D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[hawkeyefan]

??? This is a very bizarre sentence that I can't reconcile with the original post.

This thread started with the OP's observations about GMing. So that's largely been the thrust of the discussion. How GMs can work to make player ideas that may seem to run contra to what the GM wants or has established actually work without disrupting their setting.

It's not a question of being "allowed", it's a question of maintaining the mystery and balance needed for crafting together epic stories. It's a question of respecting each other around the table, and putting in place a paradigm of play that looks even slightly like the one D&D has always used.

I didn't mention being allowed. I said involve them. Build a world collaboratively. Collaboration seems to be something you believe it and promote....and yet here you seem to be against it.

And I would say that this mode of play....of shared worlds and collaboration.....dates right back to the earliest days of the hobby and its creators.

Blah blah blah. Please show me some actual, real design done by players in your campaign, something that is even a small fraction of what the DM is in charge of.

I have plenty. In my current campaign, the starting town and its surroundings were crafted by four participants out of six (two players came along later). It's a kind of frontier town on the outskirts of a kingdom. I came up with an idea for a dungeon that was nearby and its history, which involved two ancient races that are possibly awakening to cause trouble in the modern day. Another player came up with a neighboring country and their desires for the local resources, and some plans they have in place to try and take the area. Another came up with the local nobility and how they relate to the local people, and the general attitude of the local people toward them. And so on.

Because my experience (and that of all my fellow DMs) is that even awesome, creative players usually focus their creativity on their characters and their stories, in particular because they are respectful not only of the DM and his work, but of the other players as well, and they trust the DM to balance all that. My players manage initiative for me, yes, and in another campaign, I completely manage the crafting, but based on DM's input although I make suggestions, again because the DM knows the balance that he wants. And that is not even 1% of what the DM actually creates for the campaign, stories, maps, histories, intrigues, encounters, whatever.

As for feedback, we actually generate tons, but based on the DM/players roles that we enjoy, which are the traditional ones, fully collaborative to have fun. Sue us.

Your players have gone from the kind for which it's "very rare that a player thinks about anything else than his entitled little self" to awesome creative players who respect the GM's work.

It's kind of hard to understand.

The main difference is that, even after a bit of tinkering like D&D did with 3e, the designers came back to "the DM has final say" like in the huge majority of TTRPG (I was just reading a bit more of Runequest a few minutes ago and, unsurprisingly, the exact same rule came up): "Remember that the gamemaster has the final say on the appropriateness of attempting Inspiration and its duration."

There are many reasons for this, and they've been put on the table many times, and these are good, factual reasons based on the general type of games that TTRPG in general and D&D in particular are about. And yes, there are very minor counterexamples of this, for games which are totally on the fringe of the hobby, again because it's not the usual players expectations.

I don't really have a problem with the GM being the final arbiter of rules-based questions or conflicts. Beyond that, I don't really care what the books say about the DM's authority and all that, or how minor games that do it differently may be when it comes to market share, or common player expectations. None of that really matters compared to what I think works well.

Why is is about rogues now ? When did we shift to the DM choosing classes for the players ?

It's an example.

And the amount of insistence on the fact that words like "tyranny" mean nothing really is absolutely astounding as well. As well as insisting on the players' side rather than the DM's side as if there should actually be sides. There should not, and anything put on the table to create sides, and in particular words like tyranny are a bad trend for me.

I didn't say the word tyranny means nothing. It's not about sides in an "us versus them" way. But at times, there may be conflict about how to handle something. The GM has one idea, the player has another. This happens from time to time. It's okay.

 

[Faolyn]

Does Cure Wounds work on wood ? And even if it did, how does it heal the other two components of the body of the warforged ? I know, "because it's magic" but sometimes that does not float for one's sentiment of verisimilitude.

Cure wounds doesn't work on undead or constructs. It does work on plants and elementals, which should neatly cover the stone and even metal parts of their body.

How does it work? Perhaps cure wounds causes the wood parts to heal and the stone parts to crystallize back together, but does nothing for the metal. Perhaps most warforged have a mess of dents and rends on their metal parts (or else they have to go to a welder for "plastic" surgery to reduce those scars).

Or perhaps the alchemical fluids in each warforged gives them a biology that works in much the same way as a human's does, even if their organs and muscles are made of inhuman material.

And it does not mean that we have to like the way it's implemented, as it does not make sense to us. They are perfect as NPCs where you don't have to ask yourself too many questions, but as PCs, we like things to make sense for us.

No, of course you don't need to like it or use warforged all. You don't have to use them even if you like them and find them completely sensible. My suggestion was to read some of their creator's thoughts, because they may provide you with insight that makes them make more sense to you.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think practically every DM has a line they will not cross. Maybe it's race or no evil PCs. Maybe it's no half dragon half vampire. Maybe it's no openly misogynistic PCs or any number of other things. Where that line is drawn will vary from group to group. But like I just said, if you DM for long enough I think there will always be times when the DM and player desire different things. It's inevitable.

I've joined D&D groups as a player that I quit because they didn't work for what I was looking for in a game. All I would recommend is that if you DM you are clear and up front about what kind of game you run ahead of time. If that means that someone doesn't join because they can't play a dragonborn, I don't see a problem.

Sure, I get that. Again, I'm not actually against restricting options.

Let's look at the "No Evil PCs" rule. Most often this rule is in place to avoid disruptive play of some kind.... intraparty conflict or perhaps evil deeds that people prefer not to play out. That kind of thing.

As such, there's a pretty valid reason to have such a restriction. Even if a player is mature enough to handle playing an evil character without being a bloodthirsty monster who messes with everyone, I can at least understand the decision one related to the game and how it works. It's about the game and the enjoyment of everyone who will take part.

The OP, and most of my posts, have been more about when the reason amounts to little more than "this is the way the GM wants it". To me, that's not a very valid reason compared to the no evil PCs rule. It doesn't really seem to be about the game and the enjoyment of everyone who will take part.

 

[Arilyn]

One of my longer running and coolest campaigns for Pathfinder occurred when my players kept coming up with really interesting ideas to add to our story. There were a lot of, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if..." moments. The campaign grew and and took on plenty of twists which kept us all engaged for a very long running campaign.

So the GM does not have to be the sole arbiter of the world. D&D can be very collaborative and it works. I had less creative workload and very happy players.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, I get that. Again, I'm not actually against restricting options.

Let's look at the "No Evil PCs" rule. Most often this rule is in place to avoid disruptive play of some kind.... intraparty conflict or perhaps evil deeds that people prefer not to play out. That kind of thing.

As such, there's a pretty valid reason to have such a restriction. Even if a player is mature enough to handle playing an evil character without being a bloodthirsty monster who messes with everyone, I can at least understand the decision one related to the game and how it works. It's about the game and the enjoyment of everyone who will take part.

The OP, and most of my posts, have been more about when the reason amounts to little more than "this is the way the GM wants it". To me, that's not a very valid reason compared to the no evil PCs rule. It doesn't really seem to be about the game and the enjoyment of everyone who will take part.

But if they know what they're getting into ahead of time, what does it hurt? I've had people tell me that one of the reasons they were interested was because I restrict races. Having every race under the sun doesn't work for some people, just like having every race under the sun is a requirement for others.

I think personal preference and vision is justification enough.

 

[Mordhau]

But if they know what they're getting into ahead of time, what does it hurt? I've had people tell me that one of the reasons they were interested was because I restrict races. Having every race under the sun doesn't work for some people, just like having every race under the sun is a requirement for others.

I think personal preference and vision is justification enough.

What it comes down to is they think you're doing it wrong.

No one comes out and says it because they know they're not supposed to say that so instead the whole argument gets presented as questioning a lot of assumptions. If only you understood there was another way to do things.

Why should X be the case? The only real assumption here is that the way people may run and play games are based on unreflective assumptions.

 

[Mannahnin]

I think it's wrong to personalize it this way. It's uncharitable, taking offense where it (mostly) was not offered.

Stormanu talked about HIS experience, and qualified his assertions.

Some people on either side of the major point of disagreement in this thread, such as it is, no doubt think that their preferred take is best practice for DMs and campaigns in general. But as a rule most folks have been respectful and allowed for the validity of different approaches.

This is something that I have seen cast about by various DMs over the years - sometimes even by myself. D&D is filled with a menagerie of races and creatures. Sometimes, too many. This can often lead to the DM’s knee-jerk reaction “Not in my campaign!” or “That doesn’t fit my world!”, generally with the modern thought of “if I allow one, there has to be others like it.” or that there needs to be whole backstory of a race/culture for how it came to be in the game.

So, not wanting to squeeze in, say, a Dragonborn city/culture into one’s campaign, the whole race is banned from the campaign. I do think that can be a mistake (on these grounds), and it comes from a bit too modern understanding of our world.

Here in the beginning of the OP he talks about what he thinks are incorrect assumptions and premises, at least some of which he used to hold.

As a last note, there’s nothing wrong with not putting a creature or race into a campaign because its doesn’t fit the theme the DM and players are looking for - Kender in Dark Sun, for example, would seem quite absurd. The idea though, is to relax the grip a bit on the purity of the “world” the campaign is set in. There’s nothing wrong with one-offs, and you don’t need to twist an established world to work in something out of the ordinary. Heck, sometimes you don’t even need to explain it - and just let it happen and let it either be a mystery or let someone else come up later for a reason why it happens/works.

Here at the end of the OP he specifically and explicitly acknowledges that campaign curation is perfectly legitimate, and summarizes his premise- that strict and tight control is not always necessary. His experience was that relaxing a bit in this area led to more fun outcomes in his games.

 

[Mordhau]

I think it's wrong to personalize it this way. It's both uncharitable and taking offense where it (mostly) was not offered.

Stormanu talked about HIS experience, and qualified his assertions.

Some people on either side of the major point of disagreement in this thread, such as it is, no doubt think that their preferred take is best practice for DMs and campaigns in general. But as a rule most folks have been respectful and allowed for the validity of different approaches.

People in these threads always tell us about how they do things in their game very proudly.

They almost never say why they're telling us that - which is interesting and I've found a little puzzling in the past.

Is it because they're being presented as a model to follow, or more charitably, as an alternative way of doing things that hasn't been considered? But if it's the latter, why on earth do they think it hasn't been considered.? Note, people never ask others to explain in detail how they manage things at the table, so they don't appear to think the lack of understanding of other possibilities is shared equally. It's the other person who requires a positive example.

Am I being unfair? Maybe a little to some individual posters, so I'm sorry if that is the case, but I don't even run a traditionalist game, and I find the way so many threads turn into evangelism on this issue increasingly obnoxious.

 

[Mannahnin]

People in these threads always tell us about how they do things in their game very proudly.

They almost never say why they're telling us that - which is interesting and I've found a little puzzling in the past.

Is it because they're being presented as a model to follow, or more charitably, as an alternative way of doing things that hasn't been considered? But if it's the latter, why on earth do they think it hasn't been considered.? Note, people never ask others to explain in detail how they manage things at the table, so they don't appear to think the lack of understanding of other possibilities is shared equally. It's the other person who requires a positive example.

Am I being unfair? Maybe a little to some individual posters, so I'm sorry if that is the case, but I don't even run a traditionalist game, and I find the way so many threads turn into evangelism on this issue increasingly obnoxious.

Why do they think it hasn't been considered? Possibly because, in Stormanu's apparent case, he did it the other way for a long time, and was hesitant to relax control of the area, then it turned out to work better than he expected when he changed approach?

Any given idea is new to someone.

If we're not interested, if we don't find someone's ideas novel, interesting, or thought provoking, we certainly have multiple friendly and polite ways to engage, or can simply ignore the thread and offered topic of discussion.

For the most part this discussion has been perfectly polite, from what I've seen.

 

[Faolyn]

Blah blah blah. Please show me some actual, real design done by players in your campaign, something that is even a small fraction of what the DM is in charge of. Because my experience (and that of all my fellow DMs) is that even awesome, creative players usually focus their creativity on their characters and their stories, in particular because they are respectful not only of the DM and his work, but of the other players as well, and they trust the DM to balance all that. My players manage initiative for me, yes, and in another campaign, I completely manage the crafting, but based on DM's input although I make suggestions, again because the DM knows the balance that he wants. And that is not even 1% of what the DM actually creates for the campaign, stories, maps, histories, intrigues, encounters, whatever.

Butting in here, in one of the games I'm running, I gave a tiny paragraph on each of my allowed races. One player expanded the small amount of info I had on tieflings (not a race per se but something that some children of any race turn into when they reach puberty; they live in the woods and have a found-family society) into a quite very large amount of very interesting and unique material. Same setting, the

In fact, when I wrote up this particular world, I specifically asked the players if there was anything they wanted or didn't want in the world and built the world around what they say. Sure, some of them said they didn't have any particular desires, but others did. When I was drawing a map for it--which I should really finish or redo, one of these days--they kept saying things like "ooh, you should add this in the blank spot there!"

I was working on a cosmos that as it turned out is not too dissimilar to the 4e cosmos (which I knew nothing about at the time). I mentioned how my versions of the Feywild and Shadowfell has lots of "lost cities" in it. Another player wrote up an entire lost city for me. And she keeps talking about it.

I don't know if this counts, but of my DMs is running the same adventure for two separate groups. My player "inadvertently" caused a riot (bless her well-meaning, chaotic neutral little heart). The DM so liked my reasons for the riot that kept he had it happen in the other group's game.

It's not disrespectful for a player to add things to a world. D&D is a game of collaborative storytelling, after all. And it shows how much they're invested in the world. If the players just accept the world as-is, then it quite possibly means they don't care about it all that much. It's just another place to adventure in. But when they make stuff up for it, add their own things to it, have a say in how it's built--then it becomes their home.