D&D 5E When lore and PC options collide…

[Maxperson]

if ever there was a race worthy of a all campaign ban it would be kender...

I've only seen a kender played once and the player did a fantastic job of playing one without being super annoying or getting everyone in trouble.

 

[Oofta]

Right, and if they were simply writing fiction, then I’d say nothing more needs to be said about it. But since they’re not writing fiction, but instead establishing fictional details for players to interact with, I’d say it’s not really enough.

If there’s a compelling reason for some race or class to be excluded, that’s one thing. But just “I don’t like dragonborn so they don’t exist” is another.

Then we're just going to have to disagree. I don't want to run a kitchen sink campaign in my home game. It has little to do with whether I "like" dragonborn or not, although there are some races I think are a bit silly. Then again, I like silly occasionally just not in my home campaign world.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What is "a compelling reason" and to whom it needs to be compelling?

To the people involved. And I’d say at it’s lowest, the bar should be above “because I don’t like it”.

If there’s more to it, then at least we’ve moved beyond a mere clash of preferences and into something more.

And when I design worlds, I feel it is far more sensible to start from the opposite direct: only include the things that there are compelling reason to include. I find the whole idea that settings must include everything as default utterly bizarre, and it seems to mostly be some sort of weird D&D (and D&D-derivative) related phenomenon. (Though thankfully not one I've encountered in the real life.)

I think you’re mistaking “allow the player what they’d like” to mean the same thing as “allow everything”.

 

[Oofta]

Then stop doing all the work. It really is that simple.


It really isn't that much.


Surely not whatever conditions the DM sets? I find it unlikely that even the most stridently hyper-restrictive DM thinks that literally anything the DM might think to demand is perfectly acceptable.


Sure. That doesn't explain--to say nothing about justifying--the levels of petulance or pettiness explicitly described in this thread.

People get mad at me when I talk about how it seems like a significant subset of DMs get their jollies banning stuff just so other people can't have it. And then we get threads like this one that remind me why I think that.

Been there, done that with collaborative campaign world design, got the crappy t-shirt that didn't even fit. Like many things designed by committee there were tarrasque sized holes in lore, the world wasn't particularly compelling and overall it was a failure. Maybe it works for some people, I've never seen it.

But "DMs get their jollies banning stuff"? Really? Yes, I ban things only to chuckle maniacally at the poor puppet players that I have chained to my table from 10-5 on weekends once a month. Good grief.

 

[Xamnam]

So on this, I’m going to propose a hypothetical question. I’m assuming that your approach works fine and your players have been cool with it and there’s no issues. So what I’m about to ask is not about any specific game.

Maybe each DM has to consider that the only person who really cares about the lore of their homebrew world is them? Maybe if an orc showed up and there had never been such a creatire before, the DM is anxious because how do you reconcile that? Why is this just coming up now? What impacts will it have? All that stuff… maybe the players don’t remotely care.

As I mentioned over in the immersion thread, one of my favorite things, no matter what style of game I'm playing, is exploring the world. If a DM creates a world that I have not experienced before, sincere interest is my way of both respecting and showing gratitude for the gift they've spent time crafting for me. Even if they made it for themselves initially, they're still sharing their passion with me. I get excited when I feel the need to ask a question that's not necessary for gameplay, but I'm too curious to ignore, and joy when I see their face light up with surprise and eagerness to share more.

Maybe some players don't remotely care. Maybe some players care a lot. Most are probably scattered between those two poles. Can we point to anything that shows prioritizing one of these groups is worth the expense of the other? I don't think we can, at least not to the degree where there can be any sort of general advice whether caring about the details of a homebrew setting is "worth" it or not.

 

[overgeeked]

Been there, done that with collaborative campaign world design, got the crappy t-shirt that didn't even fit. Like many things designed by committee there were tarrasque sized holes in lore, the world wasn't particularly compelling and overall it was a failure. Maybe it works for some people, I've never seen it.

But "DMs get their jollies banning stuff"? Really? Yes, I ban things only to chuckle maniacally at the poor puppet players that I have chained to my table from 10-5 on weekends once a month. Good grief.

But didn’t you hear, unless the DM does whatever the players want they’re a toxic, terrible DM.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, I ban things only to chuckle maniacally at the poor puppet players that I have chained to my table from 10-5 on weekends once a month. Good grief.

You still use chains?? Come on, man, it's the 21st century. I use shock collars--they can't wander farther than the kitchen or bathroom that way.

They're great and I highly recommend ones with a variable allowance for distance they can go.

 

[Oofta]

Compromise is the first step, of course. It’s what I’d attempt and what I’d expect and hope for by others. I don’t know if everyone agrees, based on many of the responses, but I’ve been approaching this conversation with that as a given.

The way @overgeeked set the poll up, with only two options, implies only one can be chosen, so to me, the question is about what to do when some compromise can’t be reached.

Personally, I’d give the player what they want. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter and as I’ve said many times now, real people are more important to me than fake ones.

Also, if it’s a case where I’ve decided 99% of the setting, I’m probably gonna be okay if this one time it turns out to be only 98%.



I suppose we should examine that a bit… why does the DM put in all that work?

Because you want a consistent world that makes sense that includes lore that can be revealed as a surprise because discovering the world is a big part of the fun for players. At least it is for me. I occasionally reveal some bit of lore that I've known about recently (how orcs are created) and one of my players actually interrupted while I was looking up some notes to tell me how awesome it was.

Maybe the answer to that question will reveal something.



Sure, why not?



So on this, I’m going to propose a hypothetical question. I’m assuming that your approach works fine and your players have been cool with it and there’s no issues. So what I’m about to ask is not about any specific game.

Maybe each DM has to consider that the only person who really cares about the lore of their homebrew world is them? Maybe if an orc showed up and there had never been such a creatire before, the DM is anxious because how do you reconcile that? Why is this just coming up now? What impacts will it have? All that stuff… maybe the players don’t remotely care.

Or maybe they will. Maybe I've had multiple players over the years praise the world that I've built for them and are amazed at the depth of lore. Maybe, just maybe people have told me that one of the things that make my games so fun and enjoyable is that the world just makes sense.

As you say, they’re likely not as invested in it. They haven’t put in the hours and the effort! So of course they’re not going to care as much.

So this hypothetical DM… or all of us, really… should consider these tough questions and then maybe revisit the one I asked above… why does the DM put in all that effort?

Right. I've never thought about this stuff. Never tried it. Oh wait, except when I have. It did not work.

I used to think more along these lines, but these days, nope… people show up for a game and that’s all of our time. If I choose to spend hours and hours in between sessions, that’s my choice. It certainly isn't necessary to run a game. No one owes me for that, beyond basic respect.

I was essentially the forever GM for nearly 20 years and about three years ago, I said I wanted to just play for a while. Other people have stepped in and have been DMing since, and I’ve been regularly running other games (with a short five session return to D&D).

Just like there are other players, there are other DMs, and other games. I don’t really consider anyone at the table more important than any other.

So you get to play. And? I don't see any connection. My wife and I do share a common world, but she has her segregated region and I have mine. She uses my lore and if there's any question on overlap we try to work it out ahead of time but if it comes up during the game I make the final call.

If collaborative world building works for you, great. Fantastic. I work with people to come up with background and stories about what happens in their downtime. But they always double check with me to ensure that it fits. Collaborative world building is not the default assumption and never has been. I've been in campaigns where we tried it, it didn't work nearly as well as campaigns that the DM designed the world. When I play, I want to explore and experience, not double check what we had written in committee meeting #27.

 

[Scribe]

Poor, poor beleaguered DMs. They only have absolute power--as several posters here are so eager to point out. Whatever will they do? How will they be protected from the nasty, cruel players who do things like "asking to play things they like" and "not being happy about capricious, arbitrary decisions"?!

Talk about completely unnecessary, inflammatory hyperbole.

Quite.

If a person wants to put together a game, wants to either build out a world or, God forbid, use one that has a history already, and either of those choices provide a framework in which not every single option is available, this is hardly some great sin. There is no justification required here.

 

[Oofta]

You still use chains?? Come on, man, it's the 21st century. I use shock collars--they can't wander farther than the kitchen or bathroom that way.

They're great and I highly recommend ones with a variable allowance for distance they can go.

Yeah, but then you have to set up the security fence perimeter and double check batteries. Next thing you know you accidentally zapped Bob one too many times because they used the wrong bathroom and then you have to dig that hole in the back yard to bury the body. Bright side, you get rid of Bob. But all the paperwork with the city to verify where all the pipes and cable are? It's just too much hassle.