D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[Chaosmancer]

Just as a point of order, as I was the one to first mention my Gnome Cleric, I would not bring that character to a Darksun game.

Not because of Gnomes not existing in the setting (I had no idea that was the case despite playing in the setting for 2+ years a few years back) but because there are no gods in Darksun, no divine magic, and therefore I couldn't play a character exploring his pantheon and religious secrets, which is the entire point of the character.

I've said it a few times, my biggest problem is with auto-bans that are in place simply because the DM can't accept a certain race since they didn't exist in the 2e version of the game or because a few players have played stupidly and happened to choose that race.

Let's take another example. Drow.

I altered the Drow in my homebrew, they are very secretive and withdrawn from the world, and they are not neccesarily evil. Instead Lolth is as close to a paranoid schizophrenic as I could write and that has trickled down into the entire community. Picture more gentlemen's disagreements with poisons and antidotes and a good laugh afterwards. I think it makes them more interesting, however, I'm nervous about letting players play a Drow because I don't think anyone of my current players would get it.

I have never stopped them from taking a Drow character, and if someone insisted I would allow it. The reason they haven't is because of light sensitivity and the lack of magical ways for Drow to overcome that. None of my players are willing to deal with that. If someone was willing to work with the mechanics then I'd let them go ahead, even though I'd be nervous about if the character could be played without issues at the table.

 

[delericho]

Just as a point of order, as I was the one to first mention my Gnome Cleric, I would not bring that character to a Darksun game.

Sure, I understand that. But it's such a perfect example as to stand as a great proxy for the whole debate - I could detail my setting and all the many limitations that it inherently places... but then you might understand what I'm talking about or you might misinterpret me. Either way, the conversation gets filled up with a lot of baggage. Alternately, we can both talk about Dark Sun and Gnome Clerics and both be instantly on the same page.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, I understand that. But it's such a perfect example as to stand as a great proxy for the whole debate - I could detail my setting and all the many limitations that it inherently places... but then you might understand what I'm talking about or you might misinterpret me. Either way, the conversation gets filled up with a lot of baggage. Alternately, we can both talk about Dark Sun and Gnome Clerics and both be instantly on the same page.

Seems legit, since that instant recognition is part of the reason you choose a campaign setting in the first place. Once you start adding in a host of caveats, the whole point of choosing a well-known setting is lost.

 

[Hussar]

To be honest, I'm in the same boat as Chaosmancer. I played a multi year Dark Sun campaign and had no idea that there were no gnomes. Just never came up. I'm frankly a bit skeptical of claims that no gnomes is an integral part of the setting and not just a footnote.

But then I cleric thing? Sure totally get that. That's a central conceit of the setting that you don't have gods. Bringing in a full standard cleric is a major departure from that. No problem whatsoever with the DM stepping on that idea.

But a gnome? Really? That's your break point for departing from canon? Wow.

 

[Nagol]

To be honest, I'm in the same boat as Chaosmancer. I played a multi year Dark Sun campaign and had no idea that there were no gnomes. Just never came up. I'm frankly a bit skeptical of claims that no gnomes is an integral part of the setting and not just a footnote.

But then I cleric thing? Sure totally get that. That's a central conceit of the setting that you don't have gods. Bringing in a full standard cleric is a major departure from that. No problem whatsoever with the DM stepping on that idea.

But a gnome? Really? That's your break point for departing from canon? Wow.

The reason there are no gnomes (and a host of other races) in Dark Sun is the sorcerer-gods ate them as they ascended to power. The back-story specifically requires complete genocide of a race for each sorcerer king. It won't come up for many groups in-play as it is an effective 'secret' of the setting. For other groups that research and try to bring down the sorcerer kings it can become relevant.

 

[TwoSix]

To be honest, I'm in the same boat as Chaosmancer. I played a multi year Dark Sun campaign and had no idea that there were no gnomes. Just never came up. I'm frankly a bit skeptical of claims that no gnomes is an integral part of the setting and not just a footnote.

But then I cleric thing? Sure totally get that. That's a central conceit of the setting that you don't have gods. Bringing in a full standard cleric is a major departure from that. No problem whatsoever with the DM stepping on that idea.

But a gnome? Really? That's your break point for departing from canon? Wow.

My general problem with the "Dark Sun gnome" is that every PC who's a weird exception is also a PC who's not building up the themes and tropes of the setting we chose to play in. There are plenty of settings (FR, Greyhawk, Eberron, Golarion) that are explicitly built as kitchen sinks and the players should be able to go in with the expectation that the DM will work with them to support their left-field concept. But Dark Sun? Man, that ain't one of them. Every gnome cleric PC in Dark Sun is a PC that could have been a thri-kreen psionicist or half-giant gladiator or something else that really tells a Dark Sun story, not a FR story in a Dark Sun costume.

 

[delericho]

Seems legit, since that instant recognition is part of the reason you choose a campaign setting in the first place. Once you start adding in a host of caveats, the whole point of choosing a well-known setting is lost.

Define "a whole host", though. If the price of getting player buy-in to the setting is to allow them to play a gnome PC, that's probably a price worth paying - let them be a newly-arrived planewalker, or a unique individual, or whatever. (Like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I'd push back harder on the "Cleric of Garl Glittergold" thing, though.)

Now, if the players each came with a shopping list of half a dozen things that they "had" to have, then at that point I'd sooner abandon the setting than try to incorporate them all. But if it's just a few fairly minor things, I don't see the problem.

So, as I said, define "a whole host".

 

[delericho]

My general problem with the "Dark Sun gnome" is that every PC who's a weird exception is also a PC who's not building up the themes and tropes of the setting we chose to play in.

I sympathise, but is that a battle worth fighting? If the player chooses to walk away from the campaign because he can't have his gnome, then that still leaves you with one less PC building up those themes and tropes.

 

[TwoSix]

So, as I said, define "a whole host".

Sure. More than one PC playing a race or class not intended for the campaign setting. The existence of any class dependent on changing the cosmological basis of magic and how it works in the campaign setting.

 

[Nagol]

I sympathise, but is that a battle worth fighting? If the player chooses to walk away from the campaign because he can't have his gnome, then that still leaves you with one less PC building up those themes and tropes.

Only if the no one else wants to sit in the chair. All too often that is not the case.