I like to run all sorts of different games and one of those types happens to be themed based. This could be anything from an all drow party to no spellcasters. This thread has spawned from the "saying no" thread and I would like to go into more detail about preserving the flavour of a theme based campaign when using restrictions.
There have been several people on these forums who ridicule your DM skills simply because you don't run your games the way they want you to. Some have this notion that you must "always" build the world along with the group in order to get their input on it. Now what this actually is is a ploy because they expect this so called "coming together" to have one end result and that is to allow the player or playersto lift any restrictions if they can find a good reason for them to exist. To me, this totally defeats the purpose of having a theme in the first place. Why in the hell what I work on a themed based campaign, only to have you play what I have restricted? The theme campaign just ended before it even began. I stick my decisions because I like to actually keep the campaign themed based. If the majority don't want to play it then we just won't play it and god forbid, these same poeple won't simply opt out of a campaign they don't like, they want it changed around until it becomes something they do like, which incedentally is the thing that was restricted in order for the theme to be possible in the first place.
For instance, in my 5th edition games the Paladin class will be Lawful Good only and the infernal Warlock will always be any evil. Gaining powers from the hells or the Abyss will corrupt and while you don't always have to start evil, you will eventually become evil. In my opinion, I am making my world my own and giving it it's own unique flavour.
This works for my players and I'm sick and tired of these same people who continue in the past couple of years tradition of making these forums a horrible place. I have heard arguments about freaking humanity, respect, importance of humanity etc.. This all because some of us don't run our games the way these people want us to. All of my ideas are put forth to my players first and they decide whether they want to play in it. None of my players feel they are entitled to play in each and every game I run. They don't call me a bad DM if I stick to my restrictions instead of changing the game around to suit them. They show me the respect of opting out and letting the others enjoy the game. From what I have read, 5th edition is supposed to be more about the DM taking back that power and making the campaign his own instead of just reading out of the book and I am grateful for that.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I've restricted things in campaigns before. I've played campaigns with restricted stuff in them. It can be fun to sort of work within the lines. Sometimes it can be a hassle when the DM is constantly restricting things simply for their own amusement or what have you.
The initial buy in is the important part, however. Why run a game when your players are unhappy? I don't believe, however, that most restrictions will make players unhappy. Mostly they'll nod, say sure, grab a nacho and make a character. I don't believe a player will get upset if you do an all drow story and they want to play a different race. You tell them you'd rather all PCs be Drow for the story you're trying to ignite, and most reasonable people will be like, "All right. I'll play Warforged next time." If the player definitely doesn't want to play a drow, then that's the time to have a group discussion and decide the best course of action. This is all my own experience and opinions, however, so I'm not trying to tell anyone how to make their game work.
And no one should be trying to tell anyone that the way in which they do their games is wrong, either.
Really this whole discussion needs the caveat that the metagame is different for different groups. Everyone is going to do what they find fun. Putting the way one person does things into your own metagame context might muddy the waters a bit.
emwasick wrote:
The DM is the ultimate authority in the game. It says so in the rules, so it must be true. The DM is god.
Some gods are playful and have a GSOH. They say "yes" a lot. Their games are fun. Some gods are full of wrath and righteous indignation. They say "no" a lot. Those are not fun at all.
It takes all sorts.
Maybe DMs should have to declare their alignment on their DM sheet.
Now there's a thought. A DM sheet.
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Step 1. Grow Up! The game isn't just about you. It is about the enjoyment of everyone at the table.
Step 2. Talk with your players. Sometimes their creative ideas can lead to fun RP interactions. Don't shoot things down just because you lack creativity.
Step 3. Try and come to some compromise. See why the players wanted to play something off theme. See if they can get a similar level of enjoyment with a few tweaks.
Step 4. Reflavor! No dwarves in your campaign world, let the player be a stout human with the same racial traits. Find ways to make things work.
It really is that simple.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
When the players are inspired by your theme, they want to make PCs that fit in. If your group loves the idea of the PCs being bandits on the run from the law, you won't find many players asking to be a goody-two-shoes paladin. There's no need to dictate restrictions when player enthusiasm for a theme is doing the heavy lifting for you.
Lawolf wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
emwasick wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
When running a Theme based campaign, an important question is: Why?
All drow party. Why? What is the point? What do you gain? Would allowing other races cause problems?
For example, say you wanted to set the campaign in a drow city. An elf would certainly not work, and a dwarf, halfling, or human would also be very out of place. But there is no reason why a more cosmopolitan drow city (less monotheistic and more open to trade) wouldn't have tieflings, chromatically scaled dragonborn (often working for the church of Tiamat), and half-orcs (every evil town needs strongarm thugs). You could even make duergar, kuo-toa, and more.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
This topic, IMO, is the new Edition Wars. Since Edition Wars are forbidden, and people feel the need to argue about SOMETHING, they fight about playstyle. It's hard not to ridicule another's style if it's radically different from yours (human nature), so these idiotic debates come up. I am also guilty of this, and am trying very hard to move past this.
My suggestion to everyone reading this thread: GET OVER IT! Other people play other ways. These ways are different than yours. These ways might even offend your gamer sensibilities. Don't comment, except maybe to mention your preference (without deriding other styles). The people who attack other groups' playstyles are the same edition warriors of old who have to fight about something. Don't Feed the Trolls.
Orethalion wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
emwasick wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
Another wrongbadfun-a-thon? Sweet!
Your <insert playstyle here> way of doing things is objectively lame! Like, scientifically provably stupid.
Honestly, if I were to restrict alignments in my games (I'm not), I'd be more likely to link Fifth Edition's Paladin to Law rather than to Good. The Paladin (the base class, not the subclasses) is linked to devotion to an oath - to giving one's life to a specific cause and code. That's not an inherently Good act - extremists throughout history would prove that - but there is something explicitly Lawful. It's about following rules simply because the rules are what are demanded.
emwasick wrote:
Querry: for all those restricting paladin's to LG, would you be OK with someone playing a Paladin (the class) and renaming their class to Crusader or Champion or some such? Or is the only way you can be a champion of your diety is to be a LG PC?
Double querry, what would you do if such player simply refused to write down an alignment because they believe that it doesn't matter and alignment is bunk?
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Imposing restrictions is often the obvious solution for preserving thematic flavour. Just not always the best solution.
GhostStepper wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf 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.
CelticPaladin wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Orzel wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
emwasick wrote:
It's unfortunate most campaign "theme" changes I have personally seen are based on the dislikes of a DM and not creative alteration. So my advice to campaigns is for the DM is to ask themselves are they cutting things purely for flavor and story or is it an attack on something they personlly dont like or have no interest in? This is not an open attack on DM's but it is something that does happen that quite a few probably are not aware they are doing. Ultimately it is usually better to find a way to include a fair and sincere request if it does not cause problems for others at the table.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
DM: Hey, guys. I have some ideas for this new campaign. It's a primal, stone-age-style survival theme. Feral orcs and dinosaurs, etc.
All 3 Players: This has potential. Let's do it!
DM: OK, what characters do you want to play?
Player 1: I'll play, Gog, the half-orc barbarian with a stone greataxe.
Player 2: I want to be River, a wild elf shaman.
DM: How about you, Player 3?
Player 3: Hmm. Well I've been wanting to play a human foppish rapier duelist named Frederico. I already rolled him up and everything.
Everyone Else: Wha---?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
The part of this I struggle with is the language some of you guys use when talking about your playstyles conflicting.
"willfully contradicts the DM's wishes"
"Both fly in the face of the table’s playstyle."
"act like such a jerk as to be willfully disruptive to our game"
Heck, on the No. thread which spawned this one we somehow got "forcing DM's to accept a race" a concept which boggles my mind to people being arrested for "forcing yourself on someone" or you know, sexual harrassment and all that
Really, I think we need to take a step back and realize that someone is disagreeing with you is not the same as them walking up and slapping you in the face. Your game is not sacred or divinely sanctioned or anything like that. We're a bunch of people who sit around a table and have fun by rolling dice and telling a story. We are not attacking you by having a different idea of how we should play. I just don't get how people can justify this type of language when we're talking about playing a game, usually with friends
Explicit bans should be all but unnecessary if the players are on board with a theme, and if a DM is consistently having to tell players "No, you can't play that.", it's a warning sign that the theme isn't as compelling as the DM might hope.
I like themed games that get players to focus their imaginations along compatible lines. "You must all have darkvision" is a good theme that can unite players around a specialization, but still leave a lot of room for player imagination. Giving players a "box" to play in is a good way to get players to make compatible characters.
The best game I ever ran was a very heavily themed Eberron campaign; every character was a former member of a House Deneith mercenary company called the Longstriders. Their company had been fighting in Cyre on the Day of Mourning and only 21 of the 200+ member force survived. Every PC in the game would be drawn from this pool of 21 characters, including any replacements for fallen heroes. On top of that, the Mourning augmented the survivors, giving them all something akin to aberrant dragonmarks with the color of the dead gray mist blanketing the Mournland. These dragonmarks gave them all the ability to sense magic and fire bolts of raw energy. To some, it gave the ability to cling to walls like spiders, to beguile with silvered tongues, to speak dark words that shattered objects, and so on, all without limit. They had no idea how or why they had these powers, but they were stuck with them all the same. That's the theme. Mechanically, they were all gestalt warlocks (as in warlock + whatever else they wanted), neatly giving every character the minimum of a d6 hit die, simple weapons, and light armor to represent their collective military background and the invocations to represent their Mourning mutations.
Even in that heavily themed game, I made exceptions for player imagination. One player really wanted to play a warforged with a "Spartan" look (300 was in theaters at the time) instead of the standard composite plating and crystalline innards instead of wooden bits. After talking it over with him, we settled on him always having the Spartan look, but the crystalline element only manifested after the Day of Mourning and his "dragonmark" was not only spread over his surface but visibly wove throughout his red crystal body. He was a bit oddball, but by working with the player we were able to both satisfy his desires and preserve his connection to the campaign's theme on an even deeper level than the rest.
I don't like themed games that are just excuses for DMs to establish their own Barney Fiefdom. All I ask is that they let me know beforehand so I have the chance to walk away before wasting my time on it.
iserith wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
If a single player wants to play a deep dwarf *prisoner* in an all drow campaign, cool, I'd work with them. That's if the player was really, really set on the idea o' course (and not simply looking to cause trouble).
The occassional oddball character adds a bit o' variety to an otherwise uniform group. OTOH If two or more players had similar ideas for non-drow however, it's prolly time to reconsider the whole all drow thing. The fun part then, is deciding who gets to be the oddball (everybody else is a boring drow 
).
Just because somebody has an oddball idea doesn't necessarily mean they're trying to cause trouble. Sometimes people just think that way --and in a game like D&D, I say that's good. No matter what the theme is gonna be.
Artifact wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
The OP is a Lawful-Neutral DM.
I'm a chaotic-good DM. We wouldn't get on too well, so I shall find another thread to post in.
/elfquit
Lawolf wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Noon wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
In a lot of ways, I see a lot of people arguing for the most sociopathic option.
"My way or there's no game" means that everyone else involved has two choices:
1. My way. My way might be fun, or it might not. If a player's pitching something else, though, they obviously think they at least would have more fun doing that something else.
2. No game. This is the worst option, because if everyone's there then everyone obviously wants to play a game.
Making people choose between "mildly uncomfortable" and "just straight-up awful" isn't good behavior.
*sighs*
I see "player entitlement" and "DM entitlement" being thrown around. "Entitlement" is a loaded term. Let's go with a more positive one! Let's go with "player empowerment" and "DM empowerment."
Actually... both sides are using those terms - for their own side.
So... we have to choose whether to empower the player or the DM. Or do we? I don't think we do. I don't think we ever do, because I don't think that empowerment is a zero-sum game. I don't think empowerment is ever a zero-sum game, because I think that more empowerment just makes the world better and means there's more available for everyone. But how do we get past the dichotomy?
Through communication. Instead of banning, instead of ultimatums, instead of "you'll play what I tell you to play or there'll be no game" or "you'll let me play precisely what I want to play or I'll walk" (by the way? I'm only actually seeing one of those being put forth as a good idea here), instead of restrictions and rules and lines drawn in stone and saying in a Captain Picard voice "The line must be drawn HERE!" we could admit that neither players nor GM are balrogs balors or Borg or evil villains out to destroy our campaigns/ruin our fun and listen to what one another want and try to find ways to accomodate everyone. Restrictions might not be inherently bad - though I've yet to hear an example of one that's set in stone and good - but ultimatums are. Ultimatums lead to broken friendships and collapsed relationships and World War I and not having a game tonight.
So you find the actual theme of the game (and "all Drow PCs" isn't a theme. A theme is a topic; "all Drow PCs" is a rule), and you find the actual core of what the player wants, and you find a way to insert tab A into slot B and make it work. Which, I promise you, except in the incredibly rare (read: In 20 years in this hobby, I've seen it once) case of the deliberately disruptive player, you will always be able to do if you are sufficiently creative.
It takes work. It takes communication. But first things first, it takes disarming the "there will be no game/I will walk out" button forever.
And I promise you - absolutely guarantee you - your game will be better when you do it. I'm not saying your game with its restrictions is bad now, or even that it's not excellent now, or even that it's not better than mine now (though I doubt that; my games are pretty damn good), but in my experience, every single time, the same GM running a game with the same talent and the same passion but less restrictions on players leads to a better game. Every. Single. Time.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
iserith wrote:
" Personally, I find that overriding desire for validation to be indicative of personal issues that DM may have."
That's an interesting observation. Personally, I wonder if a stubborn refusal to follow the theme set forth to be indicative of personal issues a player may have.
Takes all sorts, doesn't it?
DemoMonkey wrote:
While I still don't care what you want to do in your game...
Heres an example of how I do NOT "sell" a theme to the players: The following races, classes, items, and spells are restricted. List, list, list. If you want to play any of the restricted things, then GTFO. Don't judge me!
An example of how I would "sell" a theme: Alright, the game is called Tokyo Vampire Pop. It's about post-apocalyptic Tokyo that's been overrun and conquered by 12 Vampire Lords and their legions of thralls. You'll have to navigate hostile territories, political labyrinths, and above all, don't get et! We'll use the Apocalypse World rules system, the basic classes, and a handful of other classes found in these sources. List list list. It'll be 6 sessions over 2 months. Let me know if you're in.
So there it is. Personally, if you wanted to sell me on a theme, you'd have to emphasize the positive features of it. For me, you get no traction telling me "you can't blah blah blah." But presented with a cool framework to play around in, I'm much more receptive.
You gotta romance me a little is what I'm getting at.
PS- one thing out-of-theme does not ruin a theme. That's absurd, Oreth.
lawrencehoy wrote:
iserith wrote:
As is unfortunately all too common on these forums, people here are discussing two different scenarios and then arguing because the outcomes of the different scenarios are, understandably, different.
Scenario 1:
DM proposes a campaign idea. It may or may not have banned races and/or classes. It certainly has a theme.
Players all agree that the campaign idea is 100% awesome.
One player (because they are a sociopath and yet still accepted in this gaming group) then says, "I am going to make a character that goes completely against the campaign theme to which I have just agreed!"
I think we can all agree that the player in question is being a sociopath. I don't think anyone (other than the player in question) would disagree that the player is in the wrong. If you find yourself saying, "Hmm, I disagree", then YOU are that player.
This scenario isn't a meaningful line of discussion.
Scenario 2:
DM proposes a campaign idea. It may or may not have banned races and/or classes. It certainly has a theme.
Players raise some objections. One of them had wanted to play one of those banned races and/or classes. Perhaps one wanted something that seems like it wouldn't fit the theme.
This is the meaningful discussion. What do you, as the DM, do? How do you handle it?
Do you work with the players to find a solution? Or do you simply say, "My campaign world. If you don't like it, there is the door."
Personally, I think the former is always better. As others have said, I have found that with even just a little imagination (something we ALL have in spades), a solution can be found that still preserves the theme of the campaign. And even more, it often results in a story that is very cool and different from anything you would have originally conceived.
Example: I ran a Dark Sun campaign. Standard stuff: metal is extremely rare, survival is the main concern, elements are against you, gods are gone, etc. One of my players loves divine characters, especially clerics. Knowing this, I said that I was willing to work with him to come up with a solution should he wish to play a divine character. Not surprisingly, he did. We came up with this idea: his character was an archeaologist who came across an ancient relic dating from well before any of the Sorcerer-Kings came to be. It was a holy symbol of Avandra, though of course he had no way ot know this. He studied it for a while, and then put it on a shelf where it sat collecting dust. One night, he had a vivid dream in which a number of primordials (as well known to folks in Dark Sun as the gods are to people in other campaign settings) were battling a number of unknown entities (the story of the Dawn War was not something known to people). One of the entities bore the same symbol as was on the ancient relic. He watched (in the dream) as the primordials killed the entities one by one, but not before the entity tossed something far from the battle. He then woke up, feeling a strange kinship to the entity, a sadness about its death that he couldn't explain. He instantly went to find the relic, and when he picked it up felt a strange power surge through him (he gained access to divine spells). His personal quest is to find out what the relic is, what the symbol means, and what or who those entities were.
The campaign was still Dark Sun. But it had a new, very cool plot line: could the PCs bring the gods back?
bawylie wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Discussing with the players whether their ideas can be accomodated into the game = good for the campaign as a whole. No argument from me.
If that discussion in good faith does not result in a resolution, defaulting to "you must fit what that player wants in anyways, even to the detriment of the setting" = bad for the campaign as a whole.
DemoMonkey wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
In a lot cases, I think a DM would be perfectly justified in shooting down thematic encroachment. Being the DM involves a lot of reaction to what the players are dishing out, but that's not the same as being a slave to their whims. Using the drow example, a player hoping to color outside of the lines a little bit by playing a duergar is probably a reasonable request. Insisting that they be allowed to play Dwarfwarrior, their Klingon Paladin of Odin on the other hand? That shatters the theme and utterly shifts the entire tone of the adventurer.
Basically, it's not all black and white. There is ample wiggle room between Authoritarian DM and Crybaby Player. A DM can cater and player can deal without any one needing to be shown a door or whatever else. It doesn't need to be so rigid on either end of the spectrum, and I'll wager that these extremes have seldom ever been the case for everyone here.
One point I will disagree mildly on is a DM not deserving special considerations. That spot at the table shoulders the bulk of the homework aspect of the game. I'm not talking about ego stroking here, to be clear. Rather, I think someone investing the majority of the time and energy into making the game happen at all deserves some credit.
Brimleydower wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Zappy wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Q: Why is "This campaign isn't for me/you" a BAD thing, rather than an adult exercise in preferences?
Orethalion wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
iserith wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
"It's waffle. I'm done with this one."
You only get waffles after defeating THE SHADOW!!
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I come up with a campaign sheet that explains the nature of the world and all the houserules. I assume the core books and I also assume no splats unless approved. I send that out to those I think might be interested in playing. I get a group that I expect has bought into the campaign sheet. If they claim to buy in but show up and haven't then they are liars and are being disruptive and wasting people's time. They don't get invited back. If I ever fail to get enough players for a campaign idea then I will come up with another one. So far hasn't happened.
I do believe the DM puts in at least three or four times the effort to create a campaign and when it comes to theme should be given preference. I live by that as a player though so it's not like I don't live by my own standards. I'm never going to tell a DM his restriction is bad. If his theme is bad enough I just don't play in that game.
That is adult behavior. No one is mad because they played or didn't play. I'm having a pizza party. If you don't like pizza and don't come that doesn't mean you are not my friend.
For me D&D is too much of a time commitment to play second best.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
iserith wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
It probably does earn you extra respect, honestly. Awesome DMs should be cherished. Going from having them to not is an eye opener.
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Okay, could someone please explain to me what the campaign gains by "You must all play Drow"? Because that seems entirely arbitrary to me. What do I, as a player, get out of your campaign by limiting myself to playing a Drow? Are all the implied roleplaying constraints in place (IE: I'm not supposed to play Drizzt, but a more typical Drow)? How is this entire thing not on rails? What exactly is a "Drow Theme" and how does it make the campaign better?
I mostly DM, and my worlds are generally of the Fantasy Kitchen Sink varity, so there's very little restriction. However, (and this is an actual example) if a player came up to me and asked to play a musket-wielding dwarf in the swords and sorcery world I was building, I would have to respectfully turn him down. Gunpowder just plain doesnt exist in this world, and making it exist for your character forces me to make too many social and economic changes to the world at large to be believable. In this case, we were able to make the character into a dwarf marksman using a crossbow, which mostly satisfied the player and preserved the integrity of the world.
I guess ultimately I think the DM should be flexible, to a degree. Let's go back to this "must play a drow" example. If one of your own players, a friend of yours, clearly not trying to grief you (why would you hang out with such a person? I cut off relations with any such jerks long ago), came up to you and said "Hey, I'd like to play an orc brusier raised as a slave/enforcer in one of the other characters' families, is there a way we can make this work?" would you shoot down such a concept out of hand? Is even a single change "too much change", and thus invalidate the theme? What does the campaign gain by forcing this player to play the same character, except a drow instead of an orc?
I'm not saying I wouldn't play in the "you must be a drow" campaign, nor that I would immediately seek out a way to play another race. But the campaign pitch is important. "You must play drow because the theme is drow" is stupid, circular, and arbitrary. "You must play drow because you are all members of the same house waging a secret war to topple another house, in a campaign full of backstabbing, politcal intrigue, alliances, and sabotage" is pretty darn sexy, where do I sign up (but can I play a captured Duerger slave being used to infiltrate the target house unnoticed, who has been promised his freedom if he completes this one "simple" task 
)?
Orethalion wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
Totalitarian Dwarves Out to Rule the World! Bring out the War Machines! Smash the Orcs! All Elves Must Die --Horribly!
If the DM style is gonna be authoritarian ('my way or the highway'), why not have some of that bleed into the campaign itself? Take things to their most logical conclusion?
Also, I love blurbs/taglines . Helps sell an idea to me.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I'm working on a new campaign right now, playing with the same guys for the past year and a half. No new players. I wantd to have a bit of a Pirate Theme, at least have a decent portion spent on ships, if not exactly PC's being pirates.
One of my players says he wants to make a Half-Orc Barbarian based on Oderus Urungus from GWAR whose goal was to destroy the Black Pope and take over the church, so he can do all sorts of evil stuff. Doesn't fit with the idea of the campaign world I had in mind at all. Instead of dumping in his cornflakes and saying "No", we're working it out to his concept works for the campaign, even though his goal is highly unlikely to happen. His character will be chaotic and likely disruptive to the party, hopefully not the players. I trust him to tone it down or let him die if it becomes disruptive to the other players.
Another player hada concept to play a guy kind of like Nightcrawler. A rogue/monk who teleports. We're going to houserule and reflavor some stuff and make it work for him, even though That wasn't in my original world concept.
I don't have a grand plan for the campaign world. I'm not sure what we'll be doing after the first couple of sessions. I just asked them if they'd be okay with starting off shipwrecked and figure out a way to have the PC's get together. Some could've been passengers, some captives, and maybe some natives. We'll all find out as we finish the current campaign.
At least we all agree that anyone who isn't up for “The Fantabulous Adventures of Señor Frederico in the Long Ago Land of the Dirt People" is a bad person. That is objectively true.
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Skipping over lots of great posts from some folks to get to this one...
Dark_Stryke wrote:
emwasick wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Qmark wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I think non-kitchen sink games and themed games are lots of fun, and in the past were a default assumption of world design. If I were running a Spelljammer game, and someone didn't want to play D&D IN SPACE, then it really wouldn't work too well. If I were to run Dark Sun, I would disallow or severely reflavor certain races.
I think an all-drow campaign set in Menzoberranzan sounds good. How would non-drow work in that setting? They would be slaves or corpses or enemies of the drow. The enemies against the drow idea could be fun too, but that's more a standard Underdark campaign. Only by being drow could you experience the politics and inner workings of drow society.
Now, if I were running it, I may be willing to be swayed by a compelling argument that doesn't change the point of the game. For instance if 2 players were excited about the game, but for some reason really really didn't want to be drow, maybe one could be a high elf magically disguised as a drow with a high level artifact or item, and maybe another could be a mercenary employed by a drow house. But these would have to be very extreme cases. If no one wants to play that game then of course we'd have to come up with a new game.
In my campaign right now we're doing an island hopping pulp sword/sorcery game with 17th century technology. Non-human races are very rare, and are homebrew chaotic races that get random traits when they level, instead of normal traits at level one. Elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc don't exist. Now obviously this isn't default D&D, and I'm sure some people here would hate this game. But my players really like it. If they didn't like it, I'd be open to other ideas, but I do think the DM should be able to make the pitch and see who's on board. DMs put a lot of work into themed games, and not just because they're jerks that like to say no to players. Sometimes the themed games are a lot of fun because the DM is bringing so much passion to the table.
I know I can get bored of generic kitchen sink medieval settings, so it's nice to do something new from time to time. Oftentimes, restrictions encourage rather than inhibit creativity.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Noon wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
At the end of the day the DM has the final say thoguh and players are not usually hard to come by. Rather than say a player can't play if they want to run something I do not want them to I usually offer to let them DM and then they can do whatever they want (except play)
That tends to shut them up for some reason when your options are play something that may not be ideal vs don't play (as a player).
Noon wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
It seems to me that some people are operating with a winner-loser mentality. The process of deciding what to play is depicted as a me-and-them battle where the DM only 'wins' if she successfully dissuades all opposition to her original idea. If the players successfully convince her to run something else, even a slightly modified version of her original idea, then she's 'lost', and doesn't have a spine, and the players will gloat in their entitled little hearts, convinced they now have a mandate to run roughshod over everything.
Or so the myth goes. While contrarian players exist, they don't haunt every game where the DM's prepared to negotiate. Far more players prefer to be co-operative. If defending your DMing style requires you to mischaracterize players as opportunists who'll insist on running absolutely any type of PC they can dream of if given an inch, your assumptions may be worth reviewing.
As for spines, they're meant to be flexible. If they're rigid and unbending, there's something wrong with them.
Zappy wrote:
autolycus wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I only run themed games since I find "anything goes" games flavourless and boring.
It's like reading a book about medieval knights, ninjas, pirates and cavemen all mixed together. Unless it's some sort of bizarre comedy it just doesn't work. Not for me, at least. Better to stay in one theme and explore it in depth for all its richness, than just scrape the surface of a lot of ideas.
Lord of the Rings is better off without ninjas.
The Musashi books are better off without caribbean pirates.
I've ran western-medieval games, star wars games, vampire games, medieval-Japan games, horror games, super-hero games, and many others.
When I'm starting a new game I usually pick a selection of themes I feel like running and ask my players which they'd like best to play. Or else I start by asking my players what they feel like playing in general, while just excluding this or that theme that I particularly don't feel like running.
Once everyone agrees with a theme I will say no to anything I find to be outside the theme. And I expect my players to be reasonable about that since they agreed with the theme.
I love many kinds of fantasy, just don't expect me to mix vikings and shaolin monks in the same game. If the guys want me to DM we either play one theme or the other. Or else let someone else DM. If I'm the one selected to create and run the world we play in, I won't run a game I won't have fun with.
Zappy wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
I promised a discussion of Emerikol's (I'm pretty sure I misspelled the name; sorry) situation. Time for that!
Most D&D groups I'm aware of are a small group of people - four to six - who meet primarily in someone's home or apartment or dorm room or lunchroom or a small conference room at the local library or some other non-public venue with books, dice, and a game. Who's DM changes from campaign to campaign and sometimes even from session to session, though there's usually a primary DM who runs 50% or more of the time. It is these groups to whom I think most blanket advice ought to be given, and these groups to whom I am primarily speaking when I write, both because they are the majority of how the hobby actually works and because, lacking a larger RPG community they interact with that can provide mentors, they are the ones most likely to need advice from a place like this.
The other extreme is the sort of situation Emerikol describes as how his group works. A large set of gamers, usually meeting at a really good game store with multiple tables and more than one night of roleplaying a week. The best stores of this sort provide rooms for RPG players so that the ambient noise of other RPGs and minis and CCGs going on around them is less of a distraction. I had access to one of these, once, in Louisiana, and it was kind of amazing until the store shut down - probably in part because running a store like that is expensive. These sorts of stores are rare, and that means these sorts of communities are rare, but it does create a situation and set of expectations very different from the home group.
If I'm running a game in a home group and tell a player they can't play, that means that I've not just thrown a player out of my game or my group, but entirely out of the hobby. They have to hunt for a new group; that hunt may be successful but often is not. If I'm running a game at a really great store and tell a player they can't play, on the other hand, I'm throwing them out of a room - not even out of my group, because we might end up interacting in another game. They can go to the next room or come back the next day and find another game to join.
In this situation, I still think that hard restrictions aren't the best way to run a game. I think they're socially suboptimal and lead to less fun being had at the table than if one were to bring the same passion and the same talent to a game with less restrictions. However, my position gets far weaker because telling someone to leave the room is just telling them to leave the room. In my time in Louisiana, I started as a more restrictive DM (though nowhere near as much so as some of the people commenting here) and shifted over time to my current philosophy. My games often absorbed players from the more-restrictive games when the restrictions grated on the nerves of those players. I tended to have 7-8 people in my games at a time, running on days when two other RPGs were also happening in the same building, and mine was the room people knocked on the door of to tell us to keep the laughing and the joyous "Woot!"s down because we were disrupting the CCG players downstairs.
But if you're in that sort of situation, go ahead and run your restrictive game if it makes you happy. Toss people out if you feel a need to. They'll find other games unless they really are actively, willingly disruptive (and, honestly, part of why I think this is so rare is how many players accused of being such I absorbed into my games and found to be model - or even great - players).
In home games, hard restrictions are actively destructive. In large-RPG-culture games, they're suboptimal. That's my opinion on the matter.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
This is completely anecdotal, but the attitudes of players have never been the extrems of completely against the restriction or incredibly inspired by them. It's always a, "Yeah, let's try that." For us, I mean. We trust each other enough not to go a long and see what happens.
"...DM's precious and fragile dictatorship"
Ladies, gentlemen and other, I present exhibit 329 in the case of "Forum posters vs Civil Discussion".
Side A paints players as the font of all inspiration and DMs who don't kowtow to that as control freak tyrants
Side B paints DMs as unquestioned artistic geniuses and players who don't obey them as rebellious sociopaths.
Both sides are equally wrong. Comically wrong, fortunately, but still wrong.
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
iserith wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
“Some DMs don't want compromise though. It's their theme, their world, their game and you comply or GTFO and find another game.”
Birth of some campaigns
- Someone has enough ideas percolating in their head that they want to run a game
- They build their world, populating it with all the things that fill out their vision, all their “This would be cool” and “What would happen if” and “This will make this world unique” ‘s
- At this point – this is important - no rule or restriction they make is directly contravening anyone else’s desires, because at this point there are no other desires.
- The proto-DM solicits a group of players/friends and says “I have a campaign world to run. It’s about X. In order to be about X, there are no Y’s or Z’s.”
- Players can then say “I’m in”, “Nah, not my thing”, or “But I want to play Y”.
- The “I want to play Y” player is being a jerk, because now they are directly and deliberately contravening someone else’s desires that they know exist, and saying “I know what you want and I don’t care, because what I want is more important.”
- The DM CAN work with that person, change their world, and fit the round peg in the square hole. But why would they WANT to accommodate someone who has shown, right off the bat, that they don’t care what the DM wants? What kind of player are they going to be?
To me, the timing is critical. The DM doesn’t set their ground rules to take what a player finds enjoyable, they are trying to create something everyone will enjoy. The player who resists those ground rules however, IS trying to take (or at least, doesn’t care if they take) something they already know at least one person finds enjoyable - the DM.
Now, if your world creation process involves player input at the world building stage, this plays out differently. But everyone needs to recognize that for (fill in whatever percentage you think is realistic) groups, the genesis of the campaign starts with the DM alone.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
"I don't automatically think that the "I want to play Y" player is a jerk or that he or she doesn't care what the DM wants."
Huh. You mean in exactly the same way I don't think a DM that says "I want to Run X" is a jerk or doesn't care what the player wants?
TiaNadiezja wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
It's easy to say "No" as soon as one stops feeling compelled to say "Yes".
Just so we are clear on something.
This isn't about one's ability. I have no problem being able to fit any concept into a game. This is about wanting to keep those restrictions in place for what ever reason and that it's okay to do so.
Y'know, for me it's the absolutes that grate.
I disagree with the philosophy (and it's proponents) of "Never say yes to the player"
I disagree with equal vehemence with the philosophy (and it's proponents) "Always say yes to the player." (And I include compromise solutions in that category..)
I support wholeheartedly the philosophy of "Sometimes it's better to say yes. Sometimes it's better to say no. Both DMs and players should respect that."
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
What is saying no to any slight deviation from theme if not a grab for control?
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
"It's perfectly natural, but an urge I would suggest is best combatted for the sake of the game experience."
And so at last we reach the core point of disagreement.
I submit that, in my experience, that reflexively "combatting" that urge produces a poorer game experience, not a richer one.
We do not agree on that point. Everything else is window dressing.
I however, admit that (being as I am not actually an omniscient being and I haven't actually met every gamer in the universe) I may be wrong. Do you do the same?
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
"No. What you quoted is my opinion."
Ah, so you are saying that all anyone is offering in this thread is an opinion, and no ones opinion can be disputed or called wrong on the grounds that it is their opinion?
Tautological, but valid. You are right and so is everyone else, to an exactly equal degree then.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Rottle wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Rottle wrote:
iserith wrote:
D&D has always allowed for the possibility that not all races and classes will be used, not every time, not everywhere. Look at the published settings for instance: No orcs in Dragonlance (so no Half-orc PCs). No Paladins in Dark Sun (not at least in 2nd Edition). One setting is *traditional* fantasy, the other not so much. Both have their own 'take' on which races are available and which are not.
Even when a race appears (almost universally) the flavor tends to vary by campaign. Pick up the Complete Book of Elves (for 2nd Edition) and check out Chapter 2: Variations on a Theme ('specifically the Elves of the Worlds section). The Gold/Sun Elves of Faerun are often called 'high elves' but they don't equate to generic High Elves described in Complete Book of Elves (they're actually closer to the Grey Elves mentioned in that same book).
So, if D&D elves can and do vary in published settings, they can also vary in homebrews. There's no such thing as a stock Elf. Thank Tolkien , he was one of the first; he did his thing and (inspired by him), everybody since has done their own thing. Now, moving on to Halflings . . . .
There's nothing wrong with race and class restrictions. By the same token, I personally feel there should be some 'wiggle' room in what's available and what's not. No half-orcs in Dragonlance. Got it. What if a half-orc PC is a former Spelljammer seperated from ship and crew? I'd go along with such an oddball PC (as long as the player is trying to have some fun, and not simply trying to make trouble). Some DM's might not, they'd stick to their guns: No half-orcs in Dragonlance. Period. Either is okay I say. One way adds some homebrew variation to the setting, the other promotes a setting closer (and more recognizable) to the published one,
= = =
Just some rambling thoughts .
Had some time on my hands because my FLGS doesn't receive their shipment of PHBs til later today. Gonna pick mine up tomorrow afternoon before work. Wish me luck .
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
I don’t even know why I’m posting here. It’s pretty obvious that most people are talking past each other, and the most reasonable voices tend to get ignored. But it is sucking me in regardless. I have several points I want to make and besides the first one they aren’t in any particular order.
1. Okay first and most important point (and really should be the most obvious). If everyone is having fun it doesn’t matter how you are playing! If the GM says everyone has to be a human fighter (champion), or if everyone is making their own custom race and custom class, it doesn’t matter as long as everyone is having fun. Now, given that I don’t know any of the other groups that are being discussed, I’m going to have to take people at their word went they tell me that their players are having fun. Considering these people are still getting groups and their players haven’t walked away this would seem to bear out. Discussing your own style of DMing and preferences when it come to your groups character creation is perfectly well and good, but if you are telling other people that don’t agree with you they are doing it wrong, then you are doing it wrong.
2. Personally, I while I do enjoy themed campaigns, I feel it’s a bit premature to start banning races and classes. I mean the PHB is only just coming out today (and some of us will have to wait an additional week and a half to get their hands on it). While you may not care for a certain race or class, or just have a great idea for a world that just so happens to not have a place for them, that very thing might be the thing that grabbed hold of your player’s imagination. They’ve just got the book found the thing that really spoke to them, and they are already being told they can’t play with their new shiny. Personally I plan to run a few mini campaigns so everyone can play with the new shiny toys and get it all out of their system. This will also cut down on players from wanting to switch characters mid campaign because some other shiny object has caught their eye. (This incidentally is another reason I’m happy with WotC slower release schedule. “OMG did you see they just released the Ninja class, and here I am stuck playing a rogue like a sucker…”
)
3. Speaking for myself, while I’d be willing to play in a campaign that I felt very mediocre about, I would refuse to GM one regardless of how much my players wanted it. Part of this is probably because I’m GM 99% of the time so when an opportunity to play pops up I can’t be too picky about it. However mostly it’s because as a player I only have to invest 3-4 hours a week in a game I don’t care about, plus during that time I get to hang out with people I enjoy hanging out with so that makes it easier. As GM however, I’m investing significantly more time into an idea I don’t care about and the majority of it isn’t even at the table with my friends, it’s me on my own. If, hypothetically, they felt that strongly about it I would encourage one of them to GM that game and I would be happy to play it. I say hypothetically, because this situation has never come up in our group. Actually, I tend to have so many ideas for games I want to run that I couldn’t possibly run them all and get option paralysis when it comes time to choose one. So what I do it grab several of my ideas, present them to my players and see which one they are most interested in.
4. It is also important to remember that everyone’s group culture and gaming environment is different. For example, I live in a rural Bible belt area where many people still think that D&D is the devil’s bible. I only know 3 adults besides myself that are willing to play RPGs. We BARELY have enough for a group. So forcing someone to walk isn’t really an option for us if we want to play. That said, in high school I lived in a completely different environment. There was plenty of RP to be had for all. Didn’t like this guy’s campaign? No problem, there are like three other groups you can join, we kind of had too many players anyways. So while currently not coming to an agreement is unthinkable for us, I understand that isn’t the case for everyone.
5. For me, how strict I am about fitting a character in a themed setting depends on the player in question. For people that I’ve played with before and trust to add to the game instead of detracting from it get more leniencies. For a player I’ve never played with, and know nothing about, I’m going to be much more hesitant about making exceptions for them. However, with a good enough pitch I can be convinced. Although, in my personal experience people that insist on making characters out of theme after having the theme explained to them and agreeing to it, tend to be the more problematic players. Not all the time mind you, but often enough that I’ve noticed a trend. That said if the player is new to D&D or RPGs in general I wouldn’t start them off in a heavily themed setting. After all if they haven’t experienced the base game, how can they appreciate all my clever changes
6. I think part of the reason for this discussion is the very nature of D&D. You see, the majority of RPG have the theme baked in. WoD’s Vampire games for example, it’s a game in which you play vampires in a modern setting. You want to play as a dragon, a fairy, or a wizard? Tough, this is not the game for that. There are other games for that, some of which by the same publisher using (generally) the same system. Yes you can add such things to the game or mix WoD games together, but everyone knows that is not the norm. If I’m running a Changeling game and someone says they want to be a vampire there is little in the way of hard feelings if I say no, because there is not option to be a vampire in the Changeling books.
D&D however, proposes to be a generic (mostly/usually) pseudo-medieval fantasy game. It wants to be everything for everyone. Towards that end, they try to cover as many possible pseudo-medieval fantasy tropes as they can, plus some not so medieval ones for good measure. It’s so broad that it doesn’t really have a theme (please note that I’m using the colloquial definition of “theme” here). And when you apply a theme to it, something almost invariably gets bumped out. Is there a cohesive theme that can unify the “everything and the kitchen sink” that is D&D? There probably is, but not everyone will be interested in that theme, or maybe they want to try something different. The great thing about D&D’s everything and the kitchen sink method is that for most any theme you can come up with there are enough pieces in the game to hang the theme on.
7. Before you strait up ban something, I would recommend looking at my best friend re-skinning. Don’t like non-LG Paladins? They aren’t paladins they are champions of [insert name of god] (unless you for some reason feel only LG gods can grant their more militant focused followers abilities?). Player wants to play a Wood Elf but there are no elves in your world? He isn’t a Wood Elf he just a human, born in a village where they are trained to hunt and stalk in the surrounding forest from the moment they can walk. Heck, I played a Sword mage in 4e long before they released the class, I just took a paladin had his Wis effects key off of Int instead and re-fluffed the descriptions of his abilities and powers to be arcane instead of divine, I swear it didn’t feel like a paladin at all.
iserith wrote:
Rottle wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Foxface wrote:
The problem we are running into is some people think a DM always should make allowances and I disagree with that. I don't throw in restrictions for shits and giggles. There is a reason there and I know what's best for the campaign because I'm the one who has created the framework. Now you don't have to play in it, just like I don't have to allow something outside the restrictions.
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
In my games these facts are true.
1. The DM's job is to create the world and adjudicate that world. In a sense the DM plays the role of the physical laws of the universe.
2. The DM plays the NPCs according to their personalities.
3. The players create players that could reasonably exist in the world the DM created.
4. The players take any actions their character could take in that world.
It is not a power trip or control. It is merely the DM doing what he is tasked to do by the game.
I accept that some people play a different way. I believe the above is the default assumption of D&D but I also realize that any way that is fun for you and your group is a good way for you and your group.
For me though the above works extremely well.
If I jump off a twenty story building am I being controlled when I fall to the ground? If that is your version of control then I agree wholeheartedly that the DM is controlling the campaign in that sense. Per #1 above the DM is supposed to adjudicate the laws of the universe.
Emerikol. wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I've been thinking...
I don't believe "The party members must all be drow" is a theme. It's a rule, IMO. Themes are broad subjects which include many ideas and concepts; therefore they ought to exist outside the rules.
In a such a case, a better themed game would be "This is going to be an intrigue which will deal with the intricacies of drow culture, taking place within Menzoberranzan." Note that there are no hard rules in this presentation. It states what is going to be explored and lets the players decide how they go about exploring the theme.
"Drow culture" encompasses a large amount of subjects to explore, like its religion, social structure, economy, foreign relations and so on. There are numerous ways to delve into the subject, and players will , I believe, create characters which will gravitate toward aspects they want to look into. A player wanting to find out more about drow religion may opt to play a priestess. Another player might choose to view drow socitey through the eyes of a male soldier.
Maybe one player chooses a more indirect approach to the theme. He wants to serve as a contrast, to show how drow culture affects non-drow, or highlight what drow are not. As Foxface said, contrasting can be a powerful tool in serving a theme. Maybe he chooses to play a renegade... or *gasp!* a non-drow. How does he do that while serving the theme?
In this thread and others, I have seen people say "But having a warforged/elf/duergar/half-orc ruins the theme, and I've have to rewrite the whole campaign!" If it isn't evident by now, I disagree with that notion. First, it doesn't ruin the theme, because you didn't have one; you had a rule ("drow only") which didn't invite questions or the exploration of ideas. Second, if you had a proper theme, you'd be able to work the supposedly "disruptive" element into the campaign, in the service of it.
Back to playing a non-drow in Menzoberranzan. It's a 20-minute subway ride between work and my apartment; here are four character concepts I made up in that time:
Menzoberrobot is one-of-a-kind, literally. It is the only fully-independent automaton known to drowkind. It has no soul, yet it moves, speaks and thinks! A lower House somehow managed to steal him from the House Baerne mage who built it. Said mage was murdered during the raid on his laboratory, but not before he could destroy the plans and design documents. Unfortunately for the House who captured him, it has no wizard capable of reverse-engineering him, so they risk destroying it in doing so. Instead, they try to find useful applications for this new technology. Can it survive in the Underdark's more hazardous environments? Can it be a useful bodyguard for an important person? How could it be used against other Houses? (Credit to iserith for the punny name.)
Sildera had gone mad, according to her colleagues. She had been living sheltered in her house for a dozen years or so. It's not much for an elf, sure, but her behaviour had been getting quite erratic. Indeed, when the drow attacked the elven settlement, Sildera was too busy to notice, chanting and praying to the Spider Queen, surrounded by profane marks and iconography, beseeching her to share some arcane secret which allow her to bring her beloved back to life. A drow priestess, setting her eyes upon the scene, ordered she be captured instead of killed: certainly, an elf from the surface who would betray her kin for the glory of Lolth is a divine sign. What can Sildera contribute to the drow? What are the ramifications of an elf defecting to drow? Has such a thing even happened before? (Includes a bond with another (N)PC!)
Maldek is a duergar blacksmith. He deals directly with the drow, often accompanying his own caravans into the drow city. His wares are top-notch, and the drow are more than willing to pay him a premium for them. Thanks to his dealings, he has a good idea of what's going on in between the Houses. He has a few contacts within a number of them he can rely on... for the right amount of coins, of course. Back home, he has a decently-sized forge and two apprentices who help him make a pretty good income. He aspires to being able to profit from wars between drow Houses, because if there's one thing you can count on, it's that as long as there are at least two drow left, they'll all want the others dead sooner or later. What opinion do the drow have of Maldek, and duergar in general? What do other duergar think of his commerce with drow? Is there a great deal of trust between Maldek and his drow customers, or are deals usually tense?
Kagg is strong. Kagg is tough. She wins many fights in the arena. This pleases the drow masters. Her unbridled fury is unlike any that drow have ever seen. Some are even afraid of her, although they'd never admit that (not even to themselves!). As far as Kagg knows, she was born in Menzoberranzan. Her earliest memory is that of a stern man with black skin and white hair who beat her because she brought a candle too close to his face, temporarily blinding him. She has no notion of family or freedom. A slave's life is all she knows. What is a slave's day-to-day life? Has Kagg made friends with others slaves? Does she know about rumours or secrets - of which the drow are unaware - pertaining to the slums?
So there. Four characters who, while non-drow, invite examination of drow culture and society. Heck, that's a whole party, even! And they're all connected to Menzoberranzan. AND they all offer a different perspective on the (proper) theme.
Tell me: what was it you were planning to do with "All PCs must be drow"as a theme?
Shirebrok wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
This all reduces a to a much more basic point that somehow we always seem to get sidetracked from.
Is it always POSSIBLE for a DM to "say yes"? Yes it is. I don't dispute that at all. Never have.
Is it always BETTER to "say yes"? No, I genuinely don't think it is. Sometimes it's better to say yes, sometimes it's better to say no.
I think being able to recognize when a situation calls for each is an important skill for GMs to have, and one you only learn by trial and error.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I don't agree with the claims that a theme isn't what is being described. A theme is merely the subject of the game; calling it a rule or a setting might not be incorrect, but it's still part of the theme. The theme of the game is drow—Theme. Only drow are selectable as a race—Rule. You are drow in X city on Y world—Setting. Theme only speaks to an attempt to evoke a specific subject: in the very crude example, that subject is drow. This theme might involve various rules and a specific setting, but that all serves to feed into the theme itself.
Basically: themes, rules, and settings aren't mutually exclusive. They cooperate.
Whether a person agrees with the theme or how it is being created seems to be the overriding focus of the discussion at hand. So far, it's mostly personal preference and anecdotes. Where the impetus rests is going to shift between different tables. Maybe you have a reactive DM or an authoritative DM. Neither of those are right or wrong, they're just different ways that a table approaches the game. That ends up being the real point of contention (across the boards in general). For whatever reason, some people are unwilling to confront the fact that different people have different perspectives. Which is a shame. There's really a lot of merit to the discussion; different playstyles being discussed has the potential of expanding horizons for someone who had never considered those different outlooks before.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
What happens when "Preserving the theme OF the game" turns into "Preserving the theme OR the game?"
Shirebrok wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Zappy wrote:
I hereby raise this thread in an effort to call to arms those willing to help craft the soon-to-be-legendary characters for iserith’s forthcoming epic-survival-dramedy-misadventures-serial:
The Fantabulous Adventures of Señor Federico in the Long Ago Land of the Dirt People
As has already been established upthread, the cast will likely consist of (though better suggestions are always welcome--I'll leave final casting up to iserith):
- Señor Federico, foppish duelist cast back into the late stone age from a more civilized time of steel, wine and wenches (the importance of which is apparently in reverse order for some inexplicable reason).
- Gog, half-orc warrior with a stone greataxe
- River, wood elf shaman
- Ankle Biter, stout halfling cannibal/head-hunter
Anyone interested in chipping in or taking a crack*? iserith recommended starting them at 3rd-level, because the stone ages were very scary!
(*FYI... I've started work on Ankle Biter as a ranger...)
Yes! When ChrisCarlson and any volunteers create the characters (as per Pre-Generated Character Repository format) for this scenario, I will write the opening scene of "The Fantabulous Adventures of Señor Federico in the Long Ago Land of the Dirt People" based on what you give me. I'll use this opportunity to demonstrate some collaborative techniques, how to do something I call "rolling character intros," and how to build a compelling situation in a "theme-based" campaign.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
"Cool, you're the only dragon in the whole world then, as far as you know. Most people don't think dragons have ever existed or are extinct so they figure you're just some kind of swamp-dwelling lizardfolk or the like. Those that are in the know might treat you with hatred or want to capture you for nefarious purposes. Let's play to find out what happens!"
iserith wrote:
I know lots of people who worship beings that nobody has ever seen nor has proof of. Some of them even speak in unfamiliar tongues. I don't see why that would be so impossible in this DM's setting. The DM could have easily made a concession to make it work by trying to think of the interesting possibilities this player's idea might create.
I'm not arguing, mind you, just suggesting there's a way to move the game forward in these kinds of situations.
iserith wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
Dark_Stryke wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
No worries. I almost always find a way for a player to put whatever character they want into a campaign.
Truth be told, unless I'm using a pre-established game world I often get the players to make their characters first. Then I build a campaign world where they will all fit.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
IMO, this thread and its topic was properly expended. I resurrected it specifically for this reason (because this was the thread where iserith and I gave birth to this baby).
Don't make me turn this thread around and head straight home! I'll do it! Don't test me!
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Foxface wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Whose concept was designed first?
The DMs world? The player should adapt to it.
The Players character? The DM should accomodate it.
This is why the answer of how to handle things is different depending on if the games genesis was "DM creates world and invites players into it" vs "Everyone tosses ideas out, someone volunteers to DM".
In the distant misty ancient past of the original post, the idea was that the campaign and it's structures and theme existed before the players were invited in. In that situation, it is only courteous of the players to accomodate themselves to it, or politely decline to play.
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
"I don't find it discourteous for a player to ask for an exception to the DM's restrictions."
I do.
Just as I would find it equally discourteous for a DM without an established (and provided in advance) set of ground rules to disallow a players character.
Some people are just contrary, Iserith. If I were to establish a campaign world and say "You can play absolutely any of the variety of classes or racees from any book except Female Halfling Warlocks", there would be at least one person who says "Oh, but I MUST play a Female Halfling Warlock!".
It's just human nature. Sometime to do with a garden and a fruit tree of some sort, I think..
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Y'know Iserith, no one actually disagrees that your approach is workable.
A lot of people disagree that it is the best approach or - and this is how you present it whether you intend to or not - that people who don't do it your way are inferior DMs.
Stop presenting it that way and these long and ultimately pointless discussions will stop. Unless long and ultimately pointless discussions are actually the goal?
Anyways, I'm done with this topic. I have presented my point lucidly, clarified it as required, and I am satisfied it is made. People can judge it by it's own merits at this point.
Ciao.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
If I say I want to run a Middle-Earth campaign, and a group of players agree, it would be a really weasel-knob move to request to play a thri-kreen.
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
I totally believe that the DM's engagement is worth ten times that of any player. A DM who has lost interest will ruin every single campaign. If I know in advance that I cannot craft a setting without players have the option to violate my design any time they feel like it then I'd just not play. I don't do things that are not fun. Now. I do generally know what people in my area like and in most cases my ideas for a setting are popular. It very much though is a setting that has been created and the players create characters that fit that setting. The better they do this the more engaged they are and the more fun everyone has. If though the are navel gazers who never care anything about the setting anyway then I don't want them in my campaign. What I offer will not appeal to them and their behavior will likely anger everyone else at the table.
The real problem in the example some ways up the thread about the dragon shaman is that you let it go on for so long. I would tell the player that there are no dragons or dragon shamans in the setting. If he is unable to come up with another character concept amongst the hundreds available then he has problems far beyond just wanting to play a dragon shaman. It would be best if he left now because he is the type of player that would be a thorn in everyone's side on a continual basis.
A vast array of options are being offered in a setting designed to resonate with authenticity and depth. I've sent you a document detailing the theme and restrictions of the setting and you've responded that you want to play in that campaign. When you show up and immediately indicate you are wanting to do something that goes against that document, then honestly I'd be within my rights to throw you out immediately. After some reasoned discussion, if you are still being adamant then yes YOU ARE A JERK. You are crashing a game that you knew in advance was not what you were wanting. I don't just not want you in my game. I don't want you in my circle of friends either.
I'll be the first to admit that not every flavor or theme appeals to everyone. There is no crime in just not joining a game that is not of interest to you. If you live way out in the wilds and have exactly five players, then I do suggest you get campaign theme buy-in before starting construction. This means they buy in and maybe don't play for three months if you design settings like me. That is okay.
I believe the biggest difference between FoxFace (who by the way is a nice person) and myself is how strong the focus is on the setting to begin with and how much prep is done on that setting before play starts. I'm firmly in the prep camp. I don't want to play in your campaign if all you have is three sentences describing the setting. If though you tell me in advance you go that way you can be sure that I won't show up and try to crash your game and do it my way.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Last night, I watched The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. In that movie - which is based on a Tolkien book, I'm told - there were dwarves, elves, humans, a dragon, a skinshifter guy that could change into a bear and such, orcs, goblins, worgs, wizards, a necromancer that was actually something else, and these giant spider monsters that could talk to each other. So I think failing to come up with a reason why a talking insect-man can be found in Middle Earth is a complete failure of imagination or a stubborn refusal to be accepting of the ideas of others. There's plenty of room to explain it away and not lose anything about the setting.
In a typical Middle Earth campaign, I'd likely no sooner allow an orc PC (an established race) than a thri-kreen (jury-rigged in). I don't consider "canon" to be the only deciding factor.
IMO, often "special snowflakery" is a symptom, not the disease.
I've played in a few games where the DM disallowed paladins (my favorite class at the time). It was obvious to me these fellas were concerned that I would stir up trouble. So, they said no.
People just say no sometimes. Sometimes they don't even care to listen. Does that make 'em jerks? Maybe. Not always. Sometimes people just . . . don't wanna be bothered with an idea. "No. Moving on . . ." That's better than ripping up your character sheet in front of your face. Now that's a dick move .
People are complex . . . right up to the point they're not. Ya know? Gotta run, boys-n-gals.
I don't want the DM to even stop and think about why he made a decision. Just go forward with the idea and make it great. Stopping him mid-stride and demanding an exception because I don't want to pick from what he is providing is asine. If you really can't enjoy his setting without your special snow flake then just pass on his game. I really must meet this player who can't play anything but one character concept. I don't personally know of any.
Emerikol. wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because personal attacks are a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct 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.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
I don't get why this is an issue. If you don't like the restrictions I am placing on the game due to theme, don't play in this particular campaign. I don't want miserable players at my table obviously, and if playing in a world without drow is going to make you miserable, please don't join my campaign.
you can always ask me if I'd be willing to run a campaign that allows your character, or to play in a non homebrew world or a non-thematic campaign, and maybe I will, or know someon who will.
I'm not running convention games, or dnd encounters, where there is an expectation of an open-ended game. I'm running games in my worlds, because I'm putting the effort inot producing adventures and context-so yes, what I say goes. I'm not losing any sleep if you don't want to play, I have never been short of players or long time groups. In fact if you don't like the very idea of dm restrictions, your probably not the type of player I want, and I'm not the type of dm you want. It's a big world, there are lots of DMs, get over yourself.
There no right or wrong way to play, but it is the DMs game.
And good players can always be creative within the context of race and class restrictions, or house rules...whatever. But as a dm, it should be an obvious point that your players should me be aware of expectations from the outset.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
iserith wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Perhaps an overreaction to a tongue in cheek comment.
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gotta hand it to you guys: despite the hiatus, you didn't skip a beat.
BoldItalic wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Artifact wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Zappy wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
This is an argument over values more than an argument over who is entitled to what.
Iserith, et al, value player collaboration more than fidelity to setting.
Xun, et al, value setting fidelity more than player collaboration.
Me - I understand that no game survives contact with the players anyway. (I hate playing in the Unforgettable Realms bc the players who love it are so canon-obsessed that we can't make any meaningful impact on the world). So I tend to allow exceptions and uniqueness (see 13A's One Unique Thing). When I'm trying to keep the flavor of a theme, it's what's around the players, not within them. Or it's genre based, trope based, etc.
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
We are way out in the weeds now. bawylie is right in that we just have incompatable philosophies here.
I can see both sides of it.
One example of "words on a page being more important than a person" is the Law. The whole idea in a nation ruled by laws is that no person is above those laws - else they loose all ethical high ground.
Another example where a" person is more important than words on a page" is a contract. One can not sign a contract that broaches the civil rights of any person (including oneself).
What we have, then, is a group of people who see the rules at a table as a contract vs. a group of people who see rules at a table as law.
Where you fall in this spectrum will greatly affect where you fall in the argument.
Mecheon wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
I find it a virtue to be willing and able to run any game any time and to be able to make it fun and have fun with it.
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
This is why I spell out my setting restrictions instead of just stating a theme. If I don't want race X or I want race X to work in a certain way then I put those things out as part of the campaign setting description. Any time anyone shows up for session 0, he has tacitly agreed to my campaign setting guidelines which I sent him. They list clear rules so that there is no confusion. If you still show up wanting something different then you are breaking the social contract. What would be doubly bad in that case is that you've taken a spot someone else likely wanted who was willing to agree to the social contract. Such behavior would not be acceptable for long and you'd soon find yourself without any groups in my area.
There are two things at issue here and I'm trying on this thread to focus on one particular area. Character creation and setting adherence. This is something we all no matter our playstyle need to communicate with our players. Communication is key.
bawylie wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Some players are more collaborative than others (just like some DMs). A player who insists on playing a centaur paladin in Dark Sun is not willing to collaborate. That's a problem, no doubt.
Edt to add: As far as I'm concerned, it's the DM's job to handle that player. Either to work with the player or to stick to his guns.
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I love the idea of a centuar paladin 
. I also love Dark Sun. Still, I'd have to think twice about asking to play one in a Dark Sun setting.
Oh, who am I kidding . . . I'd ask 
.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
On the wizarding order that killed all the paladins.
I have no problem with that at all. I don't see class as an in-game sort of thing to start with. But let's agree that an order of wizards wiped out an order of Paladins, 1000 yrs ago.
That order of paladins is gone. That order of wizards is feared. Nothing prevents new paladins being anointed by deities, or new people taking up the righteous cause. There doesn't have to be a conflict there - and it isn't interesting conflict until we play it anyway.
Why are you adventuring with these people? What do you make of their seemingly miraculous abilities?
It's really hard to play chess when your opponent is playing checkers on the same board.
Artifact wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I think the "Group and Player" discussion is far more worth having than "Setting/Theme/etc. and Player" or "GM and Player".
Setting canon isn't more important to me than my player.
I can work something out.
Nor am I and my ideas more important than my player and his ideas.
Again, my opinion.
But looking at the Group Versus Player dynamic (and I hate saying "versus" because I don't believe either side is trying to defeat the other) could make for a good discussion.
I think that might be where most of us have different ideas. How we rank each voice at the table individually and together.
I don't like white room scenarios, so I'll see if I can give my thoughts without examples.
I assume almost everyone in this thread agrees that if the group is fine with making an exception, everything is cool and that player gets their exception.
But without that agreement, how do you handle the situation? And let's assume the player is in good faith (as that's what I'm apt to do).
I think the best thing to do is compromise. Find a solution that works best for everyone. I don't want my players losing out on an entire character concept.
But I can see where some people in the thread are coming from worrying about the feelings of their other players.
If there's a way to fit in their concept that everyone can agree with, awesome. If not, let's try our best to find something that everyone can agree on.
While I'm thinking about it, why don't some of you creative DMs stop on by the Monster Mash thread and show us what you got?
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
If a player is intent on sticking with an idea that fundamentally changes the theme (or setting as I call it), then there are two options as I see it. Work with that player or stick to your guns. Both approaches have merit.
I once played in Realms campaign where the idea was to keep as close as possible to the published setting. The DM would've been in his right I think to shut me down if I suggested playing an assassin (they didn't exist at that time --would've meant homebrewing something prolly). I knew the DM wouldn't wiggle, so I didn't rock the boat (much ).
By the same token, I've played Realms campaigns where the setting could (only loosly) be called a homebrew version. We were encouraged to make it our own. Both approaches have merit.
Artifact wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
The DM is the authority on the campaign and its setting. Says so in the book but it would be snotty for me to point to that alone . Before it's all said and done, there's a lot of back-n-forth, give-n-take between the DM and the players. Or at least there should be. If there's not, then there's your problem, right there. It isn't just on the DM, it isn't only the players, it's both.
I've never been overly concerned that a player is gonna put forth an idea that will blow my idea to pieces. As DM, my habit is to work with the players (first), then make a (final) decision. I love ideas, even when they blow mine outta the water .
Edited out an argumentative li'l bit.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Earlier, I mentioned that some people just don't seem to wanna deal with a particular issue. "No. Moving on . . ." This stark response is far more preferable than someone who rips your character sheet up in front of your face.
Just saying (again ).
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
@iserith
i have been doing a long long time. I do the prep I need, and am perfectly capable of being flexible at game time. But like you, I enjoy the process of world building a adventure prep, and my buzz is killed by ideas I think are stupid. This does not make that player's style or desires "wrong" it just means it's not fair for me to compromise on that issue for the benefit of one player, and frankly, it's not fair to that player either.
I guess I could allows allow anything alayer wants, and then simply make that character a damage soak until it dies, but where is the fun in that?
i don't want, or need, to be flexible. I run the game I want, with players who want to play. If I can't find players for dnd, I'll simply run deathwatch.
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jharii wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Jharii wrote:
iserith wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Some have an emotional need to to say "yes", it is often from emotional damage.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Jharii wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Jharii wrote:
iserith wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Jharii wrote:
iserith wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct 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.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jharii wrote:
A few of my homebrews are defined as much by what isn't available as what is. Some races and classes might not be availabe. It's okay for players to challenge me though . Not on everything (I'll stick to my guns on a few things) but I like to leave wiggle room, just in case.
So, I talk to the players about available races and classes; the thing they always seem to fixate on is the 'unavailable' ones. It's human nature . I enjoy listening to their ideas though.
I'm really surpised to hear that others haven't experienced this more often. That it's a rare palyer who shows up to the table with an idea that just doesn't *fit*. Surpising.
Shasarak wrote:
For whatever it's worth, no edition of Dark Sun has had any divine classes. At the same time, every edition of Dark Sun has created alternates to the divine classes, or versions of the divine classes, that amounted to little more than erasing "divine" from the characters sheet or class description, and inserting "spirit", "elemental", or "primal" in its place.
So no, there have been no paladins or clerics deriving their power from a god. There have been characters who have derived their power from sorcerer-kings, land spirits, or the elements themselves (all of which are functionally gods, from a mythological sense, even if lacking the "divine" label in the rulebook), and some of those characters might have had levels in a modified divine class from the PHB, either an "official" version from the Dark Sun books themselves, or a custom one created by DMs with advice from Dungeon and/or Dragon articles of the era.
A knight in shining armor calling upon the name of his god and blasting foes with radiant energy would be contrary to the bleak and post-apocapyptic ethos of Dark Sun, yes. But there is nothing about Dark Sun that shuns or bans a warrior who draws mystical power from some unknown source and is devoted in service to said power.
A Forgotten Realms or DragonLance-style paladin would be quite out of place in Dark Sun. I don't think Iserith is advocating such a character. But ponder a mul who was stuck in the desert and (in a fit of madness driven by heatstroke and lack of water) heard a voice in his head that so happened to lead him to an oasis, whereupon he had an epiphany and found himself possessed of new-found power, and plegded himself in service to the non-existant being he thinks he heard, even though he actually derives his power from the elements or maybe even a sorcerer-king. He now quests in service to the voice in his head, and its guidance leads him through life. Is he doing good work to follow the voice? Can the voice be trusted? Is it a sorcerer-king? Is he just crazy? What do others think? Does he preach of the power he hears? Does that arouse the attentions of a sorcerer-king? Is he merely an unwitting agent of one sorcerer-king against another? Let's play and find out!
Such a character isn't out of tone with the Dark Sun setting, and in fact reinforces the setting.
I guess it merits the question: what makes a setting? Personally, I don't think the rules make the setting. Rules change from edition to edition. Classes exist, and then they don't. But the concepts, the story, the themes: those persist. Dark Sun is a game of desperation, forbidden power, mistrust, survival, and misplaced worship.
So yeah, explicit gods and divine grace go against the setting of Dark Sun. But a devoted servant, especially one who is serving a deception bent on abusing trust, is right in line with the setting.
Make of that what you will.
There was an Unearthed Arcana article in Dragon #423 called 'Game Changers' (by Robert J. Schwalb and Matt Sernett). In it were suggestions for grittier play and high-octane play.
Action Points: Your character starts with 1 action point. No more than once per encounter, you can spend an action point to take an extra action (see page 286), use certain feats, or use paragon path powers.
When you spend an action point, it’s gone, but you can gain more in two ways: after reaching two milestones or by taking an extended rest. After you take an extended rest, you lose any action points you haven’t spent, but you start fresh with 1 action point.
Artifact wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Disruptive players are disruptive. It isn't just limited to setting theme.
Rules lawyers come to mind. I personally have the most difficulty dealing with them. I hate to admit it but (even as a longtime DM) I don't always know the rules as well as I prolly should. My main objective is to make sure everyone has fun (rules be damned if necessary).
I have a much easier time dealing with special snowflakes (as they've been called in-thread), *potential* spotlight hogs. Like everyone, they just wanna have fun. I get that. Rules lawyers want fun too . . . mine!
I really have distaste for the neutering of the Drow. There magic resistance was a thing to be heared in 1E/2E. The same goes for the golems.
Jharii wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Jharii wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Foxface wrote:
hallows1999 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
nerraDetroK wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Secondly, unlike you I just don't think ideas are important. Not yours, not mine. I do not view "building on people's ideas" as the point of playing a roleplaying game.
G'night, everybody!
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
One thing not to forget. I behave as a player the same way I expect players to behave in my games. There is no chance I would choose to play something banned by the DM and I wouldn't argue about it.
The culture of gamers in my area is very DM empowered when it comes to setting decisions including what is allowed race and character wise.
Emerikol. wrote:
The DM puts in the time, it's fine to preserve themes. As long as the players enjoy it, then its successful. It's when DM"s ban mechanics/things that the players really want to play with that things can get sketchy.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
VeroMaestro wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
A big idea that one side fails to grasp is that a negative desire is more important than a positive desire. If I advertise for a game with particular restrictions some of my players may well have decided to play knowing there won't be those things.
You can claim you can refluff and reimagine anything but the result no matter how well done will often be unsatisfactory to many players. Those players then have to settle and get a game they will not enjoy as much.
The reason I communicate a lot up front is I don't want disappointed players. I also want to make sure those not interested in the theme don't sign up.
Now even given all of that caution I as DM have to decide when a player shows up with something unexpected. My first question is does this new idea ruin the reason I created the setting in the first place. If so I say no. Next I have to determine if other player expectations are being ruined. If so I say no. Otherwise I say yes.
Since I started long ago doing my full communication approach I really haven't had any problems. The circle of players I deal with do not have the expectation they can go against the DMs campaign concept. People in my area value the DMs tradition authoritative role.
Its just my opinion but I do believe a player who shows up with a character that breaks the campaign rules and objects when told no is acting like an entitled child.
BoldItalic wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
In the MERP RPG could you take a PC that cast some form of spells even if they were minor?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Aside:
Yeah I'd never buy D&D fitting middle earth period. I mean go for it if your DM has a game for you but for me it just doesn't work.
Emerikol. wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
"I don't care about ideas".
I've contributed to this thread to the best of my ability, so there's no shame I guess in admitting that this is beyond me. I'm honestly at a loss for words.
I just wanna add my voice to those posters who have already commented. This is a very *odd* statement, especially considering the game we play.
Emerikol. wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Wow. I can't believe I reached the end of this thread. I might just be peeing in the wind here, but I might as well throw in my two cents.
As a beginning GM, I had some very bad experiences when I accepted characters who did not fit the tone/theme of the game being played by the rest of the group. We were running old World of Darkness, and I had one player who just insisted that I allow him to play a werewolf in a Vampie: The Masquerade game.
This was a mistake that killed the campaign dead. Even though it was technically possible to play werewolves and vampires in the same game, and I did indeed play in WoD games where all the various supernatrual critters got together in one game, I remember this experiance vividly as one which killed the game. Because (for those of you who've never played the old World of Darkness games) vampires and werewolves in that setting were mortal enemies. The player of the werewolf didn't know this when he created the character--he only wanted to play a werewolf, and I had to buy a whole new rulebook to accomodate him. And then we discovered this fact, and he wanted to stay true to "his vision" for the character by turning him immediately hostile to all the other PCs.
Then there was the half-elf, half dwarf character who just ran around smashing things with hammers. *shudder*
Or the evil dragonborn necormancer in what was othwerwise a fairly normal party. Or evil characters in general, for that matter.
Now, I've had some great success with the "say yes" approach to allowing off-the-wall concepts. The Mad Science Automaton character I allowed in my Deadlands game was all kinds of awesome, despite the (at first) silly premise. The changeling I allowed in a game where I was reluctant at first was a very awesome character and wound up helping me define a large chunk of my setting. I had a half-orc bard who was a bad singer who was quite memorable.
But for each story of successful integration of off-the-wall characters into a group, I have just as many (if not more) horror stories about characters who did not fit, and who dragged the game into the pits of Hell or had to be forcibly "retooled' in order to save the fun of the rest of the group.
So when I say "no" to a PC concept, it's not because I lack the creativity to make a concept work with a theme. It's because I know, first hand, what an unfun hell saying "yes" all the time can lead to.
Probably a decade ago, I played in an "all rogues" themed game. The DM came to us and said, "I'd like to run a campaign, set in FR, and starting in Waterdeep, in which all members of the party are rogues." We all said, "I'm in" and played for about 2 years until scheduling challenges caused it to fizzle out.
That, IMO, is a perfectly appropriate "theme" for a campaign. It fit well within what the DM had a vision for. That's not to say that half the party didn't multi-class (this was 3.5), but we all had at least some degree of "Rogueness".
I've run campaigns in which everyone was a Dwarf, another in which everyone was a Human, Elf, or Half-Elf. Sometimes, due to setting or desired plot or theme line, the DM wants such restrictions. As long as they're communicated with the players ahead of time and they agree, in my three decades of playing this game, I've never seen it be a problem. Do some players want to deviate? Sure. But in every case, the players have understood that it was a DM decision - in some cases a compelling enough storyline was created to support the deviation and it was allowed; in others it was not. In no case did a player "take his bat and ball and go home". I strongly suspect that if one had, that player would not have had the opportunity to play with us again.
As someone who DM'd for my groups about 1/3 of the time, having theme campaigns are easier to run than ones that are more wide open, unless you're doing a pure combat focused dungeon smash. If you want your campaign to include socio-political role-playing elements, having themed limits on the nature of the player characters makes that a LOT easier to manage.
andypalmer wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Based off of my reading of the books and understanding of the setting I believe [urely martial bugman would be less jarring to me in middle earth than a D&D style wizard.
One requires just adding a new race, the other invoklves fundamentally changing the dynamics of the overall setting.
That being said I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So playing in what's basically middle earth with a few tweaks isn't really the end of the world for me.
BoldItalic wrote:
The_Stray wrote:
I find it interesting that the people who are quickest to attack any similarity in form between a game of D&D and games from other genres (MMOs, CCGs, et cetera) are the quickest to use CCG definitions for words instead of literary ones when discussing D&D.
The definition of "theme" that requires hard restrictions on races, in particular, is the CCG or costume party definition - "everything in my deck must be a goblin for me to build a goblin deck." That's where the drow-only campaign comes from. It's not literary theme, which involves making the story about something. In a literary-themed Drow campaign, there's room for virtually any race or class or concept, as long as said race/class/concept furthers the goal of the narrative - exploring something about the Drow.
I think that nearly any idea, phrased well and integrated into the setting, can enrich nearly any setting - and D&D is inherently versatile enough that a setting really doesn't lose much, if any, integrity by bringing in elements from another. Even the heavily genred settings, like Ravenloft and Dark Sun, can easily handle additional elements without losing their integrity, because their personality isn't in their restrictions - it's in what they do that other settings don't. Dark Sun isn't Dark Sun because it lacks paladins or whatever races it doesn't have or anything of that sort; it's Dark Sun because it's a world that actively wants to kill the people in it, where the basic forces of the universe (such as magic) are actively antagonistic to life.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
The_Stray wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
The_Stray wrote:
The big mistake some people make is believing any certain way of playing is better for everyone. Restrictions enforced are either welcome or not but if welcome then they become a feature for those players. For someone like me the total improv make up the world as you go would be.misery. I come to a game wanting to explore the DMs world that he has crafted carefully to be consistent and flavorful.
When I first encountered the Foxface style, I was certain that the players of those games would abandon them in a minute if they had the opportunity to play in a good game of my style. Now I realize that we all derive pleasure in different.ways. I think some of you need to learn that lesson.
Emerikol. wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Ultimately, the DM does at least ten times the work of any of the players to keep the game going, session after session. Players go home and talk about their gaming experience, at most having to level their character (which is much faster in 5e than 3.5e). The DM often spends hours planning out the next session.
Ergo, as a player, if my DM wants to place restrictions on what race and/or class my character can be, I'm going to go with it, if nothing else, out of respect for the amount of work he/she has committed to do to keep the campaign going.
Emerikol. wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
As a player, I'd be checked out from the get-go if a guy showed up with a character named Leeroy Jenkins Jr., and the DM allowed it. This is one of the main reasons I'm an advocate of saying no sometimes. Stuff like that actually undermines the fun other players, especially if those players are looking for believability and immersion in their game.
Pluvious wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
Looks likie I may have to say NO as we agreed to no multiclassing for example and a new player want a MC PC and he roleld up his stats and then proceeded to screw his PC up as his concept is tryig to be ported from Pathfinder and it doesn't work so wellin 5E.
I did not make it clear to him what rules we wrere using. We had all the bases covered so he could go melee, ranged, spellcaster etc and I told him he could play whatever he wants and he took that a bit to literally. I said he could play the only requirement was he have a compete character ready at game start as he is not going to delay the game by an hour to make a a PC. He also had a PC with rolled sttas with somthing liike 14 as his lowest score a 17 and several 16s. I do let players roll for sttasyou just do it in front of me as I am very sceptical of PCs like that. When I say roll a PC I do not mean roll 6-20 stats and keep the best. You can roll 1 and keep it regardless if it is really bad I will probably let you default to the stat array or point buy.
Just as a response to the OP because I find the problem fascinating and frankly don't wanna read through this huge thread.
Basically You as a DM have not only the right, but the responsibility, to encourage players to make campaign appropriate characters. This was especially important for pre-4th rangers because they could get royally gimped by poor favored enemy choice.
Now that said a lot of people enjoy having a motly band of adventurers to bounce off each other, or wanna try wierd things because even in faurun normal people don't don't go around poking dragons for a living. To many themed games with a lot of restrictions on the characters players can build will tend to make them contrary. So it might be a good idea to talk to the players and set the theme after getitng an idea about what they wanna play.
Also something to keep in mind is that themes can be maintained while allowing a little wiggle room. For example an all drow campaign, is it really essential that every player is a drow? There are other races that get caught up in their politics and society. For example, half-drow, minotaurs, kobold, duergar, sverfneblin, humans, and even the occasional surface elf. The trick is that anyone playing these races will have to have a background that fits with their role among drow, most likely slave, merchant, mercenary, or spy.
As for a no caster's game... I'll be honest that kind of thing makes me nervous as a player, because it sound slike the DM is trying to mess with me, I learned to play in 3e and frankly DMs trying to restrict access to magic makes me very twitchy, try reassuring players that you're not trying to screw them over, and more importantly, don't screw them over for not having a caster when you ban casters, which is harder than it sounds, at least it wa sunder 3e rules since the game pretty much assumed that any higher level players owuld have magic out the wazoo.
rampant wrote:
I honestly have a hard time wrappig my mind around these issues being a big problem. My group, over time, has run all kinds of games, some fairly generic and open to anything, some highly specific and themed. in 3/3.5, we had... several games where everyone played high ECL monsters (including one as Dragons in the fashion of old Council of Wyrms), a game where everyone was gestalt with a psionic class, games without levels (don't ask), evil games, and numerous custom world games, many of which could affect race choices pretty severely. Low magic, high magic, banned classes (including one where I banned all the core spellcasters), you name it. We've all played enough D&D that restrictions aid creativity rather than restricting it. Theme promotes new and interesting concepts.
I honestly can't fathom the player who just has to play a concept that clearly doesn't fit, or plays the same character every game, or any of these other related issues. Making a variation on a theme (a drow slave in a drow game) is awesome, but wanting to play contrary to the theme entirely makes me wonder why the player even wants to join in the first place. Just to be in the game?
danyc wrote:
Sometimes it's a matter of having a really cool idea, but the DM falls in love with a single setting that makes that idea problematic.
For example back before I became the primary DM for my group(s), I had this really sweet minotaur archer concept I wanted to run, but the DM was going throuh an oriental adventures kick that year.
Or they may not care for the specific theme, I'm not really an elf fan, and find drow to be particularly unnappealing most days.
Part of hashing out a theme with the group ahead of time is to find out if you have someone who just doesn't find your particular theme idea appealing, or an actual trouble player. SOmeone who just isn't feeling your drow pirates concept will usually be more willing to work out alternatives, where as a trouble maker is just gonna be a pain regardless.
iserith wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
rampant wrote:
danyc wrote:
Oh i admit straight up that it's odd, I knew that I wasn't gonna get to play my favorite critter every game. It's just that sometimes DMs forget to poll their players, especially if they're on a kick, and that in my experience it's about as common a cause of players being troublesome about character creation restrictions as anything else. It's important to keep things like that in mind when creating theme games.
Emerikol. wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Foxface wrote:
danyc wrote:
Ok Foxface say I want to use Combat and Tactics, various Kits and and the Barbarians hand book to run a stone age game perhaps modeled on the Aztecs, Inca or Polynesian setting.
A player wants to use a medieval knight in full plate and everyone else is at best using leather. Said knight wants to have a steel blade, everyone else is using clubs or weapons made out of inferior materials with a -1 to -3 penalty on to hit and/or damage rolls.
Or in 5E or 4E in effect a player wants a +7 AC advanatge and a +2 bonus to hit and damage over everyone else. Or they want to use ray guns in 3rd ed because they were in the DMG.
How is that different from wanting to play a Paladin in Darksun? My default to the Paladin thing is a no and I do not have to let said player into my game or house so it doesn;'t really bother me if they play or not.
DM's Premise: The game is one of swashbuckling skyships floating tree islands and exotic winged races...in a mysterious world of cloud and danger
Player: I'll be a Dwarven delver of the underdark heavy plate cavalry warboar rider hunter of the great burrowing abberations....
How does saying yes to this player make for a better game?
Yes the player gets his way (self entitled) but how is he going to enjoy the benefits of his choice? The game is set aboard airships and on floating islands held together by great tree roots fighting savage birdmen.
It's really easy to forget the DM is a player too and is the one who will be doing the most work on the game, adventures and background. Should he forgo hios enjoyment completely in favour of someone who clearly wants to play a different game.
Sigh...
Zardnaar wrote:
Arawn76 wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Perhaps FoxFace, one thing should be clear. I don't have people showing up that don't know what the game is about. I don't run published settings I do my own. My invitation to the game is not a one sentence invitation. I do spend a lot of work on crafting a consistent and flavorful world. I realize that doesn't seem all that valuable to you. It is valuable though to some people including players. I believe I have more players than I can handle exactly because my campaign settings are so much better than the others in my area. I've heard countless times over the years that my worlds feel real compared to the others. That feeling is exactly the thing I am going for both as a DM and as a player.
I am not talking about a gen con game or a quick pickup game at the store. I realize in those situations that the whole dynamic is a bit different. I don't play those sorts of games because they don't scratch the itch I'm wanting scratched. I think that attitude holds true for some players.
Now, having said all of that. I do see tons of players on these boards complaining about things that leads me to believe that they were the problem player. They falsely believe that somehow the rules will save them from their "oppressors". The other players in their group and the DM were likely happy with how the game was going. So if you are the odd man out in many cases, you may be the trouble maker. That doesn't mean your style is wrong. It means you are playing with people who don't want what you want and you trying to force it on them is bad faith as you say. Perhaps saying "many" was going too far but I do believe "a lot" would not be a bad guess.
Foxface wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Em, I really wish you'd stop doing two things you keep doing in this and other threads:
1. Assuming that a player who wants something outside the DM's plans is acting in bad faith. I don't like the term "one-true-wayism," but I'm tempted to use it to describe this assumption. You have your base of players trained by local culture to behave the way your players behave. That's well and good for you, but I neither have nor want players trained to never suggest an idea outside my plans or to never come to my table with a strong piece of inspiration independent of my setting design. I would be, frankly, utterly miserable if I had to share your player base, and would either find somewhere else to game or set about breaking them of some habits that make them good for your games but utterly unsuited to my own.
2. Assuming that a DM who doesn't spend six months building a setting before first contact with players has a lack, or even a deficit, of investment in their world. Do you know what the differences between my method of setting design and yours are? I can start play sooner, and I have a pile of conversations with my players on the phone and in person during design time.
I pick themes first - not deckbuilding or costume party themes, but ideas I want to discuss in the process of telling stories in the setting. In my Third Edition setting, the themes were family, the nature of divinity in the D&D world, and what the human-centered design of the base game actually meant. In my 5e setting, I focus on family (it's a favorite of mine), the nature of evil, and thr inherent problems of imperialism and colonialism. Then I do some top-down design, enough to make the world feel real. Then I design, in great detail, the first few places the players will visit. This whole time, I talk to my players about what they want to play, to see, to explore, to meet, to fight and take the treasure of. I do this because I'm going to be telling the story, but the story is going to belong to them because their characters are both the viewpoint characters and the protagonists. I spend hours every week, before the campaign starts, the whole time it's running, and even after it ends and before the next one, working on design for the setting, fleshing out its places and people, designing monsters and towns and subclasses. I know this isn't universal, but it's not rare either with people who don't design settings without player involvement, so your assumption that people who compromise or people who bring players in or people who say yes or yes and aren't invested in their worlds or don't work as hard as you do with your player pamphlets and restrictions isn't just wrong. It's painfully insulting and ought to be beneath your dignity. So just stop it.
I'm currently in the process of building a campaign world for a new 5E game. I've got the nations laid out, which races are in charge and have the power, and what classes are common or less common in each region. For example, the Empire of Thorns is tiefling controlled - they have the noble and royal positions. Humans are second class citizens. Other races are all but non-existent in the region, and some races are simply killed on sight. In another region, the aasimar are in control, the dwarves are lower nobility, the humans are second-class citizens, and there's no gnomes are halflings there. A third region is controlled by the dragonfolk - there's no tieflings or aasimar there, no dwarves or gnomes or halflings - because the dragonfolk are at war with everyone else.
I've laid out how religion works, how language works, I'm laying out naming conventions for the different nations, how society works, etc. It's been about a week of writing, including the 'three chapters' I've got laid out for giving a backstory of what's going on. The players are already character building, because they're quite interested in the game as I've presented it, and we've still got a month or two before I can even run it since I have to wrap up the current campaign.
I take world-building very seriously. I want things to make sense, I want the players to have a strong idea of what does and doesn't exist in the setting, and I want internal consistency. For this game, I've built the tiefling empire around the idea of the Roman Empire - the aasimar / dwarf society is Egyptian inspired, the dragonfolk are Carthiginian, the gnomes are the British Isles, the halflings are the gauls, the elves are Greek and the orcs are a rampaging horde threatening the tiefling empire from the northeast. I've added my own personal touches - an ocean of salt that's horrific to cross, the sea of silt which divides the aasimar empire with the dragonfolk empire, and a five mile high wall of thorns which cuts the Horde off from the tiefling empire.
So far, we've got a tiefling warlock - grandson of the Immortal Imperatrix, a half-orc barbarian gladiatrix, and I think we're getting a half-elf human from the vassal states who's there to stir the pot and look for ways to undermine the empire. Still have about three more characters that need to be made.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Well apparently I got your goat. Not intentional.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Huh. Strangely, my style of prep seems different than what I've heard here. I was talking with my wife and a friend about wrapping up the current campaign, and said 'I am thinking of possibly running either a historical-like game next, or a space-faring like game'. Either something almost period, or a Spelljammer like game. After a bit of back and forth, I decided to go with the historical-like game, and started world building. I told my players what elements I was adding, and the players got jazzed about it.
This is usually how it goes. I make the world, they make characters that fit into it. If a player has an idea which doesn't quite fit, I'll let them know, and they'll typically tweak the character to fit in, or they'll make something different. Normally, my settings aren't pot luck - and most of my players (and especially my wife) want to know what the world is like and what's there before coming up with a concept - they use the setting to give them ideas.
It's easier for a player to change their brand new character concept, than for a DM to rewrite the world to accomodate that character if it goes against the pre-established rules.
Has anyone here ever, actually, chosen to not play in a game because the DM said "No (insert whatever race or class or culture you want) in this campaign"?
I never have. I genuinely can't imagine being so married to a character idea I would require the DM to revise the world around it, and I can't imagine a player who would do that in a campaign I was trying to run.
DemoMonkey wrote:
There's a new GM in the area, and his first statement was 'only humans'. I responded with 'sure, but what is the campaign world like?' I'm more interested in the setting and the rules, and that's what I use to design my characters. I may have a concept, but the concept is built on the setting, not in spite of it.
Foxface wrote:
I could just imagine it now.
Me: "So, here's the setting I just built"
Player: "Can I play a half-orc Imperial noble?"
Me: "I did mention that the Imperials nobility are tiefling, right? And that the orcs are the barbarian raiders?"
One player was considering making a dragonfolk - I was fine with it, but mentioned that pretty much guarantees the character's a slave, since the campaign is starting in the Imperial city - and with the dragonfolk at war with the Empire... being a dragonfolk isn't a healthy option. We bounced it back and forth as a group ... would he be allowed to travel in the city without chaperone (no), would he be safe if recognized as someone's property (perhaps, but depends on time of day). He's decided he'll make an aasimar wizard - which makes him royalty from one of the neighbouring empires, so we need to figure out why he's in the Imperial city, and what his job is.
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
iserith wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
As a DM, I do considerably more work than the players. When I prepped worlds like Emerikol, I did extreme amounts of work. That's why I believe him when he says he preps for 6 months before a campaign truly begins. Now that I take a more improv-heavy collaborative yes and approach, I do less work than before.
But I still do more than the players.
HOWEVER!!
Unlike some here, I don't think the extra work I do entitles me to some extra respect. I certainly enjoy a position of authority as granted by the rules, but authority and respect aren't the same thing. It doesn't matter that I slaved for hours, days, weeks over an adventure. That's simply the cost of DMing, the sacrifice I make. I enjoy DMing, and I find the cost a fair trade for the enjoyment I get.
Atheosis wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
My work doesn't mean I'm entitled to respect.
My work on my game is my labor of love.
I Earn my respect at the Table.
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ghaliyah,
I compeletly forgot to respond to the portion on "appropriateness". When it is appropriate to say no will ultimately be the DM's decision, but if the DM is a rational one (and the vast majority are), he will be taking the player's words into consideration before he says no. When a dispute arrises at my table, most of the time I will listen to the players words, and we can come to a resolution. Sometimes it will be changing to a yes and going with the player. Most of the time it will be some sort of compromise along the lines of, "That won't quite work because of X, but here are 3 other possible ways to make it work." and the player is happy with one of the other choices. Rarely, it has to be a no for whatever reason, and there is always a reason.
My players know that I don't say no arbitrarily, so when it happens, they're fine with it. Once in a few blue moons, I will say no to something and the player or players will have an issue with it. After the game we will discuss it at length and try to resolve it. Once in three or four more blue moons, we can't come to a resultion and it's just a no and the players move on. That's so rare, though, that it isnt even worth mentioning. Years go by without it occurring.
Ghaliyah wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Campaign integrity, first, random player "gift", optional.
Ghaliyah wrote:
If I'm dealing with a group of brand new players, I'll usually make a campaign world for them, and help them fit into the world. Once we've got a rapport going, then I'll show them prefab campaign settings, and we can go from there.
Ghaliyah wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
There are kung-fu pandas in World of Warcraft (a game I've seen trailers for and watched a buddy play for a few minutes, once). This kinda fantasy game doesn't isnpire me --at all.
People take inspiration from different things; very different things sometimes. What inspires me may not inspire another and vice-versa. Heck, it might even be a turn off. I certainly feel that way about Panderians. But, a whole lotta people get them. So who am I to say?
If a player came to our table and genuinely wanted to play a Panderian, I'd work with him or her. Why? Not because I like the idea but because they do. Sometimes an idea works, sometimes not. The trick is to work on it. Back-n-forth, give-n-take, between the players and the DM. Give each other that benefit, first. Then, as DM make a final decision. I'd like to think I wouldn't dismiss the idea of kung-fu pandas out of hand.
Bottom-line for me: Is the player having fun or being disruptive? It's a judgment call but as far as I'm concerned, that's part of the DM's job.
Arithezoo wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Basically, there appear to be two scenarios floated around. One side points out a DM who decides to ban and disallow things without letting their players know about it ahead of time and/or giving good reasons for those things; the other side shows a case where the DM shows the players a full setting and then everyone agrees and says yeah, but then a single player comes in with something radically out of setting.
Certainly, BOTH are bad. Restrictions can be really cool (inspired by the 4e Dark Sun book banning Divine classes, I have plans to someday run a series of campaigns were each one bans one of the 4 power sources - even eventually one with no Martial characters, everyone will have magic), and any player who wholeheartedly agrees to a set of restrictions and then shows up with something that blatently breaks those is a total jerk and has broken the social contract. However, I don't know how many people like that are around - heck, even the people wanting everything allowed every game wouldn't do that because they would turn down the DM right off the bat (or perhaps after asking if a non-standard idea was okay before getting shot down and leaving).
On the other hand, there are definitely DMs who ban things for less than stellar reasons, as we have seen voiced on this forum. It's one thing to ban dragonborn or tieflings because they do not exist as PC races in Dark Sun (which, supposedly, everyone agreed upon), it's quite another to ban them because they "look goofy." Similarly, banning paladins because there is no divine source is okay, but banning the Battlemaster subclass or removing Wizard short rest recovery "because they're not how things have always been" is pretty lame. Now, some players will still roll with that, and that's fine - the social contract at work. However, if an established player takes issue with bannings without bought-in setting reasons, it's totally fair for them to complain, and if they leave in the end that doesn't mean they're a bad person - honestly I would never want to play with a DM who used arbitrary banning because that describes a mindset that I see only trouble (for me) in.
While any player that cannot respect setting rules agreed upon by everyone has no place at that table, it is also the DMs job to try and make things fun for their players, and should keep that in mind with any requests made by their players. Maybe that means coming up with something interesting and/or unique as to why the PC is what they are; maybe it means finding a middle ground that is more setting appropriate but still does most of what the player wants; maybe it means explaining to the player why what they want really won't work here (again, group-agreed-upon-setting or balance reasons being legit >.>), but that you promise that they'll get to do their thing next campaign. Despite the painting of the beligerant single player, most people are actually pretty reasonable and open to discussion.
In the end, everything is just nobody - DM or players - being a jerk and everyone openly talking and agreeing upon what is being played.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
All Paladins must be Lawful Good, otherwise is badwrongfun. And I mean it. If they want Lawful Evil Blackguards, Chaotic Evil Anti-Paladin's, Chaotic Neutral Tricksters, Lawful Neutral Sentientls, etc then that is fine with me. But the word Paladin will always mean the high ideals of Lawful Good.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I'm starting to realize that there is small but very vocal group of people in the world who are simply deathly allergic to the word no. There is no other explanation for some of the bizarre arguments that some people have made throughout its 23 pages.
Atheosis wrote:
Can't be bothered rereading everything so apologise if addressed.
There is not a player in the world who puts in as much work as the DM.
Poring over tomes of feats, prestige classes, magic items etc. for your character does not equal the hours, days, weeks, months spent preparing the setting, adventure and other add ons required to entertain 4+ players, including yourself on a weekly (or whatever) basis.
In 3e for example your putting together not one character but often dozens that require almost PC levels of creation plus environment and encounters...oh and lets not forget an interactive and hopefully exciting multi-option plot/story for the aforementioned players.
I find it genuinely preposterous to even suggest otherwise.
In return your entertainer is asking that you enter a cooperative frame of mind and perhaps try not to be a special snowflake who needs the spotlight centred on him/her at all times.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I'll third that.
Lol all my players do is turn up, we do have occasional talks about concepts, plots, stories, mechanics etc. Tonights session I had 4 pages type out of encounters and custom NPCs and I use a very abbreviated notes as I leave out RP stuff and wing things like personalities or leave that stuff in my head.
I tweaked the Mage, Ogres, Priests, Knights NPCs from the DM document changing spells and equipment and even rewrote the Mage into a Mageknight adding melee attacks and armor. Probably took me 4 hours to do this today and an hour or two theother night. I also had a hand drawn map on hexes with 18 encounter locations on it (not all combat about 1/3 or 1/2 maybe) and a 20 room dungeon for them to explore from a previous session. Not sure how long that took to prep. I also supplied the location, the heat pump, some food, soda, coffee and 2 cats and 5 hours of running the session. It will likely take me about half an hour to clean up tomorrow with soda bottle, junk food wrappers, and books, minis, paper etc left all over the place. Most of that is DM stuff though as I have a very large box of minis.
The price I ask in return? No monks, Dragonborn, Tieflings, Drow.
Ghaliyah wrote:
Good times...I I mention the word "compromise" and four people react like I used a naughty word. Sometimes it is hard to be right all the time*.
Anyway, I'll give it a try. If you don't feel like reading to the bottom, here is a summary: COMPROMISE.
Zardnaar said:
"For purists you do not reskin. See the joke about Goliaths being rekinned as Half Giants or Dragonborn as Dray. Darksun was never balanced,never pretende dto be so just let Half Giants do their thing as a large PC.
Imagine if they released Nerath for 5th ed or made a 4.5 and replaced Tieflings with refluffed humans and Dragonborn with lizardmen or something. If you like 4E and do n9ot like that idea its about the same as shoe horning 4E races into settings were they did not belong or at least they should not have replaced the iconic races in those settings. If they pull the same stunt again in 5E with Athas its another book one will not be buying and I'll stick with 2nd ed Darksun (again). Tweaking a race is fine (efl from AD&D to 3rd ed to 4th ed to 5E), turning it into something else entirely not so much."
As Tia said, people who describe themselves as 'purists' are as bad as any other fundamentalist when it comes to compromise. And, like any other fundamentalist, they represent a tiny minority. The vast majority of people you will meet in real life (again...not the forums!) are not like that. They understand that relationships with other people will always be about give and take, finding common ground, reaching compromises, etc.
So, for me, I don't see what is funny about Goliaths as Half-Giants or Dragonborn as Dray. Unless you mean the complete inability of people to apply even a modicum of creativity in order to adjust the game to suit their needs, and instead would rather complain ad nauseum about how the game is ruined? That WAS a pretty funny joke.
I can make Goliaths into a Large sized PC race in less time than it took you to complain about it. You can too. It is easy. Step 1: Tell your players that Goliaths are Large. Done.
Same goes for Dragonborn. If they aren't mechanically perfect for Dray, you make any changes you want. I don't actually remember Dray being a playable race back in 2E Dark Sun, so it would be as easy as saying, "No Dray."
As you might be able to tell, I don't care what they do for Nerath for 5E. I still have all my 4E materials. All I would have to do is make Tiefling and Dragonborn the way I want them. It really isn't hard.
I really like the core 5E system. I think it is the most robust, easy to run, and easy to modify system of D&D yet. So I am more than willing to make my own adjustments here and there when needed, just like I have always done with any RPG I have ever played.
Thoughts_my_aim said:
"But this presupposes that the player is interested in playing a character with the mechanics of the paladin, rather than a character with paladin fluff. This may not be the case."
No...YOU presupposed that. Instead of attacking my example, why don't you address my ANSWER: compromise. So yes, you are of course correct: my example of one way it might occur is not the only way. How silly of me to have not listed every single possible outcome. But regardless, my point stands: the answer to the proposed social situation is...wait for it...COMPROMISE.
Orethalion, this was directed at you too. Instead of wasting time attacking my example, why don't you address the actual point of my post?
Atheosis said:
"Why should an entire group compromise with one player who is intent on underminin the campaign setting they want to play? I can't think of a single good reason outside of them being way too accomodating to selfish jerks. Just play a mul or human fighter who has a crusader complex if you want a big, tough righteous warrior, or just go play in a FR game, which is clearly what you really want to do anyway."
Like many of the non-real people on the forums, you are confusing the word 'compromise' with 'concession'. Or perhaps you are just confusing the issue by assuming that the one person HAS to be a selfish jerk "intent on undermining the campaign"?
Neither are the case. But, seeing as how it appears I need to teach a lesson on basic social interaction, you are correct. If someone is intent on undermining the campaign setting you and your other friends want to play and they are being a selfish jerk, then maybe they aren't really your friend. But that isn't what we are talking about here, and I think you know it.
The group finds compromises because that is what people do in social situations. In fact, you came up with one on your own (once you cut through the insulting bits): you might suggest that the player makes a mul fighter and simply acts like a crusader. The Paladin's oath doesn't mention gods once. Not once. Not even implied. Seriously, take a look if you don't believe me. All three oath options don't contain a single word that wouldn't fit in Dark Sun. A Devotion Paladin would be very unusual, but ALL PCs are unusual.
*see my earlier comment about people on the forums in comparison to people in real life
arnwolf666 wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Arawn76 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I seriously doubt it is possible for a player to put in as much work as I do as DM. I can see a player putting in a lot of work though and based on what some DM's here say they do I can see a player putting in more work than them. If you are willing to put in the kind of work I do as a DM as a player then consider DMing as we need you for the hobby.
Emerikol. wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Arawn76 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Jharii wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Jharii wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Jharii wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Xguild wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Jharii wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Doesn't a "success rate" of 20%, even with careful nurturing, imply that sort of preference is notably uncommon?
TiaNadiezja wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
For what it's worth, I am one of those players myself when I am not DMing. I suspect that the majority of players who invest and contribute to the degree are also DMs, or would enjoy DMing if they've never tried it. (I have no evidence for that, it's just my gut feeling.)
For our Dark Sun ACKS campaign, I wrote somewhere between half and 3/4 of the conversions, new classes, new mechanics, and other new rules myself. I also track provisions and loot with high fidelity.
The actual DM read and approved everything I wrote, writes the plot, does adventures, rulings, etc.
For most campaigns I play in with my oldest group (the face-to-face group in which we met the new guy over ten years ago), I tend to do the rulings at the table whether I'm DMing or not, because I'm always the person who knows the rules the best. As a result, if the DM doesn't immediately know the ruling he wants to make, it's easier to ask me than to look it up.
I very rarely do any significant worldbuilding when I'm not a DM, largely because I'm not requested to. I'd have no problem with it, but the DMs I play with don't need my help worldbuilding, so I rarely step on their toes. I did have to write basically all of the details for tieflings in a 4E Dark Sun campaign, because all the book provided was essentially "Tieflings exist as desert nomads. GO NUTS!" (I had a system of tribes with nomenclature derived from Bedouins who each had had their ancestors make a pact with a specific demon. My character was Tariq Saeed al'Rahabim; the Rahabim had originally derived their power from, of course, Rahab. It amused me to name the tribe after a water demon.)
Also for what it's worth, I do not think of the things I do as the normal role of a player. I think of these things as specifically helping out the DM. That's not a bad thing; you help someone move, you're not mocking them because they asked for help to carry their fridge. It's the DM's responsibility to make sure these things get done, and if that means asking for help, there's nothing wrong with that. That's how I see it, anyway.
Jharii wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
I AM an unfun ogre though. I can't really deny that.
It does incentivize my players to bring a nice fat sheep to every game to avoid my wrath though.
Jharii wrote:
I would agree with the incentivization theory. I also ready admit that I incentivize the behavior I want and where possible seek out players that fit that mold. It's a big world. I don't have to include everybody in my campaign. It's all about having fun. I do focus on my players fun a lot but it's based upon the shared assumption of the roles of the DM and the players. I will concede though that for whatever reason I do have them lined up for my campaign. I suspect that my style done well is extraordinarily popular but that often it is not done well so blanket acceptance of the style with the DM to back it up is not forthcoming.
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
That's pretty awesome Tashiro.
I have something similar planned for my campaign.
Deities don't exist in my world (there's faith, and gods people believe in, but they don't actually exist).
There's some faiths that worship ancient entities (a common religion in my desert region is the worship of a dragon who taught the people of the sands to survive).
So some Clerics are actually Warlocks in terms of how they get their power.
And some truly do receive their power from their faith alone.
Barbarians essentially worship the same primal nature powers as Druids.
They just refuse to believe so because they give them different names, haha.
-
As far as the topic goes I think theme/setting are separate entities while flavour and theme are similar (if not the same).
The setting is Dark Sun - the continent, the powers that be, deities are gone/don't exist, etc. Information, as it were.
Flavour and theme would be survival in a harsh, unforgiving world. Experiences, if you will.
Certain words or phrases can be double-sorted in my noggin as both theme and setting. "Apocalyptic wasteland" tends to describe setting and flavour.
When such words/phrases are used, that theme becomes an intrisic part of the setting and cannot be removed (for me).
More themes can be added however.
Gamma World for example. It's setting and theme are post-apocalyptic wasteland.
But some people play (from what I'm to understand) a "grim-dark" sort of theme game.
While others play a "wacky and over the top" sort of theme game.
They're both the Gamma World setting, each with the theme tweaked by another theme.
Theme can affect setting, and setting can affect theme.
I don't however, believe they are one in the same.
Nor do I think changing one inherently changes the other.
I do think though that there is another type of player that all of us know that is getting a free pass in these discussions. The one who always goes against the grain and has never met a rule or restriction he didn't want to test and bend. Now we all also know that not everyone is that way. But those players do exist. I don't have the patience for them anymore so they tend to get asked to seek happier ground than I can provide. It's one thing once in a while if you've established good faith in the past to questoin something and in my book that gets some reasonable consideration. The special snowflake everytime troublemaker is as much an issue in gaming these days as the proverbial tyrant bad DM.
For me, I try to do right and be a good DM. I think I'm succeeding or if not my players are really great actors and should go to Hollywood and stop fooling around with me. That is all that really matters. Happy groups.
I think we should have the Tyrant DM run a game for a group of Troublemaker Players.
That sounds like a just punishment for everyone involved.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I've been setting up the campaign world for a bit, and I'm writing up the player's guide so the players will know what the setting is. Things I've put in:
What the nations are, what races are in control of what regions, and how common each race is in that region.
What classes are common or uncommon, depending on culture.
Specific details, tweaks to the races, and how religion works in each region.
So far, all but one player's handled everything well.
We've got the tiefling warlock, grandson of the Imperatrix.
We've got the human ranger from the north, looking for weakness in the empire.
We've got the half-orc gladiatrix - a slave in the empire.
We're getting an aasimar wizard, one of the royal family of the neighbouring empire.
We're getting a tiefling monk, body-double of the Imperatrix.
And the last player hasn't made a character yet, but has a beef with how the religion works, thinking that clerics must have faith to be clerics. He's somehow got his head stuck on that one concept.
*shrug*
Tashiro wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
....does every thread lately have to devolve into a "playstyle" argument, due to that gang?
It is getting so tiring, just wading through the same crap on every thread, whether it is about hobgoblin foot-size, they will drop by and tell you that you are not incentivising, you're uncreative, you're unimaginative, and any other insults they can chuck, it has become a bit revolting, not to mention, boring as hell.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
So, I've finally made it to the end of this massive thread, and thought I'd piss in the wind again. with my 2 copper.
I have had poor experiances with the "let playrs run whatever, and work the world around them" approach. I know I've mentioned the mess that letting a werewolf into a Vampire: The Masquerade game made. On the other hand, I've had great success letting oddball concepts into games (Alouette, the automaton that thought it was an angel, was one of the most memorable characters from a long-running Deadlands game I ran online). And it's hard to tell which is going to be which at the outset. Both the players mentioned above took the actual lore of the setting into account when creating these ideas, one to the detriment of the campaign and one that enriched the game immensely.
My preferred method is to create the world first, because my formative ideads on building a campaign came from the old Dragon magazine articles called Dungeoncraft, where the writer was clearly an Explorer player (his ethos was that creating a campaign was about building a world, not a story--he even said so as one of his "rules of Dungeoncraft"). I create a world (or, in the case of D&D, expand on the world I've already created--I've been running the same homebrew world since 2nd Ed.) and then pitch the idea of a campaign at my players. It's how I've always worked. And i'm comfortable saying "no" to concepts I feel will unduly harm the campaign's themes, tone, or style.
There are four tools in the improve box. "Yes, and..." is only one of them. The otheres are "Yes, but...", "No, and...", and "No, but...". These are important tools. Vital, I'd say, when you're like me and you're trying to create an experiance. And this is what I'm trying to do when I DM. I'm not there to facilitate fun. I'm there to create an experiance. Like a really good book or an awesome movie, I'm trying to hit a number of emotional points in the games I run, not just an abstract idea of overall fun.
And it's important that I like the characters in the game. If I don't have buy-in on the character, the campaign suffers. I don't feel that it's unreasonable to suggest a player modify a concept to fit in my games, because if something is going to break my suspension of disbelief, then the game will die a quick death. That's when I pull out the tools in my arsenal. I try to work with the PC to figure what they want out of their character. I set restrictions because those tend to breed creativity, but I'm actually pretty flexible about what I'll eventually allow into my game.
But the kety point is that I am allowing it. I am the one who creates the game world. The setting is my character.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The_Stray wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
I guess my devotion to world reality makes some gotchas okay in my book. Your example of a damage aura wouldn't bother me in the least if the nature of the aura was such that I could not detect it. Obviously if it really is detectable then I believe I should have some chance to detect it. Everything though in a world is not automatically detectable. It does go back to your focus. Mine is on authentically running the setting exactly as it really works. I don't bend or wrap it to suit the players.
Emerikol. wrote:
Foxface wrote:
I also question why some people get so protective of their precious characters that they fear contributions or collaborative input as to their character's actions or states of wellbeing. After all, we are all sitting around the table telling memorable stories, amIright? Maybe I have a great idea that makes the game more "fun", but it involves your character doing something. Or something happening to him/her. Just roll with it. We are all equal contributors, after all. Don't block my cool ideas. Don't be so possessive of "your character".
ChrisCarlson wrote:
And this is one reason why Paladins on DS are a bad idea. Note I am talking about the real LG types.
1st Darksun boxed set.
"The madness created by water deprivation forces
a character to adopt a chaotic evil alignment for that
day with regards to obtaining water. The DM
should inform the player of this temporary alignment
changethe player should do his best to
adopt the madness in his characters style: a stupid
gladiator might simply take out his sword and demand
the water, whereas a bard might poison some
of his fellows in secret to increase his share. If a player
is unwilling to take appropriate actions, the DM
should make the character into an NPC until the
madness wears off."
It kind of sets the tone for the setting hence the no Gnomes, Paladins, Orcs thing of the setting. There are plenty of other setitngs where you can play anything you want, why ruin it by shoehorning in Dragonborn and other gonzo races that do not belong?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Oath of Vengeance Paladins look like they'd be great mechanics to use for a Templar Character. Just tailor the character's oath to also include "Do what the Sorcerer-King says or you will be murdered. Horribly. And also your family too."
Just saying.
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Actually, for the section on Faith, I've mentioned specifically that there's been no evidence of the presence of gods. No divine visitations, no angels, no deva, no demons, no devils. There's been no sign of any divine agency for a thousand years, but that the Imperatrix herself is worshipped as a goddess. Sure, there's temples everywhere, the Imperial family actually sends money to these temples, ensuring that they're well-funded (and in the pockets of the Imperial families). Sure, clerics get spells (once ordained), and lose class abilities (if the temple revokes it), but beyond cleric abilities and spells, there's no proof that the gods exist. It has to be taken on faith.
So, people may wonder where these spells come from in the Empire - and if someone plays an Imperial Cleric, that could be a mystery. If things go well, it should never be an issue until the very end. We'll have to see. (Fortunately, the Imperatrix isn't the Big Evil End Girl)
Foxface wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
That's true. Failure is always an option. You can retreat, and survive, then plan and return if you think you can win. Too many people are stuck with the idea that every encounter is to be won (and can be won). Way, way back in the day, I ran an adventure where I introduced Giger's Aliens to a D&D setting, and had the PCs explore the nest. They didn't have to go in, certainly, but they were asked to scout the place, because a group of soldiers had gone in, and vanished, and the ruler was curious as to what was up. Two face huggers and a handful drones later, most of the PCs made it to the Queen. I described the room full of eggs and the army of soldiers, and the giant Queen, and they went 'we can take it'. Goddess rest their souls.
Tashiro wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
I want to try and pull the Head of Vecna trick on my PCs or stick all of them in a room and have a booming preprogrammed (lying) voice say they need a blood sacrifice to get out or they all die.
Zardnaar wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Foxface wrote:
How players have their PCs act in game depends a lot on what they expect out of game.
If the expect that the DM will - not to mince words - arbitrarily screw with them then they may well assume that when a spooky voice says NOW ONE OF YOU MUST BE SACRIFICED that they just have to go with it. This says to me that they are used to the idea that the DM will put them in no-win situations.
Obviously what works for your group works for your group, but I think this is one of those situations where it's important to have a bit of clarity about who's actually in charage here.
I used to have a DM who would do this sort of thing a lot. Scenarios would basically go like this:
DM: You could do this thing that is clearly suicidal.
Players: We could, but we don't want to.
DM: Okay, that's your choice.
Players: Okay, so ... we go do something else.
DM: What was that? Okay, fine you go do something else. Now don't forget you could also do that thing that is clearly suicidal.
Players: Umm, so about this other thing we're doing.
DM: Oh, you're still doing that. It's not very difficult, challenging, or interesting. By the way - this clearly suicidal thing.
Players: Fine. We'll do the clearly suicidal thing.
DM: You all die.
Players: Oh for pity's sake.
DM: Hey don't blame me, it was your choice.
The DM has complete control over the PCs perceptions and considerable control over the players' expectations. Fooling your players is utterly trivial. Manipulating them into absurd behaviour is likewise trivial.
Again, if you honestly think that this would be fun for your players then by all means go for it. But it'd annoy the hell out of me.
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote: