D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[TwoSix]

Well, I didn't want to chime in on this specific because it would make me seem intolerable in general. If it is in the packet that I sent you head of time, then coming to the table wanting to change it is a no go for me. Just don't come to the table. I'm not forcing anyone into a campaign. I suppose if no one shows up I will propose another campaign idea.

There are though other things that are more nuanced. For example, a special background. Even a connection to some famous NPC would be okay to figure out. Those are all things that can fit into the existing concept.

I find players that show up already opposing the campaign idea are people best bypassed.

Do you consider adding details a "change"? Like, I don't view my "dragon blooded dwarves" idea as a real change from the presented "Dragonborn dwarves are a clan of dwarves" initial presentation. It's just a deepening or fleshing out of a short blurb.

 

[Emerikol]

Do you consider adding details a "change"? Like, I don't view my "dragon blooded dwarves" idea as a real change from the presented "Dragonborn dwarves are a clan of dwarves" initial presentation. It's just a deepening or fleshing out of a short blurb.

That would depend on how central to my campaign the dwarves are. If I've detailed out every tribe, because they factor majorly in my campaign then yes I might hesitate. Of course, you can just assume they are some very small crackpot splinter group that lives in one region of the world. They would still be dwarves though mechanically. It would be flavor if accepted.

I just don't know why players independent of a campaign try to come up with a character idea and then want to force it into a game. Why not get with the DM, get the ideas behind the campaign, and then lean heavily into the idea. Those players are the ones that make the campaign a lot better.

 

[Emerikol]

Do you consider adding details a "change"? Like, I don't view my "dragon blooded dwarves" idea as a real change from the presented "Dragonborn dwarves are a clan of dwarves" initial presentation. It's just a deepening or fleshing out of a short blurb.

Let me give you an example of a good player.

I had detailed a pantheon of God in my campaign world. One player chose to be a cleric of that particular God. I had some stuff detailed out for that God but not everything. The player asked if he could flesh out some stuff. I said sure but let me approve it first. It turned out great because it leaned into the campaign idea.

 

[clearstream]

A) External cause - if the goal of play is to simulate the player being their character then they should as the player only effect the fiction through their character. While reading the runes would count, establishing what they runes mean (or influencing that by establishing it on a success) would be out. Making a single ability that essentially does both is as far as I can tell design intended to obscure that this is actually occurring. The more External Cause occurs the more simulative the game is.

By "external" do you mean something equivalent to "diegetic"?

 

[FrogReaver]

By "external" do you mean something equivalent to "diegetic"?

In this context it would be external to the player. So DM or System produced. For some meanings of diegetic that might count. I don't think diegetic is doing a great job of communicating this concept since film uses it to talk about things that would be the equivalent of outside the fiction elements of the experience. Approaching from that perspective clouds what we might otherwise mean by diegetic. So I want to avoid that term.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let me give you an example of a good player.

I had detailed a pantheon of God in my campaign world. One player chose to be a cleric of that particular God. I had some stuff detailed out for that God but not everything. The player asked if he could flesh out some stuff. I said sure but let me approve it first. It turned out great because it leaned into the campaign idea.

That is an excellent example of collaboration. All those steps. How does that sound to you @EzekielRaiden ? Does that pass your sniff test?

 

[Emerikol]

I will also add that as DM, when I am thinking about an idea but haven't fleshed it out that much, I ask potential players what they think. I might even ask if they have any campaign flavors they've really been wanting to try out as a player. I might do this as a campaign is wrapping up. Do you guys have a burning desire for some type of campaign? That doesn't mean I'm bound but it is input and I don't generally ignore input. So if a guy said he wanted an island hopping pirate flavored campaign and other players thought the idea good, then I might put in an archipelago with lots of pirate hideouts etc...

 

[TwoSix]

That would depend on how central to my campaign the dwarves are. If I've detailed out every tribe, because they factor majorly in my campaign then yes I might hesitate. Of course, you can just assume they are some very small crackpot splinter group that lives in one region of the world. They would still be dwarves though mechanically. It would be flavor if accepted.

Assume it wasn't a major factor in your campaign. Let's say you have a large setting gazetteer, like Forgotten Realms, with over a hundred pages of setting background and various nations and regions. And that this dwarf clan was a two-sentence mention in one of the region descriptions.

If a player came to you and said, basically, "I want to take this loosely-fleshed out description and change it up a bit as background for my next character", why not just allow that?

 

[TwoSix]

That is an excellent example of collaboration. All those steps. How does that sound to you @EzekielRaiden ? Does that pass your sniff test?

I can't speak for @EzekielRaiden, but for me, it would depend on how much leeway I'm allowed. If it's just "make up some holy days and ritual practices", that's not really a ton of input. Can I make up a holy order? Can I have input into their beliefs? Can I tweak the alignment, like say this LG god is really more LN?

Like, it's pretty core to me that I play a character that's my idea, not the GM's idea. I generally don't want the GM to make a setting that has PC concept-shaped holes that I'm expected to fill as a player.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can't speak for @EzekielRaiden, but for me, it would depend on how much leeway I'm allowed. If it's just "make up some holy days and ritual practices", that's not really a ton of input. Can I make up a holy order? Can I have input into their beliefs? Can I tweak the alignment, like say this LG god is really more LN?

Like, it's pretty core to me that I play a character that's my idea, not the GM's idea. I generally don't want the GM to make a setting that has PC concept-shaped holes that I'm expected to fill as a player.

Do you think you should be allowed as a player to make significant changes to previously established world lore (established by the GM's worldbuilding efforts) so that your personal character concept can exist exactly as you envision it? Can you explain further what you mean by, "a character that's my idea, not the GM's idea"?