D&D General The Importance of Page 33

[Ath-kethin]

Now, Mystara is an interesting case as it was the setting for classic D&D, and those rules had fewer options in core than AD&D, plus races were their own class.

This statement isn't wrong, exactly, but I think it's a little misleading. Basic D&D did lack some of the funhouse aspects of AD&D out of the box, but it made it incredibly easy to add additional classes (remembering that, as you said, race and class were largely indistinguishable in that version of the game).

It was also MORE allowing in some ways. In Basic, for example, almost any character could have almost any class abilities; it was just necessary to add them (creating a new class), and that was definitely NOT true of AD&D as written. The best example of this disparity IMO was King Kol, the kobold wizard-prince in Glantri, and how they handled him when Mystara was converted to AD&D 2e.

In Basic, a kobold wizard was no big deal, but in AD&D kobolds Could Not Be wizards, which caused a problem. So they decided that Kol wasn't ACTUALLY a kobold, he was a small and shriveled elf who had somehow trucked everyone into thinking he was a kobold. It was an approach both puzzling and insulting, but that was that. The class restrictions seemed an odd hill to die on, but someone at TSR decided that Mystara would, indeed, die on that hill. And so it did.

 

[Derren]

I think the biggest problem is that there has not been a new setting since the addition of new races so they do not have a history in the existing ones so they always feel forced in to some people and not really part of the setting.

 

[Oofta]

I limit options in my home campaign because it's been an ongoing world for a long time now. If there were suddenly warforged walking around I'd have to have a reason for it, continuity matters to me if no one else.

I think if you have too many races they all just start to blend together, it's hard to have any lore, culture or depth behind a race when there are a couple dozen. I know where the elves in my campaign come from and the attitudes they hold. I know that the dwarves in this region are still held with suspicion because of something that happened 150 years ago and the elves over there are mysterious and wary of any outsiders.

It doesn't come up very often, but it adds depth to the campaign that I enjoy when it does.

 

[Fenris-77]

The problem is, for a lot of people "D&D" is the only part of the pitch they hear or care about-- sometimes when the game being pitched isn't even D&D.

That might be the case, sure. But do you really want someone that self involved playing in your game? p Narcissism ftl.

 

[DammitVictor]

That might be the case, sure. But do you really want someone that self involved playing in your game? p Narcissism ftl.

The application process for my online games is loaded with brown M&Ms.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm going with - examine my own preferences and decide if it's something I'd enjoy DMing

Saying that, maybe the players are most likely to have fun when the DM is having fun.

I agree that the GMs preferences are also important, but disagree that they are more important than the players' preferences.

For example, I have a player who doesn't really like sci-fi stuff. If I were going to do a campaign where they play the remnants left behind by extinct humanity, I wouldn't have just robots as playable characters. I'd consider what he likes and what would be appropriate to the campaign. In this case, he'd probably enjoy playing an animal that's been genetically enhanced to be hyper intelligent. So I'd include that as an option. My campaign concept is intact and my friend has at least one option that he'd likely enjoy playing.

Yes, the GM should create a campaign that they want to run, but I don't think it should be to the exclusion of what the players enjoy.

I had a DM who ran a goblin campaign once. He created all kinds of different goblin types and goblin themed classes. However, he was the only one who loved goblins, and on top of that the goblin options were significantly underpowered. We had fun with the campaign for a while, but once we left the starting (goblin) area, as characters died off they were replaced with non-goblin characters. The DM objected because I don't think he expected such rapid attrition of the goblins, but they were vastly underpowered compared to normal characters. Ultimately we chose to end the campaign. We didn't have the interest in goblins that he did, and he wanted to run a goblin campaign. Perhaps if he had made the goblin options more appealing, or broadened the campaign to include options that actually appealed to the players, we might have seen that campaign to its conclusion.

 

[Retreater]

It depends on why the players want to play a certain race. Is it for crunch reasons or fluff? I ran an all orc campaign, just allowing the players to take the mechanical benefits of whatever race they were wanting to complement their class and playstyle, then made the fluff that said "but he or she is an orc." Because there are charismatic and intelligent orcs too.
If it's a fluff issue, and they want a campaign connection to a culture that doesn't exist in your setting (like a tinkerer gnome in Dark Sun), I'd probably try to find something similar to suggest. If that didn't work, I'd recommend planar travel (if that's in the setting) as a next option. The third and final option would be "you can play that, but you're an outlier, from an unknown civilization."
In many settings, it doesn't matter to me. These are big worlds, and I'm sure not every nook and cranny has been explored and mapped. There will be monsters that the PCs have never heard of, why not also an isolated culture of peoples?
The main thing would be in the theme of the campaign setting. If you're running Dark Sun and someone wants to play a steampunk dwarf with a hoverpack, I'd probably say no to the concept of the character. But before I chose to run Dark Sun, I'd get everyone on board, even before Session 0. Then if we had all in been in agreement and a player came with that steampunk dwarf, I'd suggest to that player with the hoverpack that they hang on to the concept and bring it into the next campaign.

 

[The Glen]

In Basic, a kobold wizard was no big deal, but in AD&D kobolds Could Not Be wizards, which caused a problem. So they decided that Kol wasn't ACTUALLY a kobold, he was a small and shriveled elf who had somehow trucked everyone into thinking he was a kobold. It was an approach both puzzling and insulting, but that was that. The class restrictions seemed an odd hill to die on, but someone at TSR decided that Mystara would, indeed, die on that hill. And so it did.

Kingdom of Magic was a strange supplement for Mystara. It was written by Monte Cook who added tons of magic but took out a lot of the politics that made the nation legendary. Kol was just one change that wasn't even mentioned in other supplements, and it added the quasi-genasi with their strange and random rules. It also added new characters rather than restructure the already complex rules for nobility. Not TSR's best effort

 

[jasper]

I agree that the GMs preferences are also important, but disagree that they are more important than the players' preferences.
...

GMs preferences are the MOST important. Period Dot. You can always find another GM now days. I seen too many GMs make compromises to get players. I have made compromises to get a full table. Half the time is not the initial session 0 people that is the problem but the friend of friend who joins six months down line. It is the GM's world. They set the tone, the high important parts. If a player does not like it. They don't have to play with that GM. They could play and like it. They could play and not like it to keep the peace of the social contract. They could GM.
Remember NO GAMING is Better than BAD Gaming.

 

[Fanaelialae]

GMs preferences are the MOST important. Period Dot. You can always find another GM now days. I seen too many GMs make compromises to get players. I have made compromises to get a full table. Half the time is not the initial session 0 people that is the problem but the friend of friend who joins six months down line. It is the GM's world. They set the tone, the high important parts. If a player does not like it. They don't have to play with that GM. They could play and like it. They could play and not like it to keep the peace of the social contract. They could GM.
Remember NO GAMING is Better than BAD Gaming.

I'm both a DM and a player, and I disagree. I think my preferences are important but so are those of my players, and I take all of them into account when building a campaign. I don't create a campaign that I wouldn't want to run, and I also include options that they would enjoy.