D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[bedir than]

Wow, both of those rationals are terrible. How does a Goliath with a lizard pet in any way resemble Dragonborn flavor (proud charismatic warrior race with a long and storied history). And 20 years is more than enough time to start pioneering a field of research. If I got either of these suggestions from a DM I would be downright insulted.

Not that you can't run a campaign without Dragon born or wizards. Just have better compromises and justifications. Also make sure that your next campaign idea has space for what wasn't allowed previously.

You're so worried about the details you missed the point.

 

[mestewart3]

Sorry, my tone there was dickish.

The problem I have with your examples is they seem less like compromises based on an understanding of what the player wants and more like rationals to sweep player desires under the rug.

 

[ProgBard]

So I find myself of two minds about this.

Because on the one hand, I love worldbuilding. I love drawing maps and naming countries and inventing histories and the whole Secondary Creation deal. It's a joy and a labor of love, and if I'm going to do it I'd rather it be mine and not just the Realms with the continents rearranged and the serial numbers filed off.

And so several times I tried to do the restrictive campaign, when I was younger and a great deal crankier about all these derivative elves and dwarves taking up space in my Vry Srs Fantasy. It never worked out the way I planned. I'd have my background and character creation notes ready and I'd show up at the table and someone would inevitably be there already with their elven druid. And I just didn't want to be That A-hole.

I've come to feel more and more that not being That A-hole was the right decision. I might someday try to do a big unique worldbuilding thing for an RPG campaign, but only for people I could trust enough, and talk it through with beforehand, to get the buy-in. And I probably wouldn't use D&D for it.

Because people come to D&D with certain expectations. They want the freedom to get excited about the possibilities the PHB has on offer. And I don't think they're wrong to want that. Unless you're all in with players who are specifically excited about some particular nonstandard campaign world, I think it's a little... much for the DM to shoot them down with "But, MAH VISHUN!" For the player who is interested in the implied D&D universe, it's fighting the protocols of the game. You can get away with doing so, but you really need to screen carefully beforehand.

And mostly I've come to realize - and this is a tough pill to swallow for someone with the kind of ego it takes to do DMing OR world-building - that the experience of the game isn't about me. And it's certainly not about my special snowflake universe that's too precious to be tainted by elves or dragonborn or whatever it is that's stuck in my craw this week. I'm a smart guy and a decent entertainer, but if I need to keep that heavy a hand on the tiller, I really ought to just shut up and write a book already.

(Which should not be confused with saying that anything a player wants goes, of course. But we're not talking here about the genuine problem players, or the Guy Who Always Plays Drizzt and suchlike. We're talking about the folks who just had in mind some perfectly main-sequence concept from the basic rulebook, who really probably don't deserve some chubby nerd with a cardboard screen telling them "Not in MY world, you don't.")

 

[transtemporal]

I think you're making it too hard OP. If you say "The setting is a grim and gritty post-apocalyptic, sci-fi wasteland" and the players make, I dunno... "magical anime schoolgirls" then you either failed to communicate the genre and tone you were going for, the players are idiots or the players TOTALLY get it and their characters are some sort of clever riff on your setting.

In any case, the solution for all three scenarios is the same: talk to them and listen to what they have to say. You might be surprised. If their reasoning isn't great, compliment the parts you think fit but ask them to incorporate those parts into a new character that fits the setting a bit better.

Even better, if you think you might be in a "magical anime schoolgirl" situation, ask them to run their concept by you before they roll it up.

 

[Phantarch]

False.

A DM can put in 100 times the work, but doing so isn't necessary.

Also, many DMs actually get enjoyment out of just the processes of doing all that "work" so it is more that they get 100 times the enjoyment out of the game than a player does.

Conceded. As we all know, 72% of statistics are made up on the spot, and such is the case with my "100 times the work" comment. I would still argue it generally takes more time and more effort to be a DM than to be a player, but it is certainly conceivable that somebody can DM with little to no effort, though I personally think that would not make for a very interesting game.

At any rate, "I chose to do a bunch of whatever it is that I did, so I am entitled to a stronger vote that you" is an attitude I don't find to make any sense in the context of a gaming group.
I've been a DM since minute 1 of me being a table-top gamer, and I find the idea that the players gathered together to share in the game with me should be showing me so much appreciation as to have my "I'm not a fan of that" be more important than their "I'm not a fan of that", rather than both being equal... well, what I find it to be involves language unfit for this board, so I will use a less potent word than I mean that conveys the same general idea: unfounded.

I did not mean to imply that there should be some sort of toe-licking groveling to the all-powerful DM. I more was trying to imply a mutual respect and appreciation. I should perhaps also mention that I'm coming from the perspective of someone who has probably been a player 75% of the time and DM'd 25% of the time. My opinions are mainly framed from the perspective of a player grateful for the DMs that I have had, NOT the perspective of a DM frustrated by players that I feel are ungrateful.

I think there's been enough back and forth in this discussion to show that some people enjoy a restrictive campaign and some people don't. People have different play styles. It's enough to say, "that's not my preference" without accusing people of badwrongfun.

Apart from play styles and preferences, I also think it's only fair to realize that different people have different strengths. If a person offers to DM, I assume that what they present and any associated restrictions are related to what that person feels they can confidently organize and develop that will still be enjoyable to them.

Regardless of the reasons (play style or comfort level), my choices as a potential player are to create a character that the DM and I can mutually agree on in the offered campaign, inquire if the DM is interested in running a different campaign, offer to DM instead, or find another group. None of these outcomes need to or should result in animosity or hard feelings on either part.

The part about the goal being to find a cohesive happy medium I agree with. Of course, that's part of why I find your hyperbolic examples that paint a player wanting a thing that the DM doesn't want in an extreme light to be amusingly frustrating - when I discuss allowing what players want to influence what I present as a DM, I'm not talking about things like a DM saying "no half-fiend troll with laser eyes" (options not even remotely framed by the game as being intended for use as player characters), and neither are most people I've seen discussing the topic; we're more talking about a DM saying "No tieflings" or "No monks" (options the game presents as intended for use as player characters, but the DM just isn't a fan of them).

I have a tendency to discuss topics using extremes in the attempt to find a reasonable compromise. Basically, if you hit the walls enough, you'll eventually find the middle of the room. As such, the examples given were intended to be extreme and silly; not as a straw man argument to prove player choices are dumb, but as an attempt to find the outliers of the topic.

A previous example was given of allowing a Wookiee in a Lord of the Rings campaign setting (something I find to be about on par with a half-fiend troll with laser eyes). Some have argued that this should be acceptable, and that a DM is being unfair for not incorporating it. My counterpoint is that it is unfair of a player to demand that a DM incorporate it. The result of addressing these extremes is that it is unfair to accuse a person of DMing incorrectly for either allowing or denying this "character concept". It's a question of play style. Both are equally valid, and different people have different preferences. That's where the appreciation and respect come in.

I think the same lesson, though, still applies when bringing it closer to home of a DM not including "standard" player's handbook races or classes. It's not a matter of being wrong; it's still a matter of preference and play style. However, it now becomes a question of reasonable expectations. A DM who opts for an extremely restrictive campaign setting should reasonably expect that there are far fewer players that want to play with such restrictions. It would then be reasonable advice to say, "If you really want to DM, you'll have a better chance of finding players if you loosen up a little."

So, to rephrase the point I was initially trying to get to, DMing can be a very energy and time consuming activity. Potential players should appreciate and respect that fact by either trying to work with the campaign setting offered or finding an acceptable alternative (different campaign, different DM, or different group). Equally so, potential DMs should realize that the more restrictive they make their campaigns, the less likely they are to find like-minded players. Therefore, potential DMs should respect the fact that players may decide NOT to participate in their campaigns.

What I find unacceptable are the implication that people are somehow playing the game wrong if everyone involved is having fun and the expectation that either DMs or players are obligated in any way to participate in a game that they do not find fun.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If your world exists separate from players and when you sit down with 5 other players, no aspects of it can bend-- you don't have a roleplaying game. I don't really know what you are doing, but ideally you should be open to altering the world the moment you sit down to play the game.

I'm going to use a brand new example setting, and I'd invite people to think about it.

Modern earth espionage game. Nothing supernatural, no aliens, etc.

...

Would anyone here actually feel it is appropriate if you are invited to play in such a game, acknowledge you are on board with it, come into it with a group of participants, to then ask if you could play a wizard, alien, etc?

If not, would you even feel that it is appropriate to be frustrated with the GM for inviting you to participate in such a restricted game?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say anyone who says "yes" is more likely to just be having fun debating rather than expressing a real opinion.

I submit that a DM-made setting has the right to its setting integrity in the same way as that setting. The only difference I can think of is that everyone understands the relevant details of the setting that I just described, whereas you may not know what all is entailed in the DM's setting. It could be somewhat annoying if you felt you were having a "mother may I" exchange with the DM trying to ask what you could play until you finally found something he/she would allow. The point of it is to make the setting clear enough up front that such back and forth is minimized.

On the other hand, if you have a world without a story, I guarantee it is not a particularly well-made world... which is precisely why you can't come up with an example.

See above.

Now, granted, I would be willing to concede that you can certainly make a world that is human-only should certainly be human-only, but that is part of conceptual theme. Once in the world someone can play something akin to Elves, it is just stubborn, bullheadedness that insists that means something akin to Orcs or Dwarfs or Catfolk or Dragonpeople or Wookie or whatever can't exist in the world nor be protagonists without disrupting the world.

Would it be stubborn bull-headedness to not allow magic in a hard sci-fi game? If you agree that the spy game's parameters above are reasonable, why wouldn't it apply to any genre?

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.

I'm not sure why you think anyone is opposed to character creative input. Most world-building DMs are even more likely to allow PCs to go off and do their own thing, making their mark on the world in whatever way they want to, than are DMs who weave their narrative around a story about the players. In that latter case, the social contract demands that certain assumptions about where the story canvas is going or about be adhered to. In the former case, the boundary lines are all drawn up before you create your character. Create any character that fits the world, and then that character can do anything they want within that world. Topple kingdoms, become head of a trade consortium, sail around on a private yacht wherever their whims take them.

The question is whether character input is about world-building or world-affecting. World-affecting play is every bit as free and empowering as world-creating, but it is a very different experience.

SIDENOTE: It is psychologically a different experience to interact with something that you have not created than it is with something that you have.

And I probably wouldn't use D&D for it.

Because people come to D&D with certain expectations. They want the freedom to get excited about the possibilities the PHB has on offer. And I don't think they're wrong to want that. Unless you're all in with players who are specifically excited about some particular nonstandard campaign world, I think it's a little... much for the DM to shoot them down with "But, MAH VISHUN!" For the player who is interested in the implied D&D universe, it's fighting the protocols of the game. You can get away with doing so, but you really need to screen carefully beforehand.

This is an excellent thought to add into the mix. Is part of the objection based on specific D&D assumptions? Because that would, at least, explain why I'm guessing a lot of people would feel it's okay in a spy game, but just aren't comfortable saying it's okay in a D&D game.

I think you're making it too hard OP. If you say "The setting is a grim and gritty post-apocalyptic, sci-fi wasteland" and the players make, I dunno... "magical anime schoolgirls" then you either failed to communicate the genre and tone you were going for, the players are idiots or the players TOTALLY get it and their characters are some sort of clever riff on your setting.

In any case, the solution for all three scenarios is the same: talk to them and listen to what they have to say. You might be surprised. If their reasoning isn't great, compliment the parts you think fit but ask them to incorporate those parts into a new character that fits the setting a bit better.

Even better, if you think you might be in a "magical anime schoolgirl" situation, ask them to run their concept by you before they roll it up.

I'm not actually having a problem in my own games, and the other DMs I know haven't had it either. I just see reactions online to the world-building DM, that feel to me like they are entirely misperceiving the situation. I've just seen too many times where people get it into their heads that certain types of DMs are stubborn jerks making it unfun for everyone but themselves (which would have to entail them being sadistic too apparently). In reality, those conceptions are just off the mark most of the time. My goal is to get people thinking and hopefully see past those misconceptions.

Now, like my sidenote above, world-building and world-affecting are different experiences. I've come to the point where I honestly feel an emptiness as a player if I have too much world-building participation. It feels a bit like playing Neverwinter Nights with your friends, with everyone in DM mode plopping down stuff with the creator left and right as you go along. Not really of interest to me at this point. Now, there have been times when I've found it interesting (the player world-building, not the crazy NWN scenario), but it is a different psychological experience--it hits a different spot. And the point I'm making is that spot isn't about being an unreasonable DM who wants to stop everyone else's fun, it's about focusing on a different type of fun that is more or less mutually exclusive with participation in world-building. Neither of them strike me as superior or inferior, and it's definitely fine to have preferences. I strongly dislike mushrooms. I have no use for them. At least once, I've tasted mushrooms that I could tell were exquisite. Quality was oozing out of them. Heck, the texture was almost appealing. In that situation, I could appreciate their quality quite clearly, and see how others would enjoy them. But, I still didn't like them because they tasted like mushrooms. So I feel like a lot of people are entirely failing to appreciate the quality of the experience of playing in a world-building DMs world. One may or may not like it, but it should be a matter of taste, not a false value judgement about the experiential quality.

 

[Phantarch]

It's definitely fine to have preferences. I strongly dislike mushrooms. I have no use for them. At least once, I've tasted mushrooms that I could tell were exquisite. Quality was oozing out of them. Heck, the texture was almost appealing. In that situation, I could appreciate their quality quite clearly, and see how others would enjoy them. But, I still didn't like them because they tasted like mushrooms...One may or may not like it, but it should be a matter of taste, not a false value judgement about the experiential quality.

Now you're just being RIDICULOUS! Mushrooms are inherently evil (and I'm sure Zuggtmoy would agree). Anyone who says otherwise is clearly having badwrongfood. A matter of taste, indeed!

 

[S'mon]

Because people come to D&D with certain expectations. They want the freedom to get excited about the possibilities the PHB has on offer. And I don't think they're wrong to want that. Unless you're all in with players who are specifically excited about some particular nonstandard campaign world, I think it's a little... much for the DM to shoot them down with "But, MAH VISHUN!" For the player who is interested in the implied D&D universe, it's fighting the protocols of the game. You can get away with doing so, but you really need to screen carefully beforehand.

And mostly I've come to realize - and this is a tough pill to swallow for someone with the kind of ego it takes to do DMing OR world-building - that the experience of the game isn't about me. And it's certainly not about my special snowflake universe that's too precious to be tainted by elves or dragonborn or whatever it is that's stuck in my craw this week. I'm a smart guy and a decent entertainer, but if I need to keep that heavy a hand on the tiller, I really ought to just shut up and write a book already.

Conversely, I find that I need to be excited about the campaign to run a good game. If I have an idea for a campaign that excites me, and players bring in PCs that go against that idea, my
excitement fades rapidly and my game will suck. So I'm not really doing players any favours by letting them play whatever they want. If anything I find my problem is more not making expectations clear, eg proposing a 4e Conanesque swords & sorcery campaign one time I don't think I made clear
enough that I was looking mostly for mighty-thewed barbarians, cunning rogues, grim
mercenaries and such; so I mostly got Warlocks and other spellcasters who didn't fit the
theme nearly as well. In the end the most successful PCs were the ones who started as
Fighter pregens.

 

[Nagol]

False.

A DM can put in 100 times the work, but doing so isn't necessary.

Also, many DMs actually get enjoyment out of just the processes of doing all that "work" so it is more that they get 100 times the enjoyment out of the game than a player does. At any rate, "I chose to do a bunch of whatever it is that I did, so I am entitled to a stronger vote that you" is an attitude I don't find to make any sense in the context of a gaming group.

<snip>

It is more "I feel like putting work into and spending time playing this game. Who wants to play in it? Alice, Bob are in, great!. Cheryl isn't? OK, let me know if you change your mind and I'll let you know when there are other options. I'll call Dave, Elizabeth and Fred to see if they're interested."

I don't get a stronger vote; I get to pick what I want to spend my time on and each and every player gets to pick what he wants to spend his time on. Hopefully, he wants to spend his time playing the same game I am going to run. If not, it is no biggie, we'll get together at other times for other things. If a player really wants to use a character I'm not willing to run in the current situation then I'm sure he can find a game where that character will fit swimmingly. Or he can run something and I'll look to see if I want to play in his campaign. It is not like I am uniquely qualified to operate the GM screen; there are other GMs. Don't like my campaign constraints? Free the player slot for someone who does.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

It depends.

The DM is free to make whatever kind of world they choose.
The players are free to walk away from the table if they don't like the way the game works.

I've made worlds where certain races/classes are not allowed or are dangerous to play, and my players are generally ok with that.
I've had more than one player opt to not join our group because I didn't allow every single thing he wanted.

So I view it as a kind of Venn Diagram where one circle is the player base, and another is the campaign "openness". The intersecting point is where your player pool lies. If that pool is too small you may have trouble keeping your group going.