Campaign Settings and DM Strictures, the POLL

[hawkeyefan]

Given in this analogy, everyone has to share all the food brought and each take a bite, I would question why my "friend" would purposely bring tacos to a Bollywood party when they know it won't complement any of the other dishes and everything will just taste weird and off.
If they're not going to bow to social graces for a small thing about food, would I want them continuing to interact with my other friends for the rest of the party? What else are they going to do?
There's an immediate lack of trust.

Ah, the analogy breaks down I suppose....maybe the friend doesn't like Indian cuisine or is allergic to curry or he felt like tacos and didn't realize he'd be ostracized for not adhering to a party theme!

But back to gaming....sure, talking about it all ahead of time will most likely solve the problems. Looking at it in that context, let's say the DM gives a campaign write up (something that does't always happen, but we'll go with it). On that list is "No Tieflings", but one of the players has had a Tiefling in mind for his next character, and has been looking forward to playing one, and the idea of spending the next year or so not playing this character seems crappy.

Now, in a public game of some sort, perhaps it's easy to simply see this as a mismatch and the player can find another game. But in a regular gaming group? I think the DM needs to examine the reasons for disallowing Tieflings and then consider if having one will really impact the setting as much as he thinks.

I see this consideration on the DM's part to be no different than people who are advocating for the player to consider playing another character or perhaps working to reskin the tiefling to something more suitable to the game.

 

[aco175]

If I have a mini for the PC, you have to let me play it...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, given that this would involve a social situation, it would depend.

For example, maybe the person is autistic, doesn't understand social cues, didn't get the invite, or doesn't understand what "Bollywood" means. In cases like this, I certainly wouldn't shame the person at a social gathering, and I would graciously accept it, try to make the guest feel comfortable, and (over time) try to work with that friend in future situations.

OTOH, if this person is more of the, "IMA DO WHAT I WANT AND Y'ALL KAN SUCK IT!" then they won't be invited again. With extreme prejudice.

This is why analogies are never perfect. The table (TTRPG) has to come to a consensus, moderated by (and usually with the final decision made by) the DM. If (to borrow from the analogy) one person insists on doing something that is out of the social compact, then that person will soon find that they are no longer invited to the table.

IMO, this applies with full force, whether it's an alignment restriction (no evil characters), a play restriction (no PvP, ToTM or grid), a class restriction (no Paladins in a campaign setting where we don't have sucky stuff), a race restriction (no VGTM races), or just social niceties that the table agrees on (cell phone and electronics usage, appropriate level of cursing - if any, drinking/drugs, whop pays for refreshments and food, etc.).

In short, whether its the rules, or not the rules, D&D is a social game.

Sure, I agree with this.

Again, I'm not in any way against a player making a change to fit the setting....that is certainly an option. All I'm saying is that the DM making a change to accommodate the player is just as valid option. And in my eyes, far more possible than many seem to imply.

And yes, it is a social game....I suppose that I just don't see someone wanting to play a certain class or race is on par with being a bad guest in the other ways that are mentioned.

 

[Jester David]

If I have a mini for the PC, you have to let me play it...

I have a mini of a winged ape with a chain gun arm...

So, I guess I approve of that rule.

 

[Henry]

Given in this analogy, everyone has to share all the food brought and each take a bite, I would question why my "friend" would purposely bring tacos to a Bollywood party when they know it won't complement any of the other dishes and everything will just taste weird and off.
If they're not going to bow to social graces for a small thing about food, would I want them continuing to interact with my other friends for the rest of the party? What else are they going to do?
There's an immediate lack of trust.

This is why I throw potlucks rather than theme parties. They're far cheaper for me to cater, and the only thing I have to watch out for is any signs of food poisoning. Analogy goes for my gaming, too. I always set the main meat course or two (this is my campaign, these are the basic rules and theme). You WILL get the occasional potato salad that someone left out too long, but as long as you're vigilant and inspect each dish as someone brings it, you can throw that crap out, and most of the time you get a lot of dishes you never knew you'd like, much less knew existed. Then of course there are those unoriginal people who bring the same Costco cookies every single time, they may not be tasty but at least they're palatable, and you always need the dependable guy/girl who brings plenty of sturdy, plain cups and plates and utensils, but in the end there's way less work and cost, and some really tasty surprises that result.

If you want to cater the tightly-controlled theme party, it's fair game, but in my experience you have to deal with the problem of leaving one or more people out in the cold because they don't or can't go along with what's being offered. If that's not an issue then the theme party is all good.

 

[Jester David]

But back to gaming....sure, talking about it all ahead of time will most likely solve the problems. Looking at it in that context, let's say the DM gives a campaign write up (something that does't always happen, but we'll go with it). On that list is "No Tieflings", but one of the players has had a Tiefling in mind for his next character, and has been looking forward to playing one, and the idea of spending the next year or so not playing this character seems crappy.

Is the player dying? Like, do they have a terminal illness?
If "yes", then, yeah, they should probably be allowed to play a tiefling.
If "no", then they can make another PC. There's an infinite number of ideas for characters. I'm sure they can find one that doesn't suck if they think hard enough.

Counting one-shots but excluding the pre-gens, I've played maybe twenty characters in D&D/Pathfinder games. (I'm mostly a DM). Possibly more.
However, for every single character I made, there's two or three ideas I had prior to settling on a concept. Or back-up characters I had planned in case of an untimely death. If I sat down long enough, I could probably list off thirty or fourty characters that never made it beyond the planning state, or only existed as sketched out builds on looseleaf.
In one instance, the character I initially had for 4th Edition to play in Living Forgotten Realms wasn't used in 2008, as LFR never took off in my area and I wasn't a 4e fan. And I wasn't able to use that concept until I needed a character for a one-shot this summer, ten years later. And the character was still fun and recognisable.

If the character concept is solid, it will keep and still be fun in a month or a year or a decade.

Now, in a public game of some sort, perhaps it's easy to simply see this as a mismatch and the player can find another game. But in a regular gaming group? I think the DM needs to examine the reasons for disallowing Tieflings and then consider if having one will really impact the setting as much as he thinks.

I don't disagree.

But what if it will have the impact?

What if the concept of the setting is, oh, the world is planarly locked and extraplanar beings (genies, devils, demons, angels) can't cross over, you can't travel to other planes, and even the spirits of the dead cannot leave causing undead to be a plague.
A half-demon tiefling is going to be an oddity. As would the genasi, aasimar, and gith.

As others have said, had the DM explained the setting beforehand, and the player comes with a tiefling, that shows a staggering disrespect for the DM. They're advertising that they either did not read the campaign doc, or flagrantly chose to ignore it.
That's going to make me question their willingness to abide by other social contracts at the table and if they're going to be a disruptive influence. If they're not going to listen when I explain the setting, are they going to listen when I make a ruling? Or if someone asks them not to say or do something.

Being a diva about a character option, when there's literally a dozen other choices, is a giant red flag about a player.

 

[Jester David]

This is why I throw potlucks rather than theme parties. They're far cheaper for me to cater, and the only thing I have to watch out for is any signs of food poisoning. Analogy goes for my gaming, too. I always set the main meat course or two (this is my campaign, these are the basic rules and theme). You WILL get the occasional potato salad that someone left out too long, but as long as you're vigilant and inspect each dish as someone brings it, you can throw that crap out, and most of the time you get a lot of dishes you never knew you'd like, much less knew existed. Then of course there are those unoriginal people who bring the same Costco cookies every single time, they may not be tasty but at least they're palatable, and you always need the dependable guy/girl who brings plenty of sturdy, plain cups and plates and utensils, but in the end there's way less work and cost, and some really tasty surprises that result.

If you want to cater the tightly-controlled theme party, it's fair game, but in my experience you have to deal with the problem of leaving one or more people out in the cold because they don't or can't go along with what's being offered. If that's not an issue then the theme party is all good.

Since we're really engaging in analogy here, let's go full rock star.
No brown M&Ms!!

I think everyone is familiar with the silly rock star riders for concerts. Like the one above. Demands of floral arrangements, sandwiches, or decorations.
The funny thing is, those exist for a reason. Concerts have a lot of moving parts: lighting, mikes, wiring, pyrotechnics, stage frames, etc. If set up poorly by the local workers, it can impact the sound and lead to a bad show. At best. At worse, there is a risk of serious injury. So tucked in the middle of the general concert set-up and requirements are riders about the artist's requests. That way if they show up and find a bowl of M&Ms that includes brown ones… they know the staff didn't read the rider. Which is a sign they need to go and double check the rest of the set-up.

Bringing this back home to the game table, I prefer to be open with options in games. But when starting with a new group, it can be useful to slip in a "no elves and paladins" rider to see who *actually* read things.


But it's always good to remember that arguments like this have to assume reasonable people. Reasonable parties on both sides of the DM screen. A reasonable DM willing to compromise for a player who fell in love with a concept and find a way to work it in. And a reasonable player willing to put an option on hold for a few months.
If you assume either party is unreasonable, the argument is moot because you're not gaming with a reasonable human being. That's a bad situation if the unreasonable party is the DM, and is going the make them entire campaign problematic. Not playing the character you want is going to be the least of your concerns.

In general, assuming both parties are willing to talk and meet in the middle, I'm going to default to the side of the DM. Because they're the one doing the actual WORK for the campaign. Players generally just show up and have fun.
Also, if the DM is limiting options they have a vision and tone they want to present. Why fight that? Forcing a DM to run a campaign they're not enthusiastic about is a recipe for a mediocre game.

 

[Henry]

...But it's always good to remember that arguments like this have to assume reasonable people. Reasonable parties on both sides of the DM screen. A reasonable DM willing to compromise for a player who fell in love with a concept and find a way to work it in. And a reasonable player willing to put an option on hold for a few months.
If you assume either party is unreasonable, the argument is moot because you're not gaming with a reasonable human being. That's a bad situation if the unreasonable party is the DM, and is going the make them entire campaign problematic. Not playing the character you want is going to be the least of your concerns.

In general, assuming both parties are willing to talk and meet in the middle, I'm going to default to the side of the DM. Because they're the one doing the actual WORK for the campaign. Players generally just show up and have fun.

Agreed -- meeting in the middle is preferred; I'm also for DMs having final say for the sake of expediency. What I'm saying is that tons of custom crafting is a lot of extra work, and if you want to do that work it's well and good, but most of the time in my experience all that extra work goes unappreciated and ignored, when players will immediately care more about the parts that they directly contribute, rather than just fitting into the predefined moulds, no matter how broad the choice.

Also, if the DM is limiting options they have a vision and tone they want to present. Why fight that? Forcing a DM to run a campaign they're not enthusiastic about is a recipe for a mediocre game.

Unenthusiastic players, however, can be a recipe for a nonexistent game, hence the meeting in the middle that we're both talking about. I'm saying set the theme and tone, but don't be afraid to proverbially 'kill some of your babies' if it means a player looks like they are enthusiastic about a concept that doesn't quite fit. It may well stem from the premise that I'm at a stage of my DMing life where I stopped caring about artistic purity of campaign vision and if it means a player is more engaged through a tweak to my "no xxxx" or "xxxx can only be yyyy" policies, I have no desire to fight it.

 

[Jester David]

Unenthusiastic players, however, can be a recipe for a nonexistent game, hence the meeting in the middle that we're both talking about. I'm saying set the theme and tone, but don't be afraid to proverbially 'kill some of your babies' if it means a player looks like they are enthusiastic about a concept that doesn't quite fit.

Unenthusiastic players are a problem. Player singular, less so.
But if the DM is unenthusiastic ALL the players are affected.

One player drawing a line in the sand over a character concept is saying they value their personal fun more than that of the fun of four other people.


Plus, it takes almost no time for a player to think of a new character. I can think of a cool character I want to play every 10 minutes for an entire day. Or I can go to dndbeyond.com and hit "random character" and get something in 30 seconds.
For the DM to rework a campaign setting is potentially a LOT more work. Especially if running a published world.

It may well stem from the premise that I'm at a stage of my DMing life where I stopped caring about artistic purity of campaign vision and if it means a player is more engaged through a tweak to my "no xxxx" or "xxxx can only be yyyy" policies, I have no desire to fight it.

That's nice.
I'm not.
I'm at the stage of my DMing life where I no longer care about working in some BS race crammed into a splatbook by the publisher or accommodating the latest subclasses.
Where I want more from my fantasy setting than being some generic kitchen sink Forgotten Realms knockoff that was pretty forgettable in the late '80s.

 

[lluewhyn]

The best example of restrictions is always Dragonlance.
No orcs, no dark elves, no halflings apart from kender.

Some people hear those restrictions and all they can think is "now I wand to play a half-orc paladin and die in a fire if you want to stop me!".

Anyone wanting to play a kender in any game of mine, even it was Dragonlance, would find that character dying in a fire. Exponentially more disruptive than the average evil character. Ok character for a novel, trash concept for a cooperative gaming experience.

On a more serious tone, I voted 5 myself. I'm happy to work with most character concepts and tend to run more episodic games, but I reserve the right to enforce changes for game balance, whether it be for rules or role-playing reasons, and my players understand that. Usually it's by lifting someone up rather than nerfing someone down, but exceptions could occur. I have one of my long-time players who still today talks about his 3.5 Sorcerer "accidentally" failing a save (he could have done something to mitigate it, but chose not to) because he felt that his character was vastly overshadowing everyone else at the table.

If someone wants to play something questionable, but can pitch it to me how it won't be a disruption to the other players, I'm usually keen on going with it (although you'd have to make a really good pitch to persuade me to let you play a Kender).