D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[Phantarch]

Yes, it does seem to be incredibly selfish until you realise that literally 100% of what a Player has control over is their character which makes what that character is the only real thing of importance to a Player.

Except that this isn't entirely true. Every choice a player makes for their character's background SHOULD have direct implications on the entire campaign, and can effect sweeping changes that are then the responsibility of the DM to actually flesh out and incorporate. So, really, each player has control over large components of a setting and campaign, from NPCs to organizations to cultural groups to locales. And this is a GOOD thing. But these choices should be made in consideration of the DM who has to flesh out these changes. If you are pushing for a DM to incorporate stuff that doesn't spark the DM's imagination*, it's going to come out as flat, forced, and uninspired, which will detract from the overall enjoyment of the game. These choices should also be made in consideration of the other players to make sure that the dynamic of the group will be fun and entertaining for everyone.

*I should clarify that I DO think that a DM should try their hardest to be inspired to include interesting concepts and be flexible. I just think that it's OK for a DM to ultimately decide that certain things don't fit with the tone and theme of the specific campaign.

 

[SkidAce]

So if I am doing a table-top unscripted game, then you'd better have me hooked by being able to do something i couldn't do in a computer game and that certainly starts at character creation, but in general means valuing the creative input I and everyone else at the table contributes and incorporating it into the narrative.

My homebrew has existed since '81. So its is independant of the current players. (I moved a lot in the military)

However, players have influenced the world, toppled kingdoms, created lasting NPCs etc.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[bedir than]

One of the great and wonderful things about playing with a group of people you know, rather than designing for strangers, is that you can converse with them.

Player A wants to be a dragonborn fighter. You can ask why. They can answer. You can explain their are not dragonborn, but there is this quirky tribe of goliaths that have lizards as pets.

Player B wants to be a wizard because they want arcane spells. You explain that magic is only two decades old so there are not great schools of magic and people are still trying to figure it all out, so they are sorcerers instead, but maybe, as the campaign goes on you can expand the spell list to represent the experience gained.

You now have two happy players that fit your game world, even with restrictions from their original desires.

 

[Mercule]

Even your extreme examples seem like things that could be negotiated down and compromised into something workable.

My homebrew has existed since '81. So its is independant of the current players. (I moved a lot in the military)

One of the great and wonderful things about playing with a group of people you know, rather than designing for strangers, is that you can converse with them.

Player A wants to be a dragonborn fighter. You can ask why. They can answer.

All of the above are great points. As I've said before, the best route is to just behave like grown-ups.

When I moved between groups (for me, new groups of friends between and within high school, college, and "adult" life), it helped that I had a prebuilt world that added continuity and baseline, but had some gray areas to fill in. Now I've got two players who have been in my game for two decades and at least one more in excess of a single decade. We know all the old stories.

The "new guy" likes halflings. When we stop playing Eberron, I can talk with him and find out why. Does he like playing small rogues? Well, the gnomes in my home-brew would work well for that -- maybe better than a halfling. If it's statistical, he could probably play the stats for a halfling and just be a gnome who "ain't from 'round here". If he really, really wants to play a halfling, though, I might allow it, but he needs to understand that there's nothing in the setting's history about halflings, at least not in the traditional play area. He won't have a community, might be mistaken for a gnome, or something else. Maybe halflings are found in the "Far West" and he's the Marco Polo of his people. Dunno. We could even set the game in the Far West and see what else is over there.

What he doesn't get to do is force me to retcon 30 years of play to find a place for halflings. I'm willing to work with him to figure out how it works. I'm even willing to run a completely new setting that he can help build -- but some exclusions will be there, just to keep things manageable (maybe gnomes disappear as redundant). Or... he can DM.

 

[Phantarch]

Even your extreme examples seem like things that could be negotiated down and compromised into something workable...Generally speaking if your world has [ELVES].

Frankly, there is little that is less reasonable. And you have accepted that concept as necessary core and incorporated it into literally every single world the D&D system comes to.

I do agree that some outlandish concepts can be incorporated, and a DM should try to work with the player. My point was mainly that it is a two-way street. It's not right for a DM to say, "NOPE! Not happening!" with no thought or regard for the player. But a player should be able to accept a DM saying, "You know, I've been thinking about your concept, and I'm really having a hard time figuring out how to incorporate that into what I've been planning. Could we work together to come up with a concept that works for both of us?"

And elves...don't get me started on elves. I DO tend to take issue with them, personally. But, yes, you are correct that they are generally allowed and accepted. (Grr....)

 

[S'mon]

I like exploration of a GM-defined world, yes. As GM I do like to add little player-contributed bits here & there where they fit well.

 

[GreenTengu]

What he doesn't get to do is force me to retcon 30 years of play to find a place for halflings. I'm willing to work with him to figure out how it works. I'm even willing to run a completely new setting that he can help build -- but some exclusions will be there, just to keep things manageable (maybe gnomes disappear as redundant). Or... he can DM.

How are Halflings even remotely difficult to incorporate? Halflings have no magical powers, no required background, don't occupy any special ecological niche. Honestly, I have never even remotely understood the appeal of them simply because well.... they are just short humans with a strong tendency towards certain personality traits. And its not like there aren't real life humans who happen to be that short anyway.
Even their stat block... nothing special there. Almost all their abilities are just things that more or less ought to apply to anyone who happens to be short and what would be more or less a "lucky" feat.

I mean if you are so deadset on Halflings not being an essential thing thing, but he wants to play one the easy negotiation is that he can use the stat block of a Halfling and basically look like a Halfling, but he would just be a particularly dexterous human with dwarfism. And if he feels it necessary, maybe his whole family (maybe even his whole village) have that particular trait... or maybe everyone else in his family is common sized and he is the only little person which could actually be more interesting.

 

[Mercule]

How are Halflings even remotely difficult to incorporate?

They aren't. It just happened to be a real world example of a mismatch I know exists with a player who hasn't yet played on my home brew. I have no children that still be resolved easily enough.

Unfortunately, since I'm not actually an anti-social twit, I can only cone up with contrived examples of such to work with.

 

[S'mon]

I've got a player that plays Dwarf characters basically all the time (like, he's played 1 elf, 1 human, and nothing else but dwarves for more than a decade at this point). If I want to run a campaign that doesn't involve Dwarves, I can sell him on the story of why there are no Dwarves around and he'll gladly play something else for that campaign, though he'd likely make sure that an "I'm the only Dwarf around and that is weird" character wasn't going to work first.

But if I were to say to him "I've decided that the setting we are going to use from now own, which I built myself so every decision was fully within my power, has nothing even resembling Dwarves in it." I'd quite obviously be putting what I want at a high enough priority as to completely disregard what anyone else wants (read: being a selfish jerk).

I guess maybe, if you have one fixed player group and your social contract is that everyone plays together all the time. I currently have four different groups I'm GMing for (playing in a fifth, should
be playing a sixth come January), and I don't really create campaigns to appeal to particular players - if a player doesn't like a concept, that's ok. I remember a GM proposed a concept I had no
interest in; it wouldn't have made her a selfish jerk to run that game without me.

 

[Shasarak]

Except that this isn't entirely true. Every choice a player makes for their character's background SHOULD have direct implications on the entire campaign, and can effect sweeping changes that are then the responsibility of the DM to actually flesh out and incorporate. So, really, each player has control over large components of a setting and campaign, from NPCs to organizations to cultural groups to locales. And this is a GOOD thing. But these choices should be made in consideration of the DM who has to flesh out these changes. If you are pushing for a DM to incorporate stuff that doesn't spark the DM's imagination*, it's going to come out as flat, forced, and uninspired, which will detract from the overall enjoyment of the game. These choices should also be made in consideration of the other players to make sure that the dynamic of the group will be fun and entertaining for everyone.

*I should clarify that I DO think that a DM should try their hardest to be inspired to include interesting concepts and be flexible. I just think that it's OK for a DM to ultimately decide that certain things don't fit with the tone and theme of the specific campaign.

It seems obvious to me that the fact you believe the DM has to do 100 times more work then the Players indicates that no, the Player does not control NPCs, organisations, cultural groups and/or locales. In this situation they do not even have control over their own PC so there is practically zero chance that the DM will in actual fact allow any PC creation other then in the most bland way possible.

And if you worry about Player ideas not sparking the DMs imagination then we of course have to consider if the DMs ideas will spark the Players imagination.