Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
World-Building DMs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6770804" data-attributes="member: 6677017"><p>Assumptions absolutely are based on one's edition of introduction. So yes, starting with 4e is a huge influence on how one will see commonality and availability of races, level and prevalence of magic, etc.</p><p></p><p>The two breakpoints I'm familiar with are 2e or early 3e to later 3e, and 3e to 4e. People who played late 3e with a lot of the supplements might not have experienced the breakpoint from 3e to 4e.</p><p></p><p>There may be an earlier breakpoint from OD&D to AD&D, but I wasn't gaming back there so I can't speak to it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I really like 5e gnomes. Especially the forest gnomes.</p><p></p><p>That said, I would hate to allow a gnome in Dark Sun, because I like the world with the standard toppings and I don't want to add anchovies on it.</p><p></p><p>That said, if we are doing a thought experiment, I'd bring the gnome in from another plane (or crash on a Spelljamming ship). The reason I can do that is because all of my D&D campaigns are theoretically set in the multiverse that includes all of the other official settings that were around at my point of timeline alignment. (That means no 4e points of light setting, and I'd have to have a copy of the 3e Eberron book to approve it.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a huge point that I don't think has been brought up yet. There is a big difference in practice between a player that doesn't care about where or how his character fits your campaign, and just wants you to make sure he can play it, and a player who has an understanding of your campaign and thinks that once you understand his character you will see that it is a good fit.</p><p></p><p>I have no problem with the second type of player. As strict as I am, I find myself to be rather a pushover to a well-reasoned request. Take my questing knights theme adventure where the options were explicitly given (each player must pick a different one): Fighter (Champion or Battle Master), Paladin (Oath of Devotion), Cleric (War Domain), Bard (College of Valor). One of my players (who had several options if I didn't approve his first one), pitched the idea of a Ranger (Hunter) with Magic Initiate (Druid), as a knight warden in his land who was secretly a follower of the out of favor druidic traditions. And, in fact, he <em>asked me</em> if there was a druidic tradition. It fit in my world perfectly, and while I would have liked to have seen the Lore Bard (I had a reason for those specific classes), it was too reasonable and fun for me not to approve it. When I received questions about why some other subclasses weren't allowed, I explained exactly why the limitations were in place (Divine Domains were tightly integrated with specific churches, Oath of Vengeance paladins are a specific order). Everyone seemed perfectly okay with the limitations once understood. It seems to me that the only conflict that reasonably would exist here would simply be coming to understand one another. With this type of player, once understanding is reached, it seems that agreement should follow.</p><p></p><p>The only place the first type of player has at my table is if I ran an adventure that explicitly was "wide-open 5e". In Lost Mines of Phandelver (and a follow-up brief adventure at high level), I told the players that we were more or less going by the book (a few minor house rules), and if they wanted to play any of the stuff I wasn't going to allow normally to do it now. We ended up with a Dragonborn, a Tiefling, and a Drow, and 3 humans. It was a fun campaign, but not how I normally run it. In my normal games they play in a multiverse where none of the 4e materials happened or will happen (everything beyond 1371 DR (for the Realms) is the undetermined future).</p><p></p><p>A world-building informed strictness isn't about gaming openness on the part of the DM <em>as a person</em>. If my players begged me to run a D&D adventure (I'd go 10-12 sessions, but I'd draw the line at a long campaign) based on the 4e default setting (or even with the 4e rules) because they really wanted to do something that required it, I'd be likely to do it (once), and I'd make it fun for everyone if I could. But I'd consider it doing something different, just like if I were playing Savage Worlds or Fate or some other non-D&D game.</p><p></p><p>When I'm running my normal D&D adventures or campaigns, ie, when I'm DMing in the world that I've built, it matters that it is presented in the way I envisioned it <em>as an artist</em>. (And yes, I do see world-building as an artform.)</p><p></p><p>It's not that I can't have fun with "these newfangled races," it's that I love the world I've built, and what is not in the world is as defining as what is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6770804, member: 6677017"] Assumptions absolutely are based on one's edition of introduction. So yes, starting with 4e is a huge influence on how one will see commonality and availability of races, level and prevalence of magic, etc. The two breakpoints I'm familiar with are 2e or early 3e to later 3e, and 3e to 4e. People who played late 3e with a lot of the supplements might not have experienced the breakpoint from 3e to 4e. There may be an earlier breakpoint from OD&D to AD&D, but I wasn't gaming back there so I can't speak to it. I really like 5e gnomes. Especially the forest gnomes. That said, I would hate to allow a gnome in Dark Sun, because I like the world with the standard toppings and I don't want to add anchovies on it. That said, if we are doing a thought experiment, I'd bring the gnome in from another plane (or crash on a Spelljamming ship). The reason I can do that is because all of my D&D campaigns are theoretically set in the multiverse that includes all of the other official settings that were around at my point of timeline alignment. (That means no 4e points of light setting, and I'd have to have a copy of the 3e Eberron book to approve it.) This is a huge point that I don't think has been brought up yet. There is a big difference in practice between a player that doesn't care about where or how his character fits your campaign, and just wants you to make sure he can play it, and a player who has an understanding of your campaign and thinks that once you understand his character you will see that it is a good fit. I have no problem with the second type of player. As strict as I am, I find myself to be rather a pushover to a well-reasoned request. Take my questing knights theme adventure where the options were explicitly given (each player must pick a different one): Fighter (Champion or Battle Master), Paladin (Oath of Devotion), Cleric (War Domain), Bard (College of Valor). One of my players (who had several options if I didn't approve his first one), pitched the idea of a Ranger (Hunter) with Magic Initiate (Druid), as a knight warden in his land who was secretly a follower of the out of favor druidic traditions. And, in fact, he [I]asked me[/I] if there was a druidic tradition. It fit in my world perfectly, and while I would have liked to have seen the Lore Bard (I had a reason for those specific classes), it was too reasonable and fun for me not to approve it. When I received questions about why some other subclasses weren't allowed, I explained exactly why the limitations were in place (Divine Domains were tightly integrated with specific churches, Oath of Vengeance paladins are a specific order). Everyone seemed perfectly okay with the limitations once understood. It seems to me that the only conflict that reasonably would exist here would simply be coming to understand one another. With this type of player, once understanding is reached, it seems that agreement should follow. The only place the first type of player has at my table is if I ran an adventure that explicitly was "wide-open 5e". In Lost Mines of Phandelver (and a follow-up brief adventure at high level), I told the players that we were more or less going by the book (a few minor house rules), and if they wanted to play any of the stuff I wasn't going to allow normally to do it now. We ended up with a Dragonborn, a Tiefling, and a Drow, and 3 humans. It was a fun campaign, but not how I normally run it. In my normal games they play in a multiverse where none of the 4e materials happened or will happen (everything beyond 1371 DR (for the Realms) is the undetermined future). A world-building informed strictness isn't about gaming openness on the part of the DM [I]as a person[/I]. If my players begged me to run a D&D adventure (I'd go 10-12 sessions, but I'd draw the line at a long campaign) based on the 4e default setting (or even with the 4e rules) because they really wanted to do something that required it, I'd be likely to do it (once), and I'd make it fun for everyone if I could. But I'd consider it doing something different, just like if I were playing Savage Worlds or Fate or some other non-D&D game. When I'm running my normal D&D adventures or campaigns, ie, when I'm DMing in the world that I've built, it matters that it is presented in the way I envisioned it [I]as an artist[/I]. (And yes, I do see world-building as an artform.) It's not that I can't have fun with "these newfangled races," it's that I love the world I've built, and what is not in the world is as defining as what is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
World-Building DMs
Top