Campaign Settings and DM Strictures, the POLL

[Jester David]

Honestly, I think the only things that are "mandated options" are those in the basic rules: cleric, wizard, fighter, rogue; halfling, dwarf, elf, and human.
Everything else is optional.

 

[MechaPilot]

My general philosophy is that everything is optional, so check with your DM to see what's allowed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Honestly, I think the only things that are "mandated options" are those in the basic rules: cleric, wizard, fighter, rogue; halfling, dwarf, elf, and human.
Everything else is optional.

I've both played and run in games where some of those races or some of those classes weren't allowed. Nothing is "mandated," AFAIAC.

 

[oreofox]

I have a homebrew setting I have been working on for 15 years. Certain things are available, certain things are not. For the most part, I like to be inclusive of many things, and have even added in things over the years as WotC and/or Paizo have introduced them. However, some things just won't be available, especially depending on which time period of the setting is chosen. Warlocks are not a choice as class. All of their unique spells (eldritch blast, armor of agathys, etc) were merged into the sorcerer spell list. Also, unless playing in the rather far past (over 500 years ago), humans are not a choice for your race, and neither are halflings. Half-orcs/elves don't exist (and never did). Orcs are an option, and for the most part use the half-orc stats. There are also numerous homebrew races available as well.

The players know these things, and they are told up front and first thing before they accept being in my games. No humans, no halflings, no half-humans, no warlocks, no evil characters. Unless they want to play in the past, then it is possible for human and/or halfling characters.

No Humans: The race of humans conquered the non-humans as they felt they were superior to everyone. They were then overthrown and obliterated by the non-humans. Thus, human is not a choice unless the game is set far in the past.
No Halflings: The humans slaughtered all the halflings during the war, and aren't an option. Plus, I was never really a fan of halflings.
No Warlocks: Never been a fan of the class since it was first introduced in 3rd edition. Don't really like the "lore" behind the class (which is funny as the character concept I have been wanting to play for years incorporates the warlock class, though as an involuntary pact forced upon the character instead of a conscious choice).
No Evil Characters: I have never come across anyone playing an evil character "right". The vast majority of people can't even play chaotic neutral "right". Besides, I prefer heroic fantasy and got tired of the anti-hero crap back in the 90s.

Doesn't mean I won't play in a game that includes these things. But my preferred setting to run doesn't include them and practically won't. Though I do have this one idea I have been wanting to try out with my setting, but haven't found really anyone wanting to go along with it.

 

[Coroc]

Voted 5, whereby restrictions after character creation should be the absolute exemption, only to be used to protect of some major flaw to the campaign world, e.g. Let us assume a character able to unerringly detect evil, and a loft campaign and the players would instantly know who is the big bad one, without effort, then it might be a solution to not make the characters detect evil work.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Which raises an interesting alternative.
What happens if, during the collaborative worldbuilding, when one player says "No orcs. They're overdone."
Is it still okay for the player to argue about bringing in a half-orc then?

Well it’s collaborative. So there’s a discussion. I would expect it to he more like:

- Can we say there are no orcs? I’m tired of orcs.
- Oh man....I was kind of planning on playing a half-orc...
- Okay...how can we get that to work? Any ideas?

I think if we set aside the worst assumptions...that they player is simply being contrary or that the DM is simply being a tyrant...then we’re really looking at the issue. Because if a player is just a contrarian or if the DM is just a control freak, then the issue isn’t really about gnomes and settings; it’s about someone being a jerk.

Making an expansive campaign setting is how I "play" the game and engage in the hobby between sessions. It's the DM equivalent of making builds and testing characters. Lonely fun.

I've seen collaborative worldbuilding work quite well.
I've also seen it fail. Where the players just want to play and have no interest, freezing like a deer in headlights, and the one or two creative players end up dominating the worldbuilding. (They also seldom make sense. Kingdoms and terrain placed randomly and developing over time, and are seldom logically situated.)

I also think you lose some of the continuity you gain from having a DM created worlds. Where the actions of your campaign and the players can affect the world for an extended time, and even be encountered by future campaigns or even other groups. The success or failure of the party matters: you don't just win and then sweep the board clean.

Well this is why I said I don’t think either approach is inherently good or bad. Either can lead to a great game or a terrible game.

I don’t think a DM determined setting really helps with continuity, to be honest. It helps with set things a certain way before they even come into play. Which can be what leads to continuity conflicts, very often. Not necessarily so, but if things are not set, then they can be established whenever they’re needed.

Having said that, I don’t have any problem with a DM creating a setting ahead of time. I’ve played in games like that, and I’ve run games like that. I’ve shifted away from it mostly due to time constraints...and what I’ve found is that a lot of the worries that led me to play that way were unfounded. This is largely why I’m suggesting that DMs be as flexible as players are expected to be when it comes to this topic.

I also am lucky in that I am playing with the same gaming group since the 2E days, and my players mostly like to contribute to te world and story of the game.

Story time from my current game. Just to emphasise that I do understand.
My campaign setting is one I wrote in 2e and heavily revised during 4e. A player has decided to retire their PC and bring in a new one, and be a tortle druid. Tortles not being a race I really considered or incorporated into the world. It's super awkward just having turtle people running around.
(The player asked to play a tortle in part because when he ran the Tortle Package adventure as a one-shot when another player was MIA for a month, and I painted four tortle minis for him to use in that game. And so he wanted to keep using one.)
But that's not a big deal. It's easy to add a tortle. Especially when the motives are known and, well, pure. It's not like it was just the most optimal race to synergize with his build, or he wanted to be special and unique in a lazy way so he wanted to be the only tortle on the planet.

So the tortle didn’t ruin the vibe? I mean, they’re a pretty cartoonish race. I would expect them to be a perfect example of a race that wouldn’t be allowed by many DMs. But this would be a perfect example of what I’m advocating....the player has a desire that doesn’t seem to fit perfectly with the DM’s idea, but they make it work.

I do have a question though...what’s would be an example of an impure motive?

25 pages. That's cute.
Mine is sitting at 170-pages and I plan on sending it to a PoD site to be printed as a physical book I can place on the shelves alongside my other D&D settings.

(Of course, the moment I do it becomes out of date, as the actions of the PCs will change things and shift the world.)

That’s cool. Like you, I engage with the game in between sessions by brainstorming and thinking about story ideas and setting elements. I just don’t write them down.

Just to ask...do you think that your effort in this regard is why you view the idea of a player wanting something contrary to what you’ve written as being difficult in some way?

I’ve found it’s harder to change things once they’re written down.

Which assumes all the other players are neutral in these matters.
Which might not be the case, especially if playing in a publish setting.
Almost every published D&D setting has limits. Dragonlance and Dark Sun have class and race limits. Mystara doesn't have gods. Even Eberron, the sinkiest of kitchen sinks, has dragonmarks tied to certain houses.

And that's presuming you're not doing something like Adventures in Middle Earth. To say nothing about non-D&D games like a Marvel Heroic Roleplaying or Star Trek Adventures.
Players playing what they want has to have limits. If the group has decided to play AiME then you shouldn't push to play a dragonborn cleric. If you're playing Marvel Heroic you shouldn't demand to be Batman. And if you're doing STA, you shouldn't request to play a wookie. This isn't unreasonable that you should try and fit the world and tone of the game.

Just like if the group has decided to play a gritty horror campaign, you shouldn't play a halfling bard named Sprinkles Von Toot Toot.

Yeah, I agree with all this. I’m not saying that everything should be allowed in every game all the time. Just that when such a conflict does come up, both the player and DM need to consider changing their view. Ideally, they’d talk it out and find a suitable solution. Each of them should examine the reasons for their view and thibk about how it will actually affect the game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mort]

Sorry, I know there is context around this, but I couldn't resist.

DM: We're playing Dark Sun!

Table: YAY!

DM: So, we'll do it with all the base assumptions.

Table: YAY!

....days pass....

DM: So, it looks like everyone has a good character, except.... um, Rolf?

Rolf the Obstreperous: Yes?

DM: You made a gnome?

Rolf the Obstreperous: Of course! I wanted to play a gnome this time.

DM: ...... um .... you know that there aren't any gnomes in Dark Sun, right?

Rolf the Obstreperous: What? I don't care. I WANNA PLAY A GNOME! Be flexible.

DM: Um, but you could play ... let's see ... Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Goliath, Half-Elf, Halfling, Human, Mul, or even Thir-Kreen? Any of them?

Rolf the Obstreperous: I WANNA BE A GNOME! Be flexible.

DM: How about we re-skin the gnomes stats? You can be a "Halfling" with gnome stats?

Rolf the Obstreperous: GNOME GNOME GNOMITY GNOME!

DM: Twenty twenty twenty four hours to go ... I wanna be sedated. Nothing to do, don't want to hear about gnomes ...

I wanna be sedated.

*fin*

You forgot:

DM: You know my feelings toward gnomes in general right?

Rolf the Obstreperous: Yeah, I wanna play a gnome!

DM: You want to play a gnome, with me DMing, in a setting where the locals tend to kill, and more often then not eat, anything they don't recognize or understand?

Rolf the Obstreperous: YEAH!

DM: ok then!

 

[hawkeyefan]

DM: Okay the new campaign is about to begin.

Player: Cool, I was thinking of going old school...gnome illusionist! Been thinking about it a lot, actually.

DM: Well too bad, chump....gnomes don’t exist in this campaign world!!!

Player: What? Really? Why?

DM: Because I want the game to be super serious and gnomes are silly! Just silly to their little fey bones!!!

Player: But I can be an elf or a dwarf?

DM: Of course!

Player: But they’re really just as silly, aren’t they? And halflings?

DM: No cuz Tolkien.

Player: You really think a gnome will mess things up that bad? I mean, I’m gonna play him serious....

DM: Noooo! They’re never serious! They have pointy ears and tinker with gadgets! GADGETS! In a fantasy setting!

Player: Elves have pointy....

DM: TOLKIEN I SAID!

Player: .....okay, are you writing a book or are we playing a game?

DM: Both! Isn’t that awesome? You guys will play the characters in my book. I’ve detailed an entire world for your enjoyment.

Player: I’d enjoy if there was a gnome illusionist in there.

DM (twitching visibly): But I am gifting you with my brilliant creativity! Thank me for all my effort!

Player: but really I’d just....

DM: THANK ME!!!

Player: um thanks?

DM (sighs audibly): You’re welcome! Now, let’s begin. Make sure to tell me how creative my setting is!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*