Campaign Settings and DM Strictures, the POLL

[clearstream]

All of these example are more examples of being a jerk - which we can all agree can happen on both sides of the DM’s screen - than examples of how thematic restrictions work or don’t work in D&D.

Maybe its like saying, a DM should restrict what they want, when they want, but they shouldn't be a jerk?

 

[Laurefindel]

Maybe its like saying, a DM should restrict what they want, when they want, but they shouldn't be a jerk?

I think it’s more like « a DM should restrict what the group agreed on, when he/she sees fit, without being a jerk. »

The DM should at least propose *something* on session 0, which should give an idea of the themes and style of the game. Once the players agreed/accept that proposition, they should restrict themselves; the DM should act more as a councillor than an authority at that point.

If the players don’t want to play with those themes and the restrictions/paradigmes that come with them, then they shouldn’t accept to play that game in the first place. Move on an play with another DM or better still, discuss and suggest something else.

This is supposed to be something fun, why would anyone try to sabotage the fun of anyone? If two people can’t agree on what fun should be, then they should just accept that they are not compatible in that hobby, or work together to find a middle ground.

I know this is a bit more difficult when those dissentions slowly become more apparent as the game progresses but still, I assume a minimum of maturity from my DM or players (as they should expect the same from me).

D&D is a toolbox; you don’t have to use every single one of them. Just make sure everyone is having fun building.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. Agreed.
But if the DM changes their view by default, how is that different from allowing everything all the time? The DM needs to be able to say "no". And players need to be able to accept that "no".

In practice, I'm a soft sell. I'll allow my players almost anything and make exceptions readily. But I also know my players and we have trust.
But as a general rule, I think it's better to assume that "no" and have the default be options and optional. Empower the DM.
Because if the baseline is "no" and the DM says "yes" they're a hero while if the baseline is "yes" and the DM says "no" they're a monster.

I don’t think the DM needa to change their view by default. It’s probably best to not have a default other than “we’ll discuss any conflicts and decide how to proceed”.

So it’s not everything, all the time. And even still, you habe a finite number of players and a finite number of characters. And most of the time, the players will be fine with a character within expectations. So this kind of stuff only happens now and again.

And I think it sounds like you agree, really, based on how you handled the tortle request. To be honest, I’m not a big fan of them...they’re kind of silly, they’re only available outside the core books, and so on. So my default assumption for our world is that there are no tortles. They simply won’t come up. But if a player comes to me and says “hey I want to play a tortle” then I’m going to give it a lot of thought to try and make it work, and to either remove or to embrace the silliness.

 

[oreofox]

Tortles are one of the easier races to introduce into an existing D&D world. Just place them on an island fairly far from the mainland (where it can't be seen over the horizon on a bright clear day), have something happen on the island that makes the player's tortle leave to the mainland, and boom.

It's the same with any of the Underdark races. Other races are slightly more difficult to introduce.

 

[lluewhyn]

No, not a one. I think that’s likely because they’re pretty much interchangeable with dwarves or goblins in mythology. The decision to have them as a separate race in D&D seems pretty odd. I suppose the gnome had its own entry in one of the books Gygax used for inspriation.

I’m honestly not a big fan of the D&D gnomes. They seem redundant. But I’ve had players make some gnome characters over the years that I’ve enjoyed.

Agree. I've struggled to see them in a way that makes them pop out as their own thing. Usually, it's just comical dwarf/half-ling hybrid that's especially tuned to magic. I've certainly never seen a player play a serious gnome PC that was pretty deeply thought out and role-played.

 

[Azzy]

Agree. I've struggled to see them in a way that makes them pop out as their own thing. Usually, it's just comical dwarf/half-ling hybrid that's especially tuned to magic. I've certainly never seen a player play a serious gnome PC that was pretty deeply thought out and role-played.

I consider myself fortunate to have never experienced this at all.

 

[jasper]

I wanted to choose 6 but the original poster did not even think of that. What about me. But as a DM I chose 4 because I getting mellow in my old age.
Speaking of restrictions. Had one person demand, gripe, complain etc about wanting a drow ranger. Not listening to me I had a no drow rule. Then disrespect me when I finely allow a drow ranger by spending half the session playing Wow or Everquest.
Restriction 5. I have done that. Being a jerk and not being jerk. Not being the jerk was, “Hey Jester that 3rd party build is just not working out. Yes you killed all but one copyrighted protected Kender. But it is no fun to dm for it. Rebuild it before the next session and we will discuss magic items.” Being a jerk. Damn if I had $100 every time I had a jerk player my house would be paid off. And wife would have new to us truck.
Speaking of Bollywood food party. Knew a teenage person regardless of what the theme of food was, would bring themselves 2 McDonald’s hamburgers. Or worse demand someone go get them and would not ante any extra cash to buy more hamburgers. And then still eat the food provided. Had a good laugh when they got older and started having weight problems.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agree. I've struggled to see them in a way that makes them pop out as their own thing. Usually, it's just comical dwarf/half-ling hybrid that's especially tuned to magic. I've certainly never seen a player play a serious gnome PC that was pretty deeply thought out and role-played.

I personally have seen players play some good gnome characters. I just don’t know if there was anything I’d say was inherently gnomish about them. All the interesting bits had nothing to due with the fact that they were gnomes. Or at least,, that’s how it seemed.

But now that I type that up, you could probably say that about most PCs.

 

[Jester David]

Gnomes...
I think that's why Dragonlance (and Warcraft) tried so hard to make engineering/ tinkering a gnome thing. It differentiates them from being dwarves who live in hills rather than mountains and like illusions.
4e struggled with this as well, basically making gnomes small elves rather than small dwarves.
Really, most of the campaign settings do more interesting things with gnomes. As Eberron cast them as information brokers and gossips.
But, for the generic settings like the Realms and Greyhawk and Nentir Vale gnomes struggle to find a defining place.

That said, I loved my gnome bard in 3e and was upset they removed gnomes from 4e.

 

[SkidAce]

Gnomes in my campaign usually live amongst humans, sometimes in small enclaves.

They are differentiated from "small humans" by the fact that they are generally disposed towards philosophy and science, most shun the concept of religion. Those that do follow a god normally choose a human deity.

Asura from Guild Wars 2 as an example, with modifications.