D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?

[aramis erak]

that sounds much more like the D&D I play then anything [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] has said. In fact everything [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] says sounds more like something out of knights of the dinner table then any table I would play at.

Keep in mind: most of the storylines in KODT are based upon things that have happened in play... either to Jolly Blackburn or David Kenzer, or which fans have submitted in the "No S**t, there I was..." mode. There are groups with toxic playstyles. Most such groups use one or another edition of D&D... in no small part, because D&D was (until 4E) about 10x bigger for the current edition than its nearest rivals, and about 20x if you include all the back catalogue...

 

[pemerton]

I'm all for discussion. I suspect that we discuss our games ahead of time, just like you do. I think that the difference is that when our DM says "I'd like to play a game of heroic PCs in the Forgotten Realms, no evil alignments, no Tieflings because they are devil spawn and I don't want to deal with the NPCs wanting to attack the PCs all of the time", etc., our players just tend to say "Sure, that sounds fun" instead of "Well, why exactly do you want to remove Tieflings?" or "Why do you want to play in the Forgotten Realms?".

It sounds like a trust issue, but maybe it isn't.

Presumably the GM has some reason for proposing the campaign as X rather than Y.

Whatever the nature of that reason is, the players can be motivated by the same sort of reason to want to play character A raher than character B.

There's no reason to think that trust, or lack of trust, is a bigger factor in one case than the other.

What if the players want to play Halflings in a Dragonlance setting? What if they want to play Kender in a Forgotten Realms setting? What is they want to play walking-talking Minotaurs in Karameikos/Mystara? What if they want to play a Warforged in Greyhawk? What I'm getting at is, when one selects a setting to play in, one has chosen it due to the distinct canon, lore, myth, races, geography, personalities, politics...etc.

If I would like to run a political and nationalistic storyline within Karameikos and I make the restriction that I would like all the characters to either be human Traladaran or human Thyatians I should be able to without others calling for 'failure of imagination'

My take on these examples, and on KarinsDad's in the quote above as well, is that the player isn't choosing a setting based on distinct canon, lore, etc.

I mean, practically by definition a player who wants to play a halfling in Krynn, or a minotaur in Karameikos, isn't committed to the canon of the setting.

So if the GM is very into a setting and its canon, and the player is not, compromise of some sort will probably be required.

Setting is a peculiar thing in RPGing. From here:

Setting therefore becomes a one-step removed education and appreciation project. There’s a big book about the setting. The GM reads the book. Then, the players enjoy the setting, or rather enjoy the GM’s enjoyment of the setting, by using play as a proxy. As one text puts it, the GM is the lens through which the players see the setting.​

There is obviously a very real risk that the players are not going to get the same enjoyment from the setting as the GM. After all, only the GM got to read the book.

From the same author:

Perhaps this is what leads to those monstrous textual setting histories in the books, with the only people who read them (or care) being their authors and the GMs.​

If you want to avoid that outcome, the players need to be dealt in to the setting. There are different wasy to do this, but strong enforcement of PC archetypes won't always be the best way.

 

[pemerton]

To DMs who do allow players to create parts of the world, can you enlighten me as to how this all works in practice? It sounds like it works for you, but I'd honestly like to know how. What happens if a player contradicts something already established in play? What if two PC backgrounds are mutually exclusive? You have to say "no" at some point, surely? Or is your world's reality in a constant state of flux according to the last person who spoke?

However, what happens if a player declares stuff that clashes with something to do with a current plot thread? For example, what if a player ad-libs that they will get aid if they go to see a particular ruler, but the DM has planned that the ruler in question is opposed to their aims (this opposition is not secret - it's just they've just never met him), and wouldn't want to give the aid in question?

A player ad-libbing that his/her PC will get aid is not creating backstory. It's dictating action resolution.

A standard technique for that is "say yes or roll the dice". If the GM doesn't think the ruler would provide aid, then engage the action resolution system.

As per my exchange with [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] earlier in this thread, some GMs also will "say no" without rolling the dice. I think this has to be handled with care, and that it's better done at the point of framing, rather than resolving, the action resolution attempt.

On backstory, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] noted if it hasn't come into play yet then there's no contradiction; if it has, then someone needs to remind the player.

On competing backstory, that's part of play. Eg PC 1's backstory states that ruler X was a benevolent overlord, and it was the death of X that left PC 1 adrift as a child, ending up as a rogue on the streets. PC 2's backstory states that ruler X was a rakshasa in disguise, living off the people like a parasite, until the sect of holy avengers assassinated him one day; now PC 2 carries on the sect's traditions, less the rakshas be reincarnated into another position of power.

I guess we'll find out in the course of play whose version of events is correct (perhaps both, or even neither).

 

[prosfilaes]

This has come up many times at a convention.

But conventions are a lot different. There's no established group that's going to break up if you can't agree. There's no time obligation; you've already blocked out this time for games, and it's only 4-6 hours. And there's no time to develop a character, and the DM has all the time in the world to make the character work with the adventure.

 

[Mistwell]

But conventions are a lot different. There's no established group that's going to break up if you can't agree.

I only game with good GMs. None of our groups are going to break up if we can't agree. We all agree to go along for the ride, if a good GM is willing to run it. Nobody is more attached to their character concept, than they are to playing with friends in a fun adventure - and we know it will be a fun adventure because we already know going in it's a good GM. So if a good GM says no X in this adventure, we're all willing to trust on faith in that good GM that there is a good reason for it and we're up for going along with it.

 

[prosfilaes]

None of our groups are going to break up if we can't agree.

Then just leave if you don't like is no longer a good option. The less likely a group is to break up, the less acceptable leaving as the only option and the more important discussion and negotiation are.

we already know going in it's a good GM

Whereas assuming normality, 68% of us have average GMs.

 

[Hussar]

If the GM is very good, I will play under whatever restrictions they present. We're all playing Kenku? Fine. Awakened bunny rabbits? Cool. Halfling Musketeers? Bring it on.

This has come up many times at a convention. If I know the GM is very good, I will play whatever game they are running, under whatever setting restrictions they present.

And if you ever get the opportunity to play a game with a great GM like, say, [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] , you should jump at that chance. If he tells you the only pregen left for his WW2 super heroe's game is an adolescent sidekick with bouncing powers who tells lots of puns, oh and your character will be captured by the villain at some point and you're to go along with it, you say will do! Because you know the game will be awesome, even if you're not a fan of super hero games to begin with.

To be fair, I'm far, far more willing to do this in a short term or one off game. I'm a little less flexible when it comes to a long term campaign.

 

[Hussar]

That sounds interesting. I'm not sure I want to DM like that, but I'll certainly think about it. However, what happens if a player declares stuff that clashes with something to do with a current plot thread? For example, what if a player ad-libs that they will get aid if they go to see a particular ruler, but the DM has planned that the ruler in question is opposed to their aims (this opposition is not secret - it's just they've just never met him), and wouldn't want to give the aid in question? Does the DM simply over-rule it (in which case, the players will be suspicious, if the DM usually allows these things), or does the ruler suddenly become (in the DM's mind) who he claims to be (the DM abandons that plot thread, which may impact upon events in the world)?

I tend to have quite intricate set-ups in the world, and changing one thing on the fly can render other things nonsensical (e.g. if the noble I just used in my example was undermining another noble, I can't really suddenly have him be a good guy because a PC declares it so; well, I could, but then the world starts to unravel; the PCs might already be exposed to the results of this set-up, and are trying to piece together what's happening). I'm trying to picture what a game looks like where DMs accept player input on this scale.

As Pemerton mentioned above, for me it becomes a "say yes or roll the dice" situation. I almost never have anything pre-determined like that. I want to be surprised as a DM and allowing either the players or the dice to drive the campaign allows for that. Since there is no contradiction from the player's point of view, I don't really see a problem. I'll rewrite entire swaths of my plans based on that one addition if I need to.

But, I think as a DM, it helps to build a lot more flexibility into the campaign. Is it absolutely necessary that that specific ruler is opposed to the players? Why? Why not simply shift "A noble opposes your efforts" a couple of steps to the left and instead of Baron Von Turkeywaddle being opposed, now Marquis De Gravy is. From the player's perspective, nothing has changed. They don't know an of that and you get to keep 99% of the prep that you've done. Or, maybe that becomes a "Yes,and" situation. Sure, that ruler will help you, but the important people in his court oppose the PC's, so, now the PC's have to convince the court for help.

Note, this is something of an odd example too, since the players have never actually had any dealings with this NPC, it would be very odd for a player to declare what the intentions of that NPC should be. By and large, you don't make declarations in a vacuum, you should have something connecting the dots. Particularly when trying to declare future events. Adding a magic item into a setting based on the back story of an existing item isn't too much of a stretch, IMO, but, declaring the reactions of an unknown NPC is something I've never seen players do. They want to be surprised too.

I really, really shy away from having pre-determined results in PC/NPC interactions. Unless the interactions either have no real consequences (who really cares what the bartender says to you?) or the results are very obvious (or bloody well should be) to everyone at the table (yes, walking out of a ball held in your honour by the king (or in this case queen) is going to have negative repercussions on your interactions with the queen down the line) I'm perfectly willing to let the PC's and the dice drive the car.

 

[Mistwell]

Then just leave if you don't like is no longer a good option. The less likely a group is to break up, the less acceptable leaving as the only option and the more important discussion and negotiation are.

It's never a question though. Like I said, nobody ranks their character concept above what the DM has in mind in terms of the setting, going in. Nobody would consider leaving, as it's a very good DM and so they know no matter what character they end up playing it's going to be a lot of fun.

Plus, we're all friends, there to hang out. The idea someone would leave over not being able to play some concept they had in mind is just foreign to me. It would be like leaving Karaoke because they didn't have the song you wanted to sing in their machine. Since when did "came to the fun event with a specific idea in mind and I will leave if I cannot enact that idea" become a "thing"?

Heck, I go in to every new game with probably 10 character concepts in mind anyway, and one of them should be good for that setting, or adaptable to it.

 

[Campbell]

What works for one group may not necessarily work for any other. The best way to play a particular game is highly dependent on particular mix of players, what the GM's strengths and weaknesses are, as well as the vagaries of the game being played.

For my part, when I run a game what I value most are engaged and energetic players who play characters with meaningful dramatic needs that will seek out rather than avoid conflict, build relationships rather than go it alone, and who take ownership of the game as a whole.

We're currently in the character creation process for the Demon - The Descent game I'll be running. Here's what I outlined to my players:

You're going to be playing recently Unchained demons still finding their footing in and around the Midtown area of modern day Detroit. You're aware that the God Machine's agents have been particularly active around the Masonic Temple Theater. You all know at least one other player's character, although you might not know that they are also Fallen Angels of the God Machine.

From there my job has been to ask questions like:

• How did you fall from the God Machine's grace?
• Who would you trust with your secret?
• Where do you go to blow off steam?
• How does (Character 1) know (Character 2)?

So far I have a mind-reading gypsy fortune teller stuck in Detroit (or so the Demon's cover states), a stay at home husband socialite who is planning to bring down Detroit's electrical grid, a rumor mongering street preacher, and a homicide detective all with meaningful hooks into the game's setting and defined relationships with each other that their players are intimately aware of because they wrote them. I have inklings of places, characters, and situations I could present but no particular plans. When we start play a week from this Sunday I'll present a situation with open questions for them to solve together while pursuing their own ends. I don't really have a firm setting prepared. For me the fun part of running a game is letting players run wild and seeing how they respond to conflict and dealing with the consequences of the decisions they make.

I'm running the game in the way I do for a couple of reasons. I'm not great at intricately plotted scenarios with a lot of secret back story. I have little interest in world building and setting exploration, but character motivation and finding out what happens deeply interests me. I have players who identify strongly with the characters they make and portray.

That being said I don't think the open ended way I'm running this game works for all games or groups. If I were running an exploration focused B/X D&D game I'd be using different principles. With different players I'd have to adjust my approach. I'm going to have more procedural conflicts than I would prefer in a perfect situation because a couple of my players are not big on dramatic conflict. As sessions go on I'll adjust my principles based on the results of play.

I don't think there really is such a thing as a great GM in a vacuum. There are only great game/group fits. This goes for players as well. I think the most fruitful approach is to simply know your players, know yourself, and try to determine the best way to do things for a particular situation and not be afraid to make adjustments over time. I think when you focus on who has a right to do a thing you're starting out on bad footing. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. What matters is what approach will lead to the best gaming for your particular group.