D&D and the Implied Setting

[Gold Roger]

I didn't say all players needed their hand held. But a DM should be able to step in and say no when needed.

Agreed, but it should be less law enforcement and more just the "leader" steping in and explaining why that idea won't work.

Because I don't run campaigns in a vacuum. Any homebrew I create has some kind of logical consistency and I don't make the players privy to the secrets of the world as that is part of the fun of exploring a setting.

I actually don't run in a cacuum either. I only start it in one and fill in all that void the players left after making their character. Believe me there's still plenty of homebrewing, campaign secrets and setting exploration.

I would say that the DM is in charge of the setting and that the players are in charge of their characters, which need to fit into the setting.

You actually state the problem here. The PC's are part of the setting. And if the DM is in absolute charge of the setting the players can't be really in charge of the PC's.

Okay, you've said it. But I've been successfully running campaigns for over twenty years and have had to beat my players back with a stick at times because I just don't want to run another fifteen person game.

Oh, I don't mean that a game run another way can't be successful. I've run successful games your way as well (though not for such a long time). I just think it's even better if the players are more involved.

If I want to run a Middle Earth game I will announce it. The players who are interested in playing that will say they want to play. It seems pretty simple to me.

Which is what I was saying later.

I don't seek players; I call friends who happen to play role-playing games. I never ask for the "ok" to run any kind of game. Call it a luxury, call it arrogance, but they like whatever I run.

Then it's still more or less gaming "by commitee", just that the players altogether decided to just trust your choices. It can work if all people in the group want the same from the game. I just don't think it's a good default.

Besides, I play with friends who happen to play RPG's as well. Which is why it's so important to accomodate them. If I was playing with random people I'd just "hire and fire" people until I've got a group that does exactly what I want. But since I play with a rather consistent group of friends (and I prefer that to random people-though I have some formerly "random" players that are now good friends) with diversified taste, I want to work with them to maximise the fun we have together.

I'd tell Bob if he is so interested in that to start up a game and see who else might be interested.

Works to.

I have to wonder though, it doesn't sound like you have any Bob in your game, so why would you advocate restricting the bobs of the world?

Obviously, I'm not a fan of rule by committee, which I consider to be the most ineffective form of rule.

The merits of rule by commitee can be discussed (though not here, since it ventures into the realm of politics), but my point is that in a small group with only friends, there shouldn't be any rule needed. I mean, have you ever tried it on the small friendly scale of a gaming group, especially one that seems as homogenous as yours.

When I join a game, I join a game to experience a coherent story and setting fashioned by my GM. I do not show up to design a setting by committee. If you want to game in RPGs where the GM is just one voice among many designing the physical laws and cultures of his world, go buy Sorceror or Burning Wheel.

I don't want to remove the DM. The DM still runs the sessions, advocates the rules, designs most of the world and creates coherent plots and adventures. I just don't think that it should be hard to acommodate the players wishes, expectations and ideas doing so. The idea that that is impossible in D&D strikes me as odd.

If I want to design a setting, I'll be the GM. If I'm showing up with a character sheet, that means I'm here to play a setting, a setting based on an internal logic more powerful and coherent than what PrC some munchkin has just found in the latest piece of overpriced WOTC swag.

Munchkinism doesn't anywhere play into may theory. Munchkins, as I define them, are egoistic jerks that don't want to acommodate the wishes of the DM and other players and need not to show their face at my gaming table. And if a DM doesn't own a certain gaming book I also see no need for him to allow something from that book.

But, the idea that a setting can't be coherent unless completely reglemented doesn't seem sound to me. How does the fact that there's the island nation Chon-Tsan, whose Jooun Mystics have developed some advanced paths of wizardry (some arcane PrC's) change the overall coherence of the setting?

 

[fusangite]

I don't want to remove the DM.

Where do I say that you do?

The DM still runs the sessions, advocates the rules, designs most of the world

Some worlds are compatible with piecemeal design. Some are not. To assume that all worlds can be designed piecemeal is to narrow the range of world types in which games can be set.

I just don't think that it should be hard to acommodate the players wishes, expectations and ideas doing so.

If a player needs to be able to gain levels in a particular PrC in order to have fun, I'm not sure I want the player.

The idea that that is impossible in D&D strikes me as odd.

I don't say that it is impossible in D&D; what I am saying is that some game worlds are based on a single coherent framework. Adding pieces of setting piecemeal may be incompatible with the framework.

But, the idea that a setting can't be coherent unless completely reglemented doesn't seem sound to me.

I don't know what you mean by "regimented" here.

How does the fact that there's the island nation Chon-Tsan, whose Jooun Mystics have developed some advanced paths of wizardry (some arcane PrC's) change the overall coherence of the setting?

Easily.
1. The number of land masses in the world may be numerologically significant and linked to how the gods operate.
2. The way magic functions in the world may not be compatible with how the prestige class functions.
3. The characters may need to all be from the same culture for the purposes of setting up the party's quest and purpose.
4. The entire campaign may be set in a single monocultural environment that comprises the entirety of the known world.
5. Seafaring may be prohibited by the gods.
6. The culture of the island may be incompatible with the basic principles by which the cultures of the world have come into being.

This is just what I could come up with in 150 seconds. Give me ten minutes and I'll generate another half dozen or more.

 

[Gold Roger]

Where do I say that you do?

Nowher explicitly. I just wanted to prevent any misunderstanding in that direction.

Some worlds are compatible with piecemeal design. Some are not. To assume that all worlds can be designed piecemeal is to narrow the range of world types in which games can be set.

I remember now, that you prefer a very specific kind of campaign, where the gameworld is one complicated puzzle. That's ok, and I agree that for such a campaign this doesn't work. However, if you want to DM such a campaign you already need very specific players that want the same and resign all control to the DM to make it happen. It works, but is very far removed from usual games and in no way what I was talking about.

If a player needs to be able to gain levels in a particular PrC in order to have fun, I'm not sure I want the player.

That player sure enough sound like a pain in the ass. But I wasn't talking about him, I mean the many people that are happier when they get what they like.

I don't say that it is impossible in D&D; what I am saying is that some game worlds are based on a single coherent framework. Adding pieces of setting piecemeal may be incompatible with the framework.

Aye, but that's not your usual D&D game then.

1. The number of land masses in the world may be numerologically significant and linked to how the gods operate.
2. The way magic functions in the world may not be compatible with how the prestige class functions.
3. The characters may need to all be from the same culture for the purposes of setting up the party's quest and purpose.
4. The entire campaign may be set in a single monocultural environment that comprises the entirety of the known world.
5. Seafaring may be prohibited by the gods.
6. The culture of the island may be incompatible with the basic principles by which the cultures of the world have come into being.

This is just what I could come up with in 150 seconds. Give me ten minutes and I'll generate another half dozen or more.

These are all examples of very tightly and narrowly focused games. You know, the kind of games you like to play and I sure as hell won't forbid you to play like that as long as you find players that want to do o as well.


I need to clarify some of my position: I'm not saying I have found the path to ultimate DMing and happiness and everyone not following is wrong and a bad DM. All I'm saying is that in a game that is 1) based on no specific premise and 2) played in a diverse group is propably better of that way.

I'm sorry I didn't state this earlier and sincerely appologize to everyone I might have offended.

However, there is one thing I don't understand, I opposed the view that players have to be controlled and restricted. But then I came to see from the posts of those pulling for restricted games play with people that generally play the same style and happily restrict themself for the sake of the game they want. Why do you hold on to your right to forbid things to the players when you don't have to forbid anything? Why say you have to be able to restrict Bob when you don't play with Bob anyway?

(no snark or rethoric question, I'm genuinely interested in your answers)

 

[fusangite]

I need to clarify some of my position: I'm not saying I have found the path to ultimate DMing and happiness and everyone not following is wrong and a bad DM. All I'm saying is that in a game that is 1) based on no specific premise and 2) played in a diverse group is propably better of that way.

That may well be. I can't really speak to such games as they don't hold my interest very well and therefore I'm not very experienced with them.

I'm sorry I didn't state this earlier and sincerely appologize to everyone I might have offended.

It's very hard to offend me on the internet. I really enjoy sharp verbal debate; anything you are reading as hostility is a style thing on my part.

However, there is one thing I don't understand, I opposed the view that players have to be controlled and restricted.

I totally oppose controlling players. I totally support restricting their choices.

Why do you hold on to your right to forbid things to the players when you don't have to forbid anything?

I don't understand the question. It's not a question of rights for me. It's a question of letting my players know that the standard views about prestige classes, character background and other instances of devolved world building are not going to be available in my campaign.

Why say you have to be able to restrict Bob when you don't play with Bob anyway?

Almost every player I have comes from a background of gaming where they think they can create places, organizations and people unilaterally when writing their character background. "Bob" may have no idea that there are other paradigms for designing worlds that those with which he is familiar.

I try to let "Bob" know when he joins my game what the spirit of the game is. But because my games tend to be novel to people, there is no amount of prior warning sufficient to always get players whose style is compatible with my games. As a result, "Bob" comes along every so often and there is a collision of expectations at a later point than I would like.

 

[Gold Roger]

Now that's something I can get behind. A game can only work when the expectations match up.

 

[Buttercup]

However, there is one thing I don't understand, I opposed the view that players have to be controlled and restricted. But then I came to see from the posts of those pulling for restricted games play with people that generally play the same style and happily restrict themself for the sake of the game they want. Why do you hold on to your right to forbid things to the players when you don't have to forbid anything? Why say you have to be able to restrict Bob when you don't play with Bob anyway?

(no snark or rethoric question, I'm genuinely interested in your answers)

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but frankly I am confused by this question.

Are you really saying that you let your players use any race, any class, any PrC, any feat they can find? If that is what you're saying, then I can't fathom how your campaign could have anything approaching coherence? Are there plot threads that carry over from one session to the next? Do you use published settings? Published adventures? Randomly generated adventures? How does such a campaign work?

Restricting the options available to the players isn't controlling; rather it can and does set paramaters for the campaign's internal logic. For instance, I once ran a campaign in which there were no elves, but there was a nation of half-elves. How could this be? Everyone in the campaign world knew there had been elves in the past, and knew they had vanished, but beyond that all anyone had were legends & rumors. The half-elven kingdom was created in a way not unlike the real world state of Israel, to give formerly oppressed peoples a place to call their own. (The half-elves were the result of an elven slave breeding program, before they all mysteriously vanished one day.) So in this case, why would I allow a player to create an elf character? Or take a prestige class which is restricted to elves? Obviously I would not. Neither I nor my players saw the ban as me being controlling. Rather I was limiting their options to set the flavor and tone of the campaign.

This sort of thing seems so self-evident to me that I am certain I must be misunderstanding your point in some fundamental way, Gold Roger.

 

[Nightfall]

*thinks Buttercup must be misunderstanding things* But then again I could as well.

Hero,

I didn't say it was an all or nothing gig. If I implied it was, then we do have a problem. DMs have control yes, but like Wilson on Home Improvement once said "Some day I'd hope men and women would share the power equally." Now I think that applied to gaming.

 

[Gold Roger]

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but frankly I am confused by this question.

Are you really saying that you let your players use any race, any class, any PrC, any feat they can find? If that is what you're saying, then I can't fathom how your campaign could have anything approaching coherence? Are there plot threads that carry over from one session to the next? Do you use published settings? Published adventures? Randomly generated adventures? How does such a campaign work?

Restricting the options available to the players isn't controlling; rather it can and does set paramaters for the campaign's internal logic. For instance, I once ran a campaign in which there were no elves, but there was a nation of half-elves. How could this be? Everyone in the campaign world knew there had been elves in the past, and knew they had vanished, but beyond that all anyone had were legends & rumors. The half-elven kingdom was created in a way not unlike the real world state of Israel, to give formerly oppressed peoples a place to call their own. (The half-elves were the result of an elven slave breeding program, before they all mysteriously vanished one day.) So in this case, why would I allow a player to create an elf character? Or take a prestige class which is restricted to elves? Obviously I would not. Neither I nor my players saw the ban as me being controlling. Rather I was limiting their options to set the flavor and tone of the campaign.

This sort of thing seems so self-evident to me that I am certain I must be misunderstanding your point in some fundamental way, Gold Roger.

This approach of courserequires a somewhat generic setting, but yes, I do allow my players to use whatever feat, PrC, race etc they want, with the only requirement that I have to own the source of that mechanic.

This works based on multiple conditions:

-I trust my players that they have no interest in breaking the game and overpower the other players. Egoist jerks won't last long in my game.

-You want to play something and I haven't figured out how it fits, you have to figure out how it fits.

-We work all together to make sure the group fits together.

-In case of differing playstyles, the various players have to accept that they sometimes have to take a backseat.

It's far more coherent than it may sound. Our current game is a group of two elven warblades (non-identical twins) and an elven variant ranger that sacrifices skillpoints and class features for the druid variant shapeshifting from the PHB2. Lots of the background stuff is still from me but the players had part in lots of the stuff directly concerning them. I'm running homebrew adventures now, but from level one on I'll drop into a long stretch of published adventures (Of Sound Mind, Burning Plague, Forge of Fury, Against the Cult of the Reptile God) many of them modified to fit the campaign.

I'm a big fan of ratbastard DMing and there's actually a lot of ongoing subplots, setting coherence, consequences and status quo encounters.

One thing to remember is that the players not only gain part of the control-they also get to share the responsibility. Some of my players aren't very proactive and actually resign some of the control back to me.

As an example for my way of doing things, we could have been playing for quite some time already when a new player joins in and wants to play a radiant servant of Pelor- So he's told those existing setting elements that impact his character and has to fit that PrC in and, if he doesn't use any of the gods of light or healing I already have in my setting- come up with a minor god and how he fits into the setting. Then once that is done I look at the stuff he gave me and begin to develope secrets and complications apropiate to this background I can use later in the campaign as hooks and driving storyeements.

That's propably why I'm such a fan of playing the implied setting: With it everyone has a baseline for his ideas and expectations.

 

[Buttercup]

OK, so I really wasn't misunderstanding you, Gold Roger.

I have no interest in running a campaign like that, and the ones I've played in that allow the kitchen sink haven't really worked for me either.

But to each, his own.