's ear, and ruled the Fourth Company."
So, human.
ankiyavon wrote:
Actually, I also found the official list of Dragonlance Races. It has the list of goblinoid races as well.
Bugbear, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Kobold, Slig (Lizard Folk), Gnoll, and Koalinth (Underwater Hobgoblins). A lot of different ogre-related races though. Wow.
If I run Krynn again, I just found the perfect resource page, I think.
And apparently Dragonspawn exist. Though the method of creating one. Holy crow. Heh. That would be disturbing to bring into play as a PC race. :D I'd allow it, but it would come with a bucketload of issues. These aren't your normal dragonspawn.
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
So, in this thread, we learn that there *are* DMs who are afraid of the players breaking something in their campaign. We also learn that the players who *would* break something in that DM's game are emphatic that this wouldn't be an issue if the DM would just do what they (the players) want.
There is the old adage: "What the DM says, goes. If the DM says enough stupid crap, the players go." Well, the DM can go, too .. and that leaves a table of players with nothing to do but play something else.
So, where do you draw the line? The DM is the one putting in the effort to make the campaign and the sessions. All the players do is make a character. If you want to have more of a say than what the DM asks, then be the DM. If you want to play a race that your DM doesn't allow, then compromise: play something he does allow now and then ask for him to allow it in the next campaign.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Gatt wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Okay, looking over your earlier posts, here's what I'll answer.
1) Some terminology, I agree, shouldn't be used. Others though work for shorthand - you just have to be really careful how you use such loaded terms. For example, as I said, I used "special snowflake". Specifically I use it for a person who wants to make a "unique" character at the cost of others - whether at the cost of other people's enjoyment of the game, or at the cost of the feel the game master's trying to develop, or at the detriment of the game's play.
For example, the guy I mentioned earlier with the flame-loaded dikoted naginata. He decided he wanted to be a 'ninja', but without any of the training, discipline, or background for it. When he found out my character was a ninja summoner, he decided he decided to try to get 'antimagic' put into his body so that my spirits wouldn't be able to see him. No reason than to 'outclass' my character. When he found out my character was haunted - possessed by his dead sister - who could project and explore and had access to the realms of the dead, he decided to get high-end plant-based cybernetics implanted into his body. And get his character modified to look reptilian. Because 'it was cool', and to 'show up' my character. (I only found this out because the GM specifically told me, that player was asking for solo sessions to get ahead of me).
I'll note - high end plant-based cybernetics? Not in the game. Anti-magic materials? Not in the game (at that time). He decided to also get a huge ward put on him, to blot out his presence in astral space (prior to the anti-magic materials), then got ticked off when that effectively barred him from entering certain buildings because his astral ward would slam into the wards for the buildings he was trying to get into.
That is the kind of character I consider a 'special snowflake'.
The guy who asked to be a vat-grown clone with implanted memories who may or may not be the person who he thinks he is? Sure, that's fine. The game covers that, and it's a background you don't see often. Especially when it is a magical adept / doctor / minotaur - everything that's in the game, but you normally don't see put together. The girl who's body is so damaged she's left in a vat of biological gel that is used to keep her alive, because her body rejects grafting, and who made clones of herself which are stuffed with cyberware that she projects into as puppets? Horrific, but cool. I'm fine with player characters being heroic and unique - within the confines of the setting, and not in conflict with the players or the setting.
---
That said, I do agree - game masters should try running different games, and explore new avenues of play. I learned a lot from running Vampire: the Masquerade, Call of Cthulhu, Legend of the Five Rings, 7th Sea, and Amber Diceless. The different styles of running and playing these games allowed me to adapt my game style, which is always a good thing. It has helped me learn how to set up political campaigns, run horror campaigns, make players choose between their honour and their lives, run things by the seat of my pants, and run swashbuckling campaigns where everything is larger than life. I highly recommend, as you do, that players and game masters expand their horizons.
In fact, some of the things I've picked up in these games I'd love to see fleshed out in D&D. Social Feats, Social Spells, classes dedicated entirely to Social Fu, with no combat ability worth mentioning. I want to see supplements which are dedicated to intrigue, politics, and nobility, with nary a monster or dungeon to be seen. I've had people tell me 'that's not Dungeons and Dragons, play a different game', and my response is "why isn't it? It will be the second someone writes it!"
Shasarak wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
I hear you about In Nomine. It seemed an interesting concept, but I really couldn't get into the game itself. Actually, the most unplayable game I've ever had the luxury of owning was Nobilis, which was damn cool, but you honestly couldn't deal with the engine that well. (And yes, I owned Synnibar, which should be unplayable, but I've actually succeeded in running sessions of). Amber has its problems, but if you know the books, and try to stick to them, the game's a lot more fun. The modern rebuilding of it is Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, which is actually pretty cool - I'm running a campaign of that alongside my D&D game.
And by the way, you get mad props for also running a Mystara campaign. That's what I'm doing as well.
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Tia wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Realistically the DM may at some point in any game have to invoke fiat.
This may be due to one player asking for something that disadvantages other players to the point where nobody is having fun or due to a rule that just isn't working in play.
It isn't about a player vs DM mentality but rather as a matter of respect for the person who has chosen to sacrifice the joy of being a player in order to ensure everyone else has a chance to play.
When you step into another DM's game you have to respect that he will do things differently than you do and be open to the vision he has of the game to some degree.
That being said if a DM is not upholding his end of the bargain and providing and an enjoyable game he is wise to listen to his player's input and reconsider the game he has in mind so that everyone is having a good time.
After all we are all here to have fun.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
What sort of player though insists on adding a race to a setting that the DM has explicitly said does not exist?
1. A player who can't imagine playing any other race? I don't want this player. He's imaginatively crippled.
2. A player who somehow wants to game the system via min/max? I don't want this player. I'm more roleplay focused and exploration oriented.
3. A player who thinks what the DM has prepared is of no import and just throws out whatever he thinks is cool off the cuff? I don't want this player. He's selfish.
I want a player more in line with this kind of thinking.
1. He looks at what the DM has told him about the setting and specifically chooses a race, class, and background that really resonates. It shows interest. I want that player.
2. He has a overarching character concept which he flavors to fit the world where that character exists. It shows imagination and respect. I want that player.
I want a player who seeks to explore and learn about an existing world. Who will seek out the secrets of that world. That kind of player will appreciate the style of game I run and will enjoy it more. I want that player.
Emerikol. wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
... Have you never been so passionate about an idea that being asked to wait a year or more to do something with it would physically hurt, like an ache at the bottom of your stomach? A squirming in your brain? Have none of your players had that experience?
If not, honestly, I feel bad for you.
A story as old as D&D:
DM can't abide players questioning the DM's authority and undermining the DM's control with their "ideas."
Players achieve immersion by immersing their ideas in a bathtub until they stop twitching. Then all that remains are the DM's ideas.
Compliance, not compromise. Control, not collaboration.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
iserith wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Honestly, I see nothing wrong with allowing the DM to set the terms for the game. He's taking the time to prepare the campaign for you, and if he sets restrictions on the game, then so be it. It isn't like I'd have trouble making anything that fits within those restrictions. If the GM says 'I'm doing a low-magic campaign, please pick a class that doesn't use magic', I'd be 'sure, let me look at monk / barbarian / fighter / rogue, and I'll get back to you'. I wouldn't say 'I've got this cool idea for a ranger, would you mind?'
(I might, however, present a modified ranger which doesn't get spells, and gets something else to replace them... perhaps a +1 to hit and damage with a single weapon each time he would normally get a spell level - if he says no, then that's no skin off my back.)
The current DM that I'm dealing with has set his campaign in a settlement in the New World. The entire population of this settlement is laid out - we know exactly what races are in the settlement, and we know exactly what cultures we've come across in our explorations. We've had one PC death, so far, and we've got a new player coming into the game. The options for characters must come from the population of the settlement, or from the cultures we've encountered so far. That limits availability. It also limits class someone - there's no advanced weapon or armour smiths, so our choice of gear is also going to be restricted.
Which is perfectly fine - my sister has an idea for a character, but the GM asked her to wait until the next arc he's running - so the character is being built and tweaked for the next campaign, and not used in the current one. It might be a year before the new campaign, but she's patient. That's where I might bring in my giant slayer, too.
autolycus wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
iserith wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
Sounds like something I'd allow - then again, I started allowing unconventional things in my campaign since almost day one. If it works on the skill check, awesome. If it didn't, ah well, better luck next time. I could easily see a pack of goblins looking at each other, "Who that god?" "Dunno, never heard of him." "Huh, strange." "We follow?" "You wanna die if we don't?"
Now, if my notes say that goblins are clever, you would still get the skill check. Might be a lot harder to succeed, and I'd expect perhaps a bit more roleplaying and back and forth as the goblins would be more suspicious. Might still work - I doubt the goblins have Religion as a skill.
iserith wrote:
True, C-3P0 had an 'in' when he did his impersonation - they already thought he was a god, he just had to run with it. ;)
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Huh, actually, I'm kind of curious what would have happened if it went the other way - if the party failed in the attempt, and the goblins weren't fooled. I think that's one reason I do like dice rolls helping to determine things - sure, the plan might be awesome, and it would be cool if it succeeded, but that doesn't mean it can't fail utterly - in which case you revert to Plan B.
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
It might work in some settings - specifically the one where the gods are shaped by belief - that would have been... interesting. For my other campaign world however, the pantheon is strictly defined - there's nine gods of each tier, and everyone knows who these gods are. To have a new god come in, another one has to step down. So, for that setting, it wouldn't have worked to try to make up a god on the fly - thus the need to provide assistance. But for my other campaign world - that'd be very easy - since one of the existing gods of the land would be ... let's say... transformed by the experience.
Tashiro wrote:
True, it could be an alternate name for an existing god - that's been established as possible (certain gods have different manifestations between their favoured races). In the case of my campaign with the gods laid out, the players are aware of the full pantheon, since it is part of the setting that each character requires a 'patron god' from the list. The gods are considered a real and present force in the game (the two Wars of Chaos and the one War of Order having only occurred in the last 60 years in-game, all done with player involvement), so the players are allowed to make informed choices about who they want as their patrons. Usually, the games takes place in the city of the gods, where there's temples to each and every god laid out - so they know which temple to go to for any particular requirement. Considering I have a map of the city - the temples are named on the map.
It's an interesting way to play but when I play 5th edition I personally choose to play it as it's outlined on page 6 of the Player's Handbook, where DMs establish the environment, players say what they'd like to do and the DM says what happens as a consequence. Your way sounds like it could be fun (for a one shot at least) however people around here believe certain rulesets support certain playstyles better than others. People in my parts prefer to play 5th edition as it's outlined on page 6 of the player's handbook. If we were going to try iserith's playstyle we'd just play a different game that's built for that playstyle like 13th Age.
But of course, anyone is free to play 5th edition however they like. As long as everyone at the table has fun.
JohnLynch wrote:
I don't see any reason not to play using Iserith's method - it's perfectly fine. If I had no solid idea for a campaign, I'd probably go that route - start local, working on a town with the PCs, and expand outwards over time. However, I've ... four, five? campaign worlds already established, my group likes them, and so we tend to go that route and use something everyone's familiar with. (I've got two players who would refuse to play D&D - the only reason they play is because they like my campaign worlds - they hated d20 and wouldn't have played otherwise).
JohnLynch wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Karnos wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Hmm. I can't accept the 'player is right' as a default. The player isn't right or wrong. The rules and setting lay out what is and isn't, and we're along for the ride, exploring the setting.
Undrhil wrote:
Picking another person to GM can be problematic. My social circle has three GMs. There's me - I try to stick to the setting and then decide what I want to do with it after characters are made. There's my roomie, who doesn't really tend to follow mechanics that much, and has a very specific view of what he wants his setting to be like - a strange mix of 'you don't need to worry about the rules' and 'but this is how the world works', and then the third GM, which is 'this is my setting, this is the story I want to tell, you're sort of along for the ride'.
My wife gets performance anxiety when she GMs, so she's decided she doesn't GM anymore. Nobody in our social circle outside of myself (the primary "house" GM), and the other two want to GM. We're picking up a new player at some point in the near future - and he's a GM, but... well, I'm not certain what his style is like. I do know that he's the kind of person who will make a dozen characters for people to choose from, but we'll see how he integrates into our social circle as far as being a GM is concerned.
But really, it comes down to 'pick your poison'. What kind of GM can you work with, and can you function with his GMing style?
Sounds pretty cool. Kind of like the setting I did, but taken in a completely different direction. Nice.
Actually, it's kind of interesting. When you're doing world building, you can look at how a setting shifts by adding or removing elements, or adjusting how elements work. I just starting thinking of a setting with no divine magic. What does that do to druids, rangers, paladins, and clerics? How would society adapt? How would those classes function without the use of divine magic? I may decide to design a new setting around these concepts. Or, alternatively, they get their divine magic from a specific individual - a person they have to swear fealty to. A ranger may hunt down a specific dryad to make a pact with, and as long as the dryad survives, he gets spells. A druid may need to go t oa specific location, and bond with a specific object to get his spells. A cleric may need to swear to the head of the faith, and gets spells from that person. The highest level of spells you can get may be limited by the level of spells the person can cast themselves. This could either create a chain, with people pacting to someone just ahead of them in the game, or it may be just that - an upper limit, requiring people to search for the most powerful forces in the world, and try to pact with them in the hopes of continuing their growth.
I'm going to really need to think about this now.
Tashiro wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Yeah, I think such a game might have to be all-warlock. Seriously, if you've made a pact with fiends, and the other PCs find out - that could be... problematic. A paladin in the party? He'd be somewhat obligated to bring you in - or cut you down. It reminds me of something a friend told me about World of WarCraft: "Why would you even allow a warlock to exist? The forces they're dealing with want to destroy the world, and they're helping." That raised some interesting questions there, yes.
If someone is tampering with forces - or worse, made a deal with them - and you know these forces are actively bad news, why would you accept it?
I don't think the preserver / defiler thing fits. It would be one thing if the preservers were in charge, and you decided to play a defiler. That'd be more accurate. The preservers may be hunted in Dark Sun, but they're a force of creation, not destruction, and that's the significant difference. If you flipped the script, and someone came up and said 'I want to make someone who's magic destroys the land - but he's a good guy, honest', I'd be amused - I'd even possibly consider it - but I'd also warn there's a very good chance the PC party may kill the character off as a danger to the world around them. I think it would hold true for the warlock in the above scenario as well.
Strangely enough, this is something I avoided with my divine campaign. There are evil gods - no worries there - but the primary rule for all gods in the metaphysics of the campaign is that every god serves a constructive purpose in promoting society. The god of Merchants? Neutral Evil. He's a greedy bastard, but he promotes trade and commerce. He wants his servants to get stinking rich, even at the expense of others - but he also wants trade to flow. The Neutral Evil god of Thieves? Well, during the second Chaos War, she also became the goddess of motherhood. Her son was climbing the ranks to become God of Chaos, and she backed him the entire way, sending her minions to fight enemy clerics marshalled by the then-God of Chaos. She was recognized for her actions, and got a sort of "field promotion".
Strangely, the 'bad guy' for the last campaign was the Goddess of Order (LN). She decided the north was too barbaric, and guided the southern nations to send an armada north to "tame" the continent. The gods of the north didn't take kindly to this, and war erupted. It was kind of nice to run a campaign where the 'big evil end guy' wasn't evil - but was decidedly Lawful.
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Valdark wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
iserith wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
I have to agree, nobody should be begging anyone. The GM lays down what he expects. If the players like it, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. The players can say what they'd like. If the GM's cool with that, that's fine. If the GM isn't, that's fine too.
For one of my GMs, he liked adding his own personal elements to any game setting, and would add things that I knew were outside the confines of the setting itself (read, there were no mechanics to support what he was doing, and no indication that such a thing would even be possible within the confines of the setting). His game world though, so I accepted this, even if it wasn't something I didn't personally like, and I played on. Since I GM'd 99% of the games for our social circle, this was the price I had to pay to be a player.
At one point, I was grumping because I had a particular itch. When he asked about it, I mentioned I wanted to be a player in a vanilla game. Specifically, some published setting, where the game ran as presented in the setting. Shadowrun, following the bare bone rules of Shadowrun. Dungeons and Dragons, with no home-brewed monsters. 7th Sea, going strictly by the books. Whatever. Just something where I could unwind and just enjoy myself. (And actually let my GM brain turn off for a bit) He actually accepted - which is what created the 7th Sea probem I mentioned earlier.
I think players and game masters have specific needs. It is up to the group to fulfil those needs in some way - to find a happy medium between the needs of the game master, and the needs of the player. No one side's needs outweigh the other, and there should be some give and take to find a middle ground. As a game master, my concession to the players is 'I will not force any specific plot on the group - you will always have total freedom to explore the world I present, as you wish. I'll run the scenarios, I'll run the NPCs, I'll give you interesting places to explore and interesting things to do - but you will always have the choice of whether to engage, retreat, or go look for other things to do in the setting. There may be a 'metaplot', but you choose how engaged in it you want to be'.
One of my friends, as a GM, gives the concession of 'I have a story to present. You can make any character that would fit in the story, and I will do my best to make the story entertaining. I ask that you try to go along with the story, and in return I will hope to make you feel involved and engaged in the story I want to tell'.
My other friend (sadly moving to another city in two days), as a GM, gives something like this, 'I want to make a heroic, noble setting, with larger than life heroes and villains. I want you to exult in your heroism, and be as over the top as you wish. We will see titanic struggles between good and evil, and explore the concept of the modern myth. Don't worry about the rules - they're not necessary.'
The thing is, I don't see a guilt trip going in with any of these GMs (or my own). Each of us have our own way of game mastering, or own expectations for our players, and in turn our players have their own expectations from what they'll get from the GM. I don't see any point in trying to change for anyone on either side. If you have a certain playing style, it might not mesh with any given group, and that's okay. Just don't play with those people - find a group you can work better with. If your GMing style doesn't mesh with a certain player, that's okay. Nobody's asking you to change your style of game mastering if at least some people are enjoying themselves. If you have to change who you are, and it leaves you unhappy, then something's wrong.
As such, if my players like my GMing style, that's cool. If they don't, they can find a GM they enjoy playing under, and there's no hurt feelings. If I enjoy a GM's style of running games, I'll stick around. If I find myself becoming frustrated, I'll walk. And there's no hurt feelings there, either. I think out of all of this, the only wrong answer to give is to tell people they're doing it wrong. If people are having fun, and they're enjoying themselves, then they aren't doing it wrong.
And if some mythical player comes up and insists that I should change how I GM for them? The answer is... no.
And if some mythical game master insists that if I'm in his game I have to abide by his rules, and I don't like them? The answer is... no.
Roleplaying games are collaborative. I get that. However, the point of running a game is not to 'cater to the widest audience possible'. To me, that dilutes the art. To use movies as an example -- it is the difference between creating a passion piece, and creating a summer blockbuster. You know, maybe I don't want to create a summer blockbuster. Maybe I want to make something personal, that only a few people will get and like. Maybe I have a specific target audience, and anyone outside that target audience may or may not like what the movie has to say.
And that's fine.
Some people don't like my style of game mastering. Some people don't like some of the games I run, because they don't like the setting, or the rules. And I'm fine with that. I don't invite the former to my games, and I invite the latter to all of my games. Sometimes they say yes, sometimes they say no, but I usually get a 'thanks for inviting me' either way.
On the flipside, some people don't like the way I play. I'm analytical. I'm tactical. I power game like you wouldn't imagine. (Though to my credit, my game masters always say that 'while I power game, I also roleplay like all hell, and they like that). I build concepts, flesh them out, and blend them into the setting of any game I'm playing in. Because I'm there to roleplay, I immerse myself into the setting, ask about background on things. Some GMs like that - it lets them show off the world they've created. Some GMs don't, because it bogs down the plot as the group gets involved in the minutia of the world itself, rather than with the story the GM is trying to tell. I've been told that I'm a high-maintenance player, because I increase the GM's workload (statting out NPCs, coming up with names for people and places, describing pantheons, or sometimes... well, the players will wind up going in a direction the GM wasn't prepared for).
Actually, funny story. We were hunting for someone who broke the rules of our new settlement in the New World. My sister's character is a representative of the natives, and had laid down a simple law: If you go beyond the mountain pass, she kills you because you're breaking the rules. (Lawful Neutral - the settlement existed only because her tribe allowed it). So we go hunting for the guy, and find the 'remnants' of someone on a staircase leading up to another location. My character was dubious. He inspected the remains, which were pretty much unrecognizable, and concluded it was a red herring - the person we were after probably was heading another direction - towards this one place we knew was our ultimate destination at some point in the future. So, rather than going up the path that it looked like the corpse guy was heading, we continued on the direction we had thought to go in the first place - much to the GM's chagrine, since he had nothing planned for that. It's happened a few times. Ah well.
Dooflegna wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
In my playstyle, it's just a matter of roles. It is the DMs role to create the setting and arbitrate the rules. It is the players role to control their characters actions primarily from an actor stance. Players create their characters from the setting options.
Now for me both as a DM and a player, this produces the best roleplaying experiences. My experiences of other approaches has left me with the feeling that the setting lacks depth and thus my immersion and engagement is lessened. In some of the more radical examples where you create the world on the fly that knowledge is an interest killer for me. If I know what is coming doesn't even exist yet I totally lose interest. I also do not believe that five people firing off improv ideas is ever going to produce a result I care about.
So no. Roleplaying to me is not improv. It is playing a role in actor stance in a defined setting.
Emerikol. wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
If you think about this in reverse it's funny.
Say the player is saying 'I'm running a game where I get to play this class/race I'm just so excited about!'
GM 'That's nice. But I think I'll pass on playing in it. Maybe another time?'
Player 'Noooo! You HAVE to play! You just HAVE to!'
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Some DMs see themselves as game facilitators, there to make sure everyone has a fun time and to take player ideas and work them into the world.
Other DMs see themselves world builders, where the setting and how it behaves is to them what a PC is to the player. You wouldn't want other players at the table dictating your player's background and in game actions would you?
Everyone should be free to play their part, as long as your desires don't conflict with another's.
JohnLynch wrote:
Gatt wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Actually according to page 6 it is the DM that determines what happens. The d20 is simply a tool the DM can choose to use or not use.
Of course I realise you were going for humour. Just wanted to make sure no-one tried to take that idea and genuinely claim it reflected what page 6 said in any meaningful way.
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
I don't really plan for a set path, so the d20 doesn't screw with me when I GM. I have great fun when the die works for or against me, or for or against the players. HAH! That reminds me:
Players have negotiated a trade with a night dragon in my campaign, and the dragon offered one thing from his lair. The kobolds in the area guide the PCs to the lair - and there's thousands of kobolds who worship this dragon. The rogue notices a secret door, and says 'how about what's behind there?' The dragon hadn't found the secret door, so was surprised. The rogue checks the door for traps. Botches and finds 'no traps', so offers the dragon the chance to open it. The dragon opens the door. The trap is a Save or Die spell trap. The dragon rolls a 1 on his save. Dies.
Cleric: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!
Rogue: ACK! I DON'T KNOW!
Mage: Err. I can animate the corpse? Then the kobolds might not know he's dead, and we can escape?
:D I loved every moment of it.
JohnLynch wrote:
The d20 doesn't screw with me or my players because we make sure that there's never an outcome that it can produce that we won't enjoy. A lot of people already do this, by deciding that results they don't enjoy actually add to their overall enjoyment. I prefer to enjoy the game while I'm playing it, rather than hope it eventually becomes enjoyable.
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
If the DM always allows something then that is a defacto rule even if it's not written down. If I always allow the players to "create" whatever they want in the campaign world (sans conflicts with other previous things) then that is a rule. I don't believe the game was written with that intention. The game was written with roles in mind. World creator is one of the DM roles.
Creativity is a wonderful thing but my players focus on creative ways to play their characters instead of trying to do DM stuff. Since you are playing a fictitious character via actor stance, if you can be creative, your character ought to be able to be creative too. That should be a players focus.
Again I use the term "should" loosely. Do whatever you want but I'm mainly referring to the game as written (those wanting to follow RAW) and my own playstyle preferences. I'm the last guy to say follow RAW if you don't like it. If you like improve, create the world as you go campaigns, then play that way. The only end to entertainment is fun.
I do dislike the notion some of you seem to have that your way is the most fun for everybody. Despite repeated times where others have pointed out that you are wrong on that point. Whether I'm a player or a DM, I do not want to the players being world creators. I think my campaigns are very fun and in high demand. That is all I have to go on as far as what people want. I know lots of smart people so if they really loved the way you play Centauri, I think they'd do that. My observation is that in my own area everyone is trying to play my way but their success rate varies greatly based upon the ability and committment of the DM.
JohnLynch wrote:
Iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
If you've given yourself the power to deny your players' creative input, then you've given yourself the power to accept it.
iserith wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
The whole silliness of turning this discussion into a social problem becomes ever more clear. When I play chess I play by the rules. I don't feel creatively limited because I can't move my bishop vertically or horizontally. When I play D&D, the DM is in control of the environment. The players are in control of their characters and they interact with the created environment. This produces fun that is not at all possible if character improv is allowed. You may not value that fun but it is a form of fun.
So no one is being oppressed. As a player, I would be as annoyed by the guy next to me improving the world as I would be if I was DM. I am counting on a setting that is crafted carefully by the DM and has a lot of internal consistency. Players just spouting things off the cuff turns the game into something else. That something else may be fun for you but it is not fun for me.
The very nature of creativity is built upon limits. Limits in fact open up creativity in many circumstances. My players are very creative. They just use their creativity to play their characters instead of trying to become armchair DMs. This makes them far better players. They aren't distracted trying to think like a DM and they focus on playing their characters. The result is excellent.
Some people do not value prep. I do. I value it as a player probably more than I do as a DM. I generally leave a campaign quickly when I find out the DM doesn't have anything prepared. The game is boring and uninspiring for me.
iserith wrote:
On the other hand, the players having a hand at it makes it feel like a joined world, rather than the GM's private sandbox
A good one of this was in a campaign (And probably lifted from Dungeon World now that I think about it) where the members of the party would meet a person, then some sort of thing they need to deal with, the GM then leading that onto the next person with some variety of problem. And the GM implements this on the gate of a dwarven city
So, y'know, naturally this leads to the dwarven city actually having a sewer system beneath it full of outcasts trying to survive lead by an Otyugh, the beast-races being relegated to a slum in the town, two characters pointing out some connections that get them basically red-carpetted right to the human/elven embassies and missing the, one player off searching for some rumoured ancient magic site, and the last one? Well, he sort of had to rush to his house, in the town. As it was sort of, y'know, being raided by town guard at the time due to possible illegal activites
That is a lot nicer than Generic Dwarven City #45
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Snot-Elemental wrote:
Iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Centauri wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
bawylie wrote:
So you got together to mock and ostracize people?
Tashiro wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Centauri wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
You also said they make suggestions and that by suggesting things they actually create. Play however you like, I'm just saying no-one here has read page 6 and came to the conclusion they should play how you do. For us, we'd probably just play a different game if we tried to do it your way.
JC999 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
It just occurred to me that Iserith's style is D&D Calvinball. There is no saying "no", just adding to what other people have established. In a way, there is no need for a DM if you take this style to the extreme. I'm not sure if such a group exists.
At the other end of the spectrum is a DM who has EVERYTHING planned out. I'm not sure if such a DM exists either.
I, like most DMs I am guessing, am somewhere in the middle. I will certainly plan things out, but I leave a lot of details blank. There is only so much you can plan, especially when you can rarely predict what the players are going to do! So when my players ask questions, I will sometimes know the answer because it was something I had planned. Sometimes I make up an answer based on what would make sense. And sometimes I do use the old improv. technique of "Yes, and", especially if their suggestion makes the story better.
Back to Iserith's style, because I find it very intriguing. It is also a bit like Quantum D&D. The act of asking a question changes the thing being observed. So phrasing becomes extremely important. Take the case of a treasure chest. If you ask, "Is it locked?", it will be locked. If you ask, "Is it unlocked?", it will be unlocked. If you ask, "Is it trapped?", it will be trapped. If you ask, "Is it safe to open?", it will be safe to open. But there is always the "AND..." to worry about, which leads to another quantum situation. It reminds me of those improv exercises where you tell a group story. Each person takes a turn continuing the story. You never destroy or contradict what has already been created, only add to it.
Iserith, does your group follow that rule as well? If one player says, "I climb the tree", and then you give your "Yes, and...", would it be wrong for another player to say, "Yes, and the tree is actually just an illusion that doesn't cause us any trouble."?
iserith wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
At some point, unless a game is going to die right there, blocking stops. Someone stops putting forth corrections or negations and goes along, working with the idea. All some of us are suggesting is that we, as GMs, be willing to be the person who makes the choice not to correct or negate, and begin working with ideas.
Players, of course, can be the ones to make that choice, but if they don't it's not that they're a troublemaker, unless a GM who doesn't make that choice is also a troublemaker.
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
It has to be cooperative to be fun. If the DM sets out to with a laser focused idea and isn't open to player ideas, it will probably not work out.
Tashiro wrote:
VeroMaestro wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
It's not cheating. It's weak DM-ing
bawylie wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
VeroMaestro wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Centauri is a provocateur of the worst sort. He wants to imply some kind of oppression is going on in D&D that is done with our style. It's plain silly and stupid. None of my players would say they are oppressed. Not having somethings is a positive. I would hate his game for the very reason he loves it. I would not be happy. I would be bored and not immersed at all. And yes Bawylie, it is hard to believe in a world that can change willy nilly at the drop of a hat.
We have a social contract. We have roles. We agree upon them. The setting is at least flavor and theme wise known up front. Any house rules pertaining to class and race including outright bans are also known in advance. No player is forced to accept those things. He chooses to accept them though if he wants to play in that game. That is the social contract. Just like Iserith would say his social contract is to allow anyone to ad hoc create stuff for his world and not be blocked. That is HIS social contract. His is not superior to anyone elses. As long as everyone agrees to the social contract and has fun then it's good.
Another thing that is missed by the allow a player to invent anything is that a negative is in fact as offensive as blocking to many people. The second I see a player invent the world right before my eyes that player is actively ruining my fun. What has he got against my fun? Why can't he let me enjoy the game too? He is :"oppressing me" every bit as much as someone else blocking his idea. There is nothing superior about declaring positive statements as superior to negative values. If I join a game based upon a setting that the DM has defined and a player chooses to screw with that definition then I have just as much right to be angry. I'm actually happy when the DM shoots that players idea down because he is protecting the game so the rest of us can have fun.
The fact of the matter is that the players I have would not even dream of pulling such tricks. They all come to the table believing the world is the domain of the DM and the characters based upon that setting and their actions as characters is the domain of the players. I run a sandbox for that reason. Yes I create the sandbox and the greater world setting around it. The players then do inside that sandbox anything they want within the limits of the abilities of their characters per the rules. Choosing to approach the game of actor stance is a very fun way to do the game. You ARE the character. That is immersive in the sense I value the term.
It is a game though and I realize that. Sometimes you have to exchange metalanguage with the DM. You can actually walk down a corrider so you say you do so. You can't actually see the rune on the door so you ask what you see. That is no different than saying you attack so and so monster. That sort of language is a necessary part of the game as we know it now. Maybe one day we will all get in suits and we won't have to do that. When we can that WILL be more immersive. It's not anti-immersive right now though.
Centauri wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Dictionary Term: Oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
I wouldn't think running the game as designed would count as being oppressive. It isn't cruel. It isn't unjust.
There might be people who don't like that style of play, and forcing someone into a game whose playstyle is not being enjoyed could be considered oppressive, but in general, I don't think any of the styles presented here would justify the word.
Well I get the feeling that some people are using 2 or 3 different versions of the word. Then again, what I also see are people arguing that one's preference is better than another. But this is just my 2 cents as a outsider.
After a great deal of thought the agruement of what rules should, could or have to be used are far less important to a healthy gamer then how the rules that ARE used are interpreted, don't you think?
Thunaer wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Seems we are getting into legalese...
I've never seen such common words used so willfully incorrectly in one thread before. Word like "oppression" and "compromise" being a couple of the biggest offenders...
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Rottle wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
iserith wrote:
Sounds like you guys need to recruit new players..and keep cycling through players until you find ones who aren't whinjy.
Do you guys REALLY find it that difficult to recruit new players and dump the people you don't want?
Why game with these people that you detest? The DM is king and needs to dump players who don't fit and get new ones.
jh
iserith wrote:
Rottle wrote:
If you've got someone throwing a spaz-attack b/c there is an orc in Dragonlance, you probably ought to think about replacing that player.
jh
iserith wrote:
Maybe they're having a "spaz-attack" because they need their spine aligned, not because they really want to be an orc.
Emirikol wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Emirikol wrote:
iserith wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
Rottle wrote:
I have to say in this orc in dragon lance issue it's pretty extreme. I've never seen a campaign run like this or played like it. If such a situation came about I would think both are being silly and unfair to each other and the rest of the table. But if push came to shove I would side with the DM. I would never expect to see this mind you, not ever. My group is too damn old to let this stuff happen. Way it works is someone will say hey I've been reading the so and so set of adventures and I think they would be fun, here's the background and then it's a who's in, and then we start building characters deciding why and how we got together and such. Someone makes a proposal we talk it over then we all go about making it happen. If something questionable comes up the DM handles it, and we trust him or her to do so fairly because we are all friends.
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Emirikol wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Hm. Now I want to run a Dragonlance campaign about an invasion of orcs descended from a jammer that crashed a few decades ago. Since orcs might well breed that fast.
Of course, that would mirror my current game a little too much...
Heck, isn't "Curious and unique creature from another world" a plot point in one of the books?
The dinosaur man got transported somewhere else. I haven't read the book
MechaPilot wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Now, admittedly, some people are just... slow.
I had the PCs encounter an elf in the Dragon Graveyard, on her way to meeting Tiamat. She was to be a sacrifice for the death of a dragon in her homeland.
The PCs, at this point, had gone back in time - so they had information about 'what was to come', and the paladin in the party recognized the elf - she was the wife of the Immortal the paladin followed. She told the elf 'oh, don't worry - you'll survive this. You're destined to become the companion of an Immortal!' The elf, who was certain she was going to die, felt a bit better about this, and had hope for the future.
The PCs decided to join her on her visit to Tiamat, since they had... business... with the goddess. The elf offered herself up to Tiamat, and Tiamat replied, 'you don't feel like someone who's given up all hope'. The paladin stepped forward, and said how the elf was destined to be the companion of this Immortal, etc, etc, etc.
Tiamat replied with 'I know of all the Immortals. I have never heard of this one'.
The paladin replied that the Immortal isn't an Immortal yet.
Tiamat responded with 'ah, so she is destined to be the companion of an Immortal who has yet to exist.' And crushed the elf.
And the paladin's player was shocked and horrified. And the other players were shocked. And started giving her the stinkeye.
And the party mage cast Paradox and undid that entire scene so he could do a do-over. And so, the PCs met this elf in the Dragon Graveyard. And they had a brief conversation. And went their separate ways. And later, a blue dragon flew from the Graveyard - the elf, transformed to serve Tiamat.
And, as per the wording of paradox, any action undone will have a negative consequence - they have made that elf an enemy, and she will ruin their day. Some time in the future.
But yeah... the player didn't think things through, and everyone admitted it was a boneheaded mistake, and the group's still going to be paying for that later in the campaign.
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
iserith wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
I don't mind some humour in my games, but I generally run my games as reasonably serious. I have pulled out all the stops however when it comes to silly, and that can be great fun.
Tashiro wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
iserith wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Insofar as any aspect of the game is a "job," I agree that there's a job in maintaining the health of the game. That begins with maintaining the health of the participants. A healthy participant is, I think we'll agree, happy, creative and engaged. One way to help achieve happiness, creativity and engagement in other people is to listen to their ideas, accept them, and use them. It's not the only way and it's not a guaranteed way, but anyone who is serious about maintaining the health of their game is doing themselves a disservice to eschew it.
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Again a 'You can make it work - therefore you must make it work' claim.
Centauri wrote:
Green slime on ceiling would require passive perception to auto notice it. You'd have to declare an action to perceive it with a roll. That's what passive pecrception is for, so you don't have to constantly declare you are looking up. So if the slime beats everyone's passive and no one specifically declares an action to search or spot or whatever the term is now, then they don't notice it, and blam slime on the head.
Noon wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Noon wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
iserith wrote:
Mismatched expectations aren't a sign of a functioning game.
Theyre a symptom of unclear communication.
Diffan wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Giving the player(s) everything they want (and only what they want) is generally the antithesis of a truly rewarding* game experience...
(*which, IMO, is where thrilling and/or memorable enjoyment can be found)
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The challenge in some games is not to overcome genre-appropriate obstacles with player and character skill, but to get your ideas past the gatekeeping DM so maybe he gives them a chance of working if he's feeling generous.
Centauri wrote:
Emirikol wrote:
Huh, the comment I was about to reply on got deleted. Fair enough.
To address it tangentally: The 'one trick munchkin' obviously exists - I've had a player who does exactly that. Combat monsters, mute, socially awkward. Or, alternatively, social monsters, who can't engage in combat at all. The player's a great roleplayer, but the characters he builds can be terrifying. (The martial artist in Shadowrun who punched holes through concrete walls to grab enemies, or the shapeshifting druid who mowed down anything in his path while summoning hordes of monsters come to mind).
Now, these type of players exist, and I'm fine with them. Having learned how to deal with 100-level characters in my 8th-level campaign showed me how to adapt, while keeping everyone engaged. That being said, not everyone wants to deal with these type of players. Still, please don't treat power gamers as a "bad thing". Speaking as a power gamer myself - as long as you're willing to play nice with the other players and the game master, there's nothing wrong with power gaming.
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Clearly, if one player insists that a race exists and another insists that they don't, in order to satisfy both, the race must both exist and not exist, which leads us to a quantum state, and thus quantum ogres. This must happen by necessity, unless a third player insists that the DM not traffic in quantum ogres at all, since that would negate their agency, and violate their right to not be challenged by unnecessary in-game annoyances on their way to spotlight tower. This would then lead to game deadlock, that can only be escaped by ordering pizza and switching to playing a board game that doesn't require a DM to decide on anything.
Noon wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
iserith wrote:
Noon wrote:
animeus wrote:
Noon wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Centauri wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Wow...and I thought discussions about relgious beliefs and political views were bad.
heh...seriously though, the thing about passive per. and getting a worse roll when you actually look for it. We've all had the experience where you passed by something a dozen times and never noticed a certain feature, and suddenly one day it hits you. You could've stared at the object and never notice, but a casual glance at the right time is all it took. Basically, its a "can't see the forest because of the trees" kind of thing. The character making a per. roll might be fixated on a natural fissure in the wall and completely misses the secret door next to it. While, the elf just glancing around on the other side of the room notices a vauge door shape in the same wall.
Easy peasey.
[quote="iserith"]
Centauri wrote:
hallows1999 wrote:
ForgottenSpecter wrote:
I think the party analogy breaks down. At a party what one person eats is rarely of concern to other people. Whereas if I offer a game with a particular setting flavor and theme, if I back out on that then other people are hurt by the idea.
If I invited ten people over for a pizza party, and then after they'd arrived I told them that Centauri doesn't like pizza so I switched to tacos, I'd probably get some unhappy guests. If instead though when Centauri arrived and said he didn't like pizza but he wanted to come to the party, I might tell him that my kitchen is open to him what could I fix him on the side. That works because the sandwich I make him doesn't ruin the enjoyment of the pizza that the other people were promised. If though, I am running a particular type of game and I give Centauri an exemption then I've broken the social contract with the rest of my players. Allowing him to choose an option not in the setting and which runs contrary to that setting ruins the flavor for those who bought into the setting.
That is why I like to send out a detailed overview of the setting which includes all the special rules and limitations. It's not a permission slip. It's an announcement of intent. The recipients can then contact me if they want to play in that campaign or not. I do have a good handle on the "tastes" of people in my area so I don't tend to offer a setting that nobody would want. It's like the races. For me fantasy includes the big 4 by default almost always. That default though is often flavored in a variety of different ways. The other races I view as interesting options that I occasionally include or exclude. So I have dragonborn and warforged in my current world but no tieflings. Next time I might have tieflings but no warforged. Same for gnomes and half orcs. In my world though if someone wanted to play the half-orc race, I'd just tell them they are a full blooded orc but otherwise it plays the same.
The bottom line in a lot of these debates is how important the setting is to your campaign. If it's not every important and your characters just move from one scene to the next and world consistency just isn't that big a deal then that is a big difference from how I play. For me setting is one of the most important things. I've rarely seen a DM who can create a great setting that can't handle the rest of it at least moderately. If you have great lore and a deep world, the adventures often just fall in your lap.
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Centauri wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Chris, procedurally, stuff about setting is resolved before play, before character creation.
If player one's desires are honest, then the conversation returns to setting. If everyone's already agreed on setting and then player 1 attempts to change it, that would be considered blocking. (If I understand this Playstyle).
In your example, P1's desires (if genuine), should have come up before everyone sat down to play. IMO, sitting down to play is a defacto approval - a vote that says "I'm cool with everything established up to this point."
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brad,
I agree. The crux of all this comes back to having to say "yes, and..." to a player even when he shows up later having changed his mind and wants to play an orc in DL.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Centauri wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The difference in perspective is that sometimes players have to live with something. In my approach, a player might have to live with the fact that orcs are banned from the setting. In the other approach, I have to accept whatever any other character says that is not blocking. Now without even having to think about it very long at all, I am certain the latter will lead to less fun for me than the former. Even as the player. At least with one single DM crafting the setting there will be consistency even if it could be better. With five people, the hope of anything coherent is negligible. Having to accept what another person says that I don't like is every bit as painful as having my own idea blocked. In fact more so. If my idea is blocked, I can come up with another that fits better and I'll still like that second choice. In the other case, I am stuck with it. No matter how dumb or out of setting I consider it to be I have to live with it. Not a recipe for a fun campaign if you ask me.
This whole debate is about the case where there is a disagreement between the DM and the player. If the DM likes an idea then he rolls with it and there is not a problem. Either that idea fits his world just fine or it does not. The DM though is the final decision maker on his campaign. If you just have to have that special snowflake then go find a DM who will tolerate you. If you leave a really good DM who does the work for his setting for this reason then I weep for your decision making ability. I think you'll find the world out there not nearly so good as you like.
Centauri wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
hallows1999 wrote:
hallows1999 wrote:
hallows1999 wrote:
I'm not going to be disappointed if I don't get to run the game I want when I DM. I've got not problem packing my books away and waiting for a group that wants to play it. I would rather wait and run a game that I and everyone else enjoy than to run a game I don't enjoy while that one player gets what he wants because he didn't want to stick with the restrictions I set forth.
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Centauri wrote:
The desire to not have something in the game is as valid as the desire to have something in the game. The second a player introduces something into the game that bothers me I have been effectively blocked. I've lost immersion and I don't care about the world anymore. Why is the desire to include considered sacrosanct but the desire to avoid is not? No one has answered that question. It seems to me that Yes has been elevated far above No when the reality is that both are equally valid when it comes to having fun.
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Take a few days off to babysit and pack, and I miss a lot of stuff.
Nothing I really want to weigh in on though.
Tashiro wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Well... I've posted plenty of stories and anecdotes of things I've done as a DM. You've commented on many of them. Some of them quite flattering. But what I don't do, is the kind of online gaming you do which drives the method of your presenting your adventures/encounters. And I'm not going to put up stuff I may be working on now because some of my players may lurk here*.
(*because unlike some of you guys and your "spoilers don't spoil" creed, my players don't like their surprises ruined with foreknowledge they shouldn't have.)
Yeah, I thought not.
How about the rest of you? Show us what you got. I'll be watching to see what you can do.
I didn't say post anything with full-color tactical maps or the like - we don't need all the bells and whistles. You already type a lot of words in posts. Go ahead and type us up a compelling situation or an interesting, dynamic location. Or a useful technique based on whatever style it is you have adopted. One of bawylie's three-room dungeons. Something that somebody else might actually find has some value to their game. It doesn't require you to get off your ass or nothin', though it may mean doing something more productive with your creativity on the forums than you're doing right now.
I'm working on something right now myself, so you won't be alone. C'mon.
I don't think I'll be making it this go around. Perhaps next con we can meet up.
iserith wrote:
When was the last time a thread reached so many replies on these forums? I seem to recall that most get shut down around the 1,000 mark, and yet here we are at 1,250.
And in these 1,250 posts, what can we take from the discussion? Have we learned anything new? Has anything been said that made us re-examine and re-assess how and why we do things? Have we gained any insights about gaming culture?
Or have we been talking past one another this whole time?
Shirebrok wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
ForgottenSpecter wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gatt wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.