D&D 5E World-Building DMs

lowkey13 · Dec 4, 2015

*Deleted by user*

ProgBard · Dec 4, 2015

Sword of Spirit said:
It has finally occurred to me that we might be dealing with different types of personal philosophies that go beyond D&D in general. If true, that would mean coming to a total understanding of different perspectives would be beyond the scope of a D&D discussion. So, I'll test that hypothesis.

The following scenarios are not analogies for D&D. These are intended to be viewed independently. (We already know it's in context of this thread, but forget about it for purposes of how you would respond.)

1. You are invited to a party. Your host and some of his/her friends don't <fill in the blank (smoke, drink, eat gluten, listen to rap, whatever)> and request that people not bring such things to the party.

Would you consider the that the host is being a jerk or out of line by not allowing certain things at his party?

The trouble is that all of the examples in the parenthetical are very different things.

Smoking, in 2015 (and for a while now), is something you never, ever do around people who are bothered by it, and never do without asking. Conscientious smokers (i.e., almost all of them) are super cognizant of this. No one is ever out of line to ask that it not be done in their living space or a space they're hosting. On the other hand, "don't have it on your person, and no stepping outside to indulge" - that's being a jerk.

Alcohol is its own complex situation. "Don't bring alcohol because I'm in recovery" is always a reasonable request. "Don't bring alcohol because we're Muslim/Southern Baptist/American Indian and there are long-standing cultural taboos about it" is also reasonable. These situations call on the guest to be respectful, and violating that is being a jerk of some magnitude. "Don't bring alcohol because we personally are teetotallers/went straightedge/think only losers indulge in the Demon Rum" is a fuzzier case. The hosts there are maybe at least edging towards jerkitude, even if it's probably better to accomodate them, and bringing a bottle anyway, maybe just to spite them, is a jerk move of its own.

Food restrictions are a different matter. A host who says "I don't/can't eat this and therefore no one at my party will either" is being a jerk. (Unless there's a genuine food allergy in play, of course, and passing contact is actually dangerous.) Potlucks have their own set of codes about these things; guests who are careful to label what they bring, provide lists of ingredients, stay mindful of cross-contamination, and clean up after themselves are playing well within the rules, and, in general, anyone who places tighter restrictions on them is likely to be at least a little out of line. (Although, again, there might be reasons of cultural taboo that provide for reasonable exceptions, such as a house that abides by halal or kosher laws.)

Music is where I'm pretty close to [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] - you give a space for people to share what they like. "No rap/country/klezmer/what-have-you in MY house" is the stance of a snob and a jerk - which is to say, it may be within their rights, but it's still kind of an a-hole move. As long as one person's tastes don't dominate, and someone doesn't keep pushing something that everyone else clearly hates, this is a matter on which it's reasonable to expect there will a range of things present at your gathering. However, I can certainly imagine edge cases involving particularly incendiary subject matter, and asking people not to bring RAHOWA (which, why are you friends with these people?) or some especially misogynistic gangsta rap or cock-rock is perfectly reasonable. (Also, guests with particularly fringey tastes are maybe pushing the line of jerkitude by asking all their friends to be subjected to what they like. I don't go to parties and make everyone listen to THRAKATTAK or Lucifer Over London, and neither should you.)

So the answer to this question is: It's complicated. Welcome to the world.

Sword of Spirit said:
2. You are invited to a themed-party (costume, birthday, Super Bowl, Star Trek, etc). The host asks you to bring your <fill in blank with appropriate implements of recreation>.

If it were a Star Trek party on Super Bowl Sunday, would you ask people to turn off Star Trek so you could watch the Super Bowl?

If it were a Super Bowl party, would you start DJing your "best of Star Trek" collection in the background? Would you feel the host was being a jerk if he asked you to stop?

Going to a party to do a specific thing and then trying to get everyone to do a specific other thing is being a jerk, yes.

(But note that these are, more or less, binary states. You're either watching the Super Bowl or you're not. There aren't really a lot of fine points to negotiate. The same goes for the Trek marathon, mostly, with the exception of deciding whether the resident linguist in your group is going to talk you into skipping "Darmok," and if you can make him shut up during the episode when you decide to watch it anyway.)

Sword of Spirit said:
3. You and a bunch of friends meet up "to hang out and have some fun." One of you is driving. The driver insist on going where he wants to go, and tells anyone who doesn't want to do it that he'll drop them off at their home, but it's his car and he's driving it to where he want to go.

Would you consider him to be being a jerk?

He's not taking anyone else's plans or ideas into consideration beyond "you're in or you're out"? Yeah, he's a tool. And maybe a candidate for the ex-friend list if this is the kind of crap he pulls a lot.

AaronOfBarbaria · Dec 4, 2015

delericho said:
Nitpick: an airplane isn't a space shuttle.

Double counter-nitpick: The Princess Arc isn't an airplane either. The Beagle, however, was at least a space vessel even if it didn't actually have any shuttle craft (which would be really strange... and yes, I know a crashed space ship that imploded in the setting's history and is rarely even mentioned directly isn't the same thing as a spelljammer.)

Noctem · Dec 4, 2015

lowkey13 said:
The correct answer, to all of these, is that if you ask leading questions, you should expect people to fight the hypotheticals.

But I won't (take that as you will).

This is what I was thinking of replying with more or less lol.

Greg K · Dec 4, 2015

GMforPowergamers said:
We had a LARP Vampire game that had a smokeing area, but had a very hard no drinking alchoal and no drug policy. To the point that if the head story teller smelled alchoal on your breath you were asked to leave. We all thought it was a bit odd...

The LA Vampire LARP group that I belonged to in the early Vampire LARP days had a very hard no drinking alcohol and no drug policy as well. I was one of the early players (but not a group founder as those were the members of the tabletop group that branched into LARPing). I don't know if it was the same group, but the reason for our group was two fold a) we often played in a public area and the storytellers did not want problems with LAPD or the Sheriff Department; 2) things could get intense and early on, there had a problem as the number of players grew. Someone had been drinking and took in character actions personally which led to issues. As a result, there was a pre-emptive ban (until that night, I don't recall anyone bringing drugs or alcohol). As a side note, toy guns also got banned after a neighbor saw a scene being played out in front of a house and called the Sheriff department. We had a nice visit from the sheriff's department and the officer was understanding. To avoid a repeat (or worse), no guns were allowed in outside areas

Shasarak · Dec 4, 2015

I guess you are lucky that the Sheriff did not just preemptively shoot those Vampires.

Jacob Marley · Dec 4, 2015

Hussar said:
And, I'll note that the question of other players got swept away in the scrum. So, I'll ask again. Does anyone actually consult other players when creating their character? Have you ever told another player (not as the DM, but, just as a fellow player) that they can't play that character because you don't like it?

Sorry for the delay in replying - life happened. When I originally posed the question about other players' concerns over other players' characters, it was to illustrate that this discussion is far more complex than just DM versus player. There usually are three to four other players at the table who also have a vision for this campaign and a desire to see that vision through. And their opinions matter.

hawkeyefan said:
I suppose I'm just a bit surprised to see folks that I would consider creative be so closed-minded to certain things without there being a strong reason for it.

It's not a lack of creativity, but a preference to fulfill a specific vision.

hawkeyefan · Dec 4, 2015

Jacob Marley said:
It's not a lack of creativity, but a preference to fulfill a specific vision.

I am sure that is sometimes the case, definitely. I've said no to my players before for that reason.

I just don't know if I'd say that not having a specific race based solely on the DM's dislike for said race is an example of fulfilling a specific vision. It's hard to imagine the presence of a dragonborn totally undoing a setting and all the work the DM has put into it.

I'm not saying that it can't be the case, just that I doubt it very often is.

Hussar · Dec 4, 2015

Jacob Marley said:
/snip

It's not a lack of creativity, but a preference to fulfill a specific vision.

This is the thing that concerns me more than anything. Having been on the receiving end of it more than not, when the DM's "specific vision" is that, well, specific, I have a great deal of trouble believing that it will stop after character generation. If relatively minor alterations to the setting, such as adding a gnome into a Dark Sun campaign, are off the table, then I worry that the DM will have a similar "specific vision" for the campaign, and it's all aboard the railroad time.

I said this earlier in the thread. "Specific vision" tends to be a pretty big warning light for me that I will not enjoy the campaign.

The irony here is that I'm going to run a Primeval Thule campaign very soon and it's very, very restricted. No classes with at-will spells. That takes a lot of 5e classes off the table. I managed to get the players to buy into this, so, it's not a problem. But, that is my one non negotiable rule for the campaign. Anything else, OTOH, is pretty much up for grabs. I've already added in the Witch Hunter class that's floating around at a player's request. And I'm certainly not against the players coming up with other stuff. While PT has pretty strong restrictions about character race, I'm a lot more flexible here, so, I do fully expect an aaracokra PC.

So, within the given parameters, I'm still fairly flexible. But, I do sympathise somewhat with the "specific vision" crowd.