D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Lanefan]

Ok, good to know
The "plan their levelling" usually (read here almost always) happens because of a significant RP element that nudges the character in an other direction. My players like to give some thoughts when such event takes place. Like multiclassing into something that was not anticipated,

In my game you can't just multi-class on a whim*, it takes considerable forethought and a lengthy period of (non-adventuring) training to pick up a new class.

* - being able to pick up a new class on a whim is IMO one of the very worst elements 3e brought into the game.

or changing deity, or even subclass (I always allowed it to change before level 6) sometimes, the opportunity to take a feat outside training can be too good to pass on, even if it is not a feat you thought to get in the first place.

Major changes like changing deity or game-forced changes e.g. alignment change, species change, etc. can be and are dealt with on the fly, at the game.

And if they have their character at home, they can make a clearer sheet (more easy to read) for me .

Once in a while a player will take a sheet home to do just this, but woe betide said player if the sheet is forgotten at home for the next session!

 

[Helldritch]

In my game you can't just multi-class on a whim*, it takes considerable forethought and a lengthy period of (non-adventuring) training to pick up a new class.

* - being able to pick up a new class on a whim is IMO one of the very worst elements 3e brought into the game.

Dual classing has been there since 1ed. This is exactly how I/we handle multiclassing in 5ed. Once you change, you can't go back. So no 1 dip in a class. You either change; or you don't. There are no middle ground.

Major changes like changing deity or game-forced changes e.g. alignment change, species change, etc. can be and are dealt with on the fly, at the game.

Sometimes it is like this at my tables. Sometimes, it is better handled at home since it might slow the game for the other players. It really depends on where and what time the willing change might occur.

Once in a while a player will take a sheet home to do just this, but woe betide said player if the sheet is forgotten at home for the next session!

On this we fully agree!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I don't think the base game implies anything of the sort. Some of the things you state I may allow, I may say that, no your father can't be the mayor or that if he is there's some reason you can't go to them if you get into trouble. But it really depends. Is the group starting out in that village? Is it just a village in some nearby district?

I'm not always going to say no, I'm not automatically going to say yes. We discuss this kind of stuff. Sometimes I say "yes you can do that, but here's another idea". Other times they'll come to me with what they're thinking and we'll brainstorm something together. I've had some players that simply didn't care, with others we had a lot of fun working on a story together or they handed me a story and I only had to make minor suggestions, if that.

I am specifically thinking of backgrounds in 5e. If you picked Folk Hero then presumably you have already been the hero and aren't just a zero? Of if you pick the Noble background it seems like picking a mayor as your family seems about as low as one could go with that pick.

When I say village I mean village. I'm not saying so e player gets to declare they are the Prince of Waterdeep. If they are inventing a village whole hog to place in your world then clearly it isn't the focus of a campaign unless you would then choose to make it so.

 

[Helldritch]

I am specifically thinking of backgrounds in 5e. If you picked Folk Hero then presumably you have already been the hero and aren't just a zero? Of if you pick the Noble background it seems like picking a mayor as your family seems about as low as one could go with that pick.

Folk hero background: Save Mira from drowning. or Shot an arrow while hunting and killed an orc that was about to kill a guard. Or Saved a family from house fire. or many others that do imply any experience out of it...

Noble background: Your the last in line to inherit. or Your family was noble but got bankrupt. or You are the inheritor of a landless and moneyless title that you must reclaim as the lands were taken by a hostile force. or You will not inherit from your family as you have been disavowed. Secretly, your mother/father is sending you money to cover for your expense but it is not a lot. Maybe you can reclaim your inheritance by behaving as mother/father/brother/sister want(s) you to behave? Yep, you are noble, but you do not have a lot to get by. In essence, you are not a zero, but very close. It does not shut down the background but it limits the scope.

When I say village I mean village. I'm not saying so e player gets to declare they are the Prince of Waterdeep. If they are inventing a village whole hog to place in your world then clearly it isn't the focus of a campaign unless you would then choose to make it so.

As long as something does not give a distinct advantage to one player over the others, anything goes. The goal is the journey of the hero. If you are already a hero, what fun is there in the game?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you like a players to....

1. Create and name a village.
2. Say their father is the mayor.
3. State the town is known for pig raising.
4. Say they always thought the local woods were haunted because of strange noises at night.
5. Say that in some previous war there was a Calvary skirmish in the town and now there is a small shrine there to commemorate the battle.

Then you are allowing the normal amount of world building the baseline game implies. This is very different than saying you reserve 100% of the world building to yourself.

Ultimately I think a lot of disagreement happening in this and many threads is just poor communication. Someone telling me they reserve 100% of the world building to themselves means, to me, players aren't free to do any of what I listed above.

Similarly when I say I let my players build all kinds of things in my world, it is certainly with the caveat that it has to fit into whatever I have going on behind the scenes. They can add in villages and towns but a major city can't just pop up in am area they already are familiar with.

Yeah, that sort of stuff you mention is mostly fine. But it still is effectively just a suggestion, even though the GM would accept it most of the time. They still have the veto. For example perhaps the name the player suggests doesn't match the linguistic pattern for that country, or pigs don't exist in the area etc. And yeah, having an influential family might require investing some sort of resource such as background selection to it. Granted, a mayor of a town is not necessarily a big enough deal for that.

 

[Oofta]

I am specifically thinking of backgrounds in 5e. If you picked Folk Hero then presumably you have already been the hero and aren't just a zero? Of if you pick the Noble background it seems like picking a mayor as your family seems about as low as one could go with that pick.

When I say village I mean village. I'm not saying so e player gets to declare they are the Prince of Waterdeep. If they are inventing a village whole hog to place in your world then clearly it isn't the focus of a campaign unless you would then choose to make it so.

If I created a brand new campaign world every time I wouldn't care much. In addition, most of the time a village here and there is okay. But it still has to fit because there's decades of lore which usually won't impact anything but could. I would say 90%+ of the time I don't change a thing about backgrounds other than to give people some general guidelines. If you want to be a dwarven archeologist, let's pick a clan you started from because I may have a note on who the current king is and some history of the clan. We can chat about the history of that clan and some goals, things you might be looking for in the long term.

In another case if someone picks a noble background, let's talk about why the parental units can't just give you everything you need. Are you the black sheep? The third son or daughter? Is the family noble but broke and it's now a facade? Do you want to regain the family glory or is there a dark secret and you want to take it down?

Those are the kind of things I want to discuss before the character is established.

 

[Faolyn]

Even offensive, they still qualify as innovative.

Well, halflings would no longer be farmers or foodies, as the surface world isn't able to grow food. If they want food, they're going to have to switch over to hunters, perhaps nomadic hunters. That also serves to remove the whole hearth and home aspect of halflings, since there won't be any, so those gods go away and are replaced by hunter and/or ranger gods.

Elves we could change from being a generally CG race to xenophobic protectors of wildlife, since animals would be hunted in far greater numbers now that no crops grow. We could switch them to LN and they become a generally "bad guy" race known for killing those who hunt or kill animals, and even those who stray into their protected lands.

I mean, that one 5 second idea easily grows into an extremely innovative campaign setting.

So it's farming that's impossible on the surface, but plants can still grow wild (otherwise there's be nothing to hunt, unless the food animals don't eat plants or don't eat other animals that eat plants). That suggests something is actively targeting either farmers or crops--an agricultural deity turned evil, perhaps?

 

[Maxperson]

So it's farming that's impossible on the surface, but plants can still grow wild (otherwise there's be nothing to hunt, unless the food animals don't eat plants or don't eat other animals that eat plants). That suggests something is actively targeting either farmers or crops--an agricultural deity turned evil, perhaps?

Yeah. I thought about that and it would have to target food crops and not other plants, or life would sort of end. It might extend to fruit trees and berry bushes as well, depending on what happened during the Great Spelltastrophy.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What am I or anyone else dodging?

Tyranny. In so far as it relates to RPGs. Which is really more like "control freak" or similar. And I'd say @Lanefan displays my point perfectly below. He uses the "slippery slope" of race choice (first quote below) but then later goes on about how the DM controls everything (second quote).

So the "slippery slope" isn't really the issue. It's that the DM must be in control of all things at all times. THAT'S the crux of the issue, in my opinion.

Yes it does, and that's just the issue.

When you're in a situation where players certainly aren't going to have the same characters all the way through, and the game is highly likely not to even have the same players all the way through, the best option is to set the borders up front and stick to them. Otherwise, as players' ideas and wants change over the years and each new one is introduced the end result is that inevitably, if incrementally, you will end up with a kitchen sink whether intended or not.

Nah. What's "best" is whatever most participants would enjoy. That's the only "best" we can really consider since it's so subjective.

But I still disagree with this "oh eventually you'd wind up with a kitchen sink" because I don't think every player is going to do what you're describing. If one player makes an out of the ordinary request, and that causes everyone else to do so, then I'd assume you're playing with kids and not adults. And if that's the case, then let the kids be kids and don't try to control things so much.

But if you're playing with adults, then I'd expect a pretty standard amount of "out of the ordinary" requests. The amount that any setting could handle without breaking. If it's not made of glass, at least.

And what's the actual issue? If you're suggesting that "the DM controls the rules and the setting elements, including available species" is the issue, it isn't: the DM does control the rules and setting and that control gives her the right to design and tweak said rules and setting however she wants, and to allow or ban things at her whim. The only thing she has to be is consistent; that if something's allowed it's allowed and if something's banned it's banned.

For someone who has tweaked his own version of D&D over many years so that it's only familiar to actual AD&D, you have an odd view about how things MUST BE.

Your description here is a perfectly fine way to play. There are others that are equally perfectly fine.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think anyone has said that the GM shouldn't listen player wishes at all or try to be accommodating to a certain degree. It really is about to what extent the GM is allowed to say "No, I really don't feel that is suitable for this setting/campaign premise" before getting labelled a tyrant.

Also, I think kitchen-sinkyness is related in a sense that if that's what you're used to and what your default assumption is, then adding one more intelligent species in the setting might not sound like a big deal. But that really isn't how I approach things. I think what intelligent species exist is rather foundational aspect of the setting creation, and probably among the first things to be decided, so new ones will not be added willy-nilly. Now this is not to say that new things cannot ever be introduced or the setting be expanded, but to me a new intelligent species is a major addition.

Sure. But why is this all decided ahead of time?

I'm assuming you take a very top down approach to world building, is that correct? You start broad and then begin to zoom in. So something like what races are available is something that you as DM are deciding ahead of time. And probably pantheon and classes and backgrounds and most other elements.

But why not involve the players? Why must you be deciding all these things before play actually begins? "Hey, I've started the world building for our new campaign....any requests on available races? So far I'm sticking with only a few, but let me know your thoughts."

The answer would seem to be because you've already decided ahead of time, and not much else. And while that may be perfectly fine if everyone agrees (I almost always play humans myself, so such restrictions tend not to actually interfere with my choices as a player), my point is just that it is restrictive. It actively reduces the number of choices, the amount of input, the players have on the setting.

Again, if players are indifferent to this, then it's not an issue. But if they are, I don't think that suggesting that GMs loosen their sphincters a bit and let someone play a dragonborn is a crazy idea, regardless of how it contradicts the many paragraphs the GM has written alone that no one else will read.