D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[Shasarak]

I don't know. Being a long-time RPG player, there's a lot disbelief I can suspend. But an old halfling in space? Jus' hangin', castin' his spells?

Maybe he is just waiting for some kid to send him a telescope.

 

[Hussar]

It depends upon which edition. The original boxed set had Dark Sun was cut off from the rest of the D&D multiverse. It had its own cosmology and was inaccessible by Spelljammers. I don't recall if this changed with later editions.
However, in the revised edition for 2e, a halfling crashing on Athas might have become plausible as there were plans for three halflings to have crashed on Athas while travelling on The Messenger comet, a halfling spaceship. Thankfully, in my opinion, it was never actually published (although, a few Gencon DMs supposedly received copies). It would have been another example of what many people (myself included) felt ruined Dark Sun with the revised edition that began with Slavicsek bringing the novels into the boxed set as official continuity and just getting worse with products like Mind Lords of the Last Sea and Windriders of the Jagged Cliffs.

See, there's the rub. You feel that these later additions "ruined Dark Sun". Totally fair. But, there also has to be a realisation there that not everyone thinks that way. Not everyone thinks that Dark Sun (or whatever setting you care to name) begins and ends with the boxed set or some other arbitrary line in the sand that people want to draw. And, additionally, does it matter that "many people" think the way you do? Considering that the setting line continued on down a different path than, obviously, what you thought was the "true" Darksun, how can you justify standing on canon to disallow this or that, but, then ignoring canon when it's convenient?

IOW, you're already running a homebrew version of Darksun anyway. Simply by excluding material. Again, its perfectly fine to do so. I would actually expect that virtually all campaigns set in published settings do that. But then turning around and trying to claim that someone else's version of Darksun, one where gnomes didn't all die, or one that you have halfling astronauts, is "wrong" seems a bit off to me.

It's perfectly fair to say, "No, I don't want that in my game because I don't like it" but, I think it's a bit disingenuous to try to justify it by standing on canon. Why not just be forthright about it? You're disallowing something because you don't like it. Not because it would be a mechanical issue (adding a gnome to DS is hardly game breaking) or even really a setting issue (it can be added with only minor changes to canon and generally changing canon that no one ever knew or cared about anyway), but because you, the DM, simply don't like it.

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?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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

I'm curious as to why this isn't an acceptable reason for you? Seems to me no different than sticking to an older version of anything else. Star Wars without expanded universe, board games without expansions, vintage cars, etc. It's generally done because people prefer a certain type of experience (either in general or for that particular instance) which is better represented by sticking with an older version.

Personally, I would find a planar glitch mode of incorporating a PC, and even moreso a spelljammer mode, as extremely destabilising of any campaign world (including Athas/DS) that I could imagine GMing. It suggests that the world where the events of the campaign will actually be taking place (that little slice of geography and history) is not a very big thing at all, and that the real stakes are elsewhere.

And that's a very valid position. That's why I wouldn't generally want to include Spelljamming in a Dark Sun campaign--mood interference.

In general though, viewing my D&D multiverse as including Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, etc, is little different than accepting the increasing scientific likelihood that our universe hosts many worlds with sentient life. I don't know these aliens, and they might have nothing to do with my life or things that I'm interacting with here on earth, but it opens up interesting possibilities. The fact that all of the multiverse stuff "officially" exists in my version of D&D doesn't have to have any impact on a particular game unless I choose to bring it in.

It depends upon which edition. The original boxed set had Dark Sun was cut off from the rest of the D&D multiverse. It had its own cosmology and was inaccessible by Spelljammers. I don't recall if this changed with later editions.

Yeah, I'm with you on Dark Sun original. I'm hoping if they put out 5e material it will be back in that timeline, or timeline neutral.

I like the closed sphere idea because it maintains theme. (In 2e, different cosmologies were all just based on subjective perceptions. It was a single multiverse. I love 5e's take on it: It's all one multiverse, but lots of worlds interpret it using different models, and whose to say who is right?) Of course, it's D&D, so a closed sphere floating out in the deep Phlogiston years away from any of the rivers you can travel on...is an obstacle waiting to be overcome by any DM who chooses to open a way.

 

[Shasarak]

I like the closed sphere idea because it maintains theme. (In 2e, different cosmologies were all just based on subjective perceptions. It was a single multiverse. I love 5e's take on it: It's all one multiverse, but lots of worlds interpret it using different models, and whose to say who is right?) Of course, it's D&D, so a closed sphere floating out in the deep Phlogiston years away from any of the rivers you can travel on...is an obstacle waiting to be overcome by any DM who chooses to open a way.

A closed sphere still contains Athas Space....so therefore Spelljamming is not excluded from Dark Sun.

 

[Phantarch]

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?

In my group, players and DM together all discuss character concepts and ideas. We often try to make sure we are filling different niches and that our characters will work well together for an entertaining time. It is definitely a group process. Now, the character is still 90% in the individual player's hands for development, but we certainly throw ideas off of each other and offer up advice regarding potential advantages and disadvantages.

To the second point, though, I don't think there's ever been a point of a player vetoing another player's choice. On the flip side, there will be no end of teasing about a character choice that everyone else thinks is dumb, but we tend to do a lot of smack talk in our group and everyone is on board. I still get called Tinkerbell on occasion because my first character that I played with the group was a sorcerer that cast Glitterdust...once.

 

[Greg K]

See, there's the rub. You feel that these later additions "ruined Dark Sun". Totally fair. But, there also has to be a realisation there that not everyone thinks that way. Not everyone thinks that Dark Sun (or whatever setting you care to name) begins and ends with the boxed set or some other arbitrary line in the sand that people want to draw. And, additionally, does it matter that "many people" think the way you do? Considering that the setting line continued on down a different path than, obviously, what you thought was the "true" Darksun, how can you justify standing on canon to disallow this or that, but, then ignoring canon when it's convenient?

I have no issues with Gnome in general. I have had them in nearly every campaign that i have run. Gnomes in Darksun? Not if I run as violates canon from the first boxed set. Travellers from other universes? No. It violates canon of the original boxed set. If it were Ravenloft (one of my other favorite settings), I would allow travellers from other worlds, because of the Mists. I would not allow Athas based characters, because of the canon. Forgotten Realms? yes. Greyhawk? yes. On the other hand, I may still ban certain PC races like Dragonborn, Drow, Shadar-Kai, etc , because I think they are lame, I don't want to deal with them. I will tell a player straight out.

IOW, you're already running a homebrew version of Darksun anyway. Simply by excluding material. Again, its perfectly fine to do so. I would actually expect that virtually all campaigns set in published settings do that. But then turning around and trying to claim that someone else's version of Darksun, one where gnomes didn't all die, or one that you have halfling astronauts, is "wrong" seems a bit off to me.

It's perfectly fair to say, "No, I don't want that in my game because I don't like it" but, I think it's a bit disingenuous to try to justify it by standing on canon. Why not just be forthright about it? You're disallowing something because you don't like it. Not because it would be a mechanical issue (adding a gnome to DS is hardly game breaking) or even really a setting issue (it can be added with only minor changes to canon and generally changing canon that no one ever knew or cared about anyway), but because you, the DM, simply don't like it.

Canon of the first boxed set is what I choose to go by. What happens in play and how it diverges from other groups or later material I don't care. Those are points where all individual campaigns diverge. When it is a canon issue of the first boxed set to not allow something, I will say that. When I choose not to go with later editions, because I don't like what *later* designers have done with the setting and I consider those later editions retcons/alternate versions, I have no problem saying that either.

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?

I choose what the parameters are not the players. Once the parameters are set, then we have group discussions on characters. When I am a player in other campaigns of DMs that I know, it is the same way.
As for telling a fellow player that they can't play a character, because I don't like it? No. I am not the DM. However, I have walked out of the campaign, because I didn't enjoy playing with another player and their character. I have walked out of a group, because I didn't like any of the characters or the campaign. The former led to the a conversation and a change to the campaign, because he was not enjoying running for the same player and his character. In the case of the latter, I left them having fun, because they were all enjoying the campaign.

 

[Greg K]

A closed sphere still contains Athas Space....so therefore Spelljamming is not excluded from Dark Sun.

in the first boxed set, you could not Spelljam to Athas. If the DM allowed it, it was a house rule.

 

[Shasarak]

in the first boxed set, you could not Spelljam to Athas. If the DM allowed it, it was a house rule.

You do not need to Spelljam to Athas Space if you are already in Athas Space.

You know how Crystal Sphere mechanics work in Spelljammer, yes?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've never vetoed another player's character, or attempted to do that, but I have been involved in discussions about how certain characters likely won't work together and their clashing will distract from the game rather than add to it. When this has happened, we've talked it out and always come to an acceptable resolution.

I'm almost always the DM with my group, cthough, so usually it's my players that have these discussions and I help arbitrate.

For all my advocacy for trying to accede to player requests, there are always exceptions to the rule.

I don't think there's one right way to go about character creation. I think different methods work for different campaign types. If you've got a very specific setting and story in mind, then it's probably smart for the DM to sit with all the players and discuss restrictions and so forth ahead of time, and to let the players discuss the characters they intend to make. This usually leads to a campaign that's more story focused.

Other times, I think it's best to have each player come up with a character concept and backstory individually, and then provide that to the DM, who then uses that material along with his own to create the campaign. This usually leads to a game that's more focused on character.

My group has also cooperatively created a large group of characters inhabiting a town, and then they each selected their PC at random, and the remaining characters were the NPCs. This was cool because all the connections and relationships between the characters were built in at creation. It added a level of verisimilitude to the whole game. But I imagine most groups might find such a method restrictive.

We generally go with what feels right for the campaign. And I think changing things up every so often is good.

 

[Greg K]

You do not need to Spelljam to Athas Space if you are already in Athas Space.

You know how Crystal Sphere mechanics work in Spelljammer, yes?

Yes, I have some basic recollection. I just came in from a long time and missed the point that you were not talking about how Athas was cut off from other worlds, but working with a hypothetical alternative version of Athas's relation to the multiverse under 2e.