Campaign Settings and DM Strictures, the POLL

[Mort]

Yeah, that was already said. I was replying to explain that it goes both ways.

This reply has me thinking. Sorry if it goes deeper then you intended:

Does it though?

A DM is expected to present a coherent, integrated world. One which multiple PCs move through, interact with and otherwise experience.

A player is expected to show up and hopefully know the abilities and rules for his character.

Now, a player can work with the DM. Enthusiastically follow plots, create opportunities for the DM to show more of his world, suggest areas of interest so the DM knows where to focus and develop. A player or group can definitely make the campaign more or less fun.

But the roles are not in any way equal.

 

[lluewhyn]

I think there are two big problems with kender.
The first is that one of the most beloved characters in Dragonlance was a kender and presented as the archetype, so many people want to just play another Tasselhof.
The second is that so few people remember what it's like to be young children.

I'd agree with the first at least, with the problem. However, from what I remember of the 1st and 2nd Edition Dragonlance books, along with the novels, Kender were typically described as being like Tasslehoff, especially as first introduced. He ends up being more introspective and serious as the books progress due to his experiences.

My main problem with them is by design and by my experience seeing them in tabletop, Kender characters end up being annoying, "it's all about MEEE" characters in a group that will derail the rest of the team with their shenanigans and impulsivity. People tend to forget that Tasslehoff partially got away with acting the way he did because of the medium and writer fiat- the rest of the companions liked him and tolerated his company because the authors say they did. There's no guarantee of that happening when someone creates a Kender for a D&D game. In theory, they could say, "I want to make a Kender, but I want to make him fit and gel with the group* so everyone enjoys me playing this character", but I've yet to see this happen in a game.

*I've at least occasionally seen that with people playing evil characters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This reply has me thinking. Sorry if it goes deeper then you intended:

Does it though?

A DM is expected to present a coherent, integrated world. One which multiple PCs move through, interact with and otherwise experience.

A player is expected to show up and hopefully know the abilities and rules for his character.

Now, a player can work with the DM. Enthusiastically follow plots, create opportunities for the DM to show more of his world, suggest areas of interest so the DM knows where to focus and develop. A player or group can definitely make the campaign more or less fun.

But the roles are not in any way equal.

That’s a good question. I don’t know if it has an easy answer because everyone’s game is different. The amount of input that the players have on the game world will vary, and as a result so will the DM’s. I’ve played in games at both ends of the spectrum, where the DM decides everything about the world and dictates all options, and where all the participants collaboratively create the game world together, and at every point in between. I have my preference, but I wouldn’t say that any approach along that spectrum is guaranteed to result in either a good or bad game.

But as someone who used to be more on the DM Control end of the spectrum, and who has moved much closer to the other end, all I can say is my worries about setting integrity and all that stuff have pretty much vanished. I just don’t think it’s as big a risk as I used to think it would be. In fact, coming up with reasons for seemingly strange elements has proven to be a rewarding part of the game, and has yielded some of my table’s most memorable characters and stories.

My players are responsible for a good deal of the content in our game. As a DM, I no longer craft a world from top down, detailing everything from the gods to the towns to the guilds and everything in between. Now, I create a sketch and then rely on my players to help fill in the details through their characters and concepts they bring to the table. I’ve found that this actually makes us all more invested in the world, and creates a kind of creativity feedback where our ideas play off each other and inspire new ideas and so on.

So I just think that DMs sometimes need to hear that message. You can change your setting to accommodate the players. I agree that a player can indeed change their idea to better fit a game. All I’m saying is that so can a DM.

I don’t know if that’s me saying that the roles are equal. I do think that DMs tend to put in more work by default, even if the worldbuilding is heavily shared. Of course, the DMs who’ve written a 25 page campaign guide and predetermined every detail about the world are going to have put in a lot more work.

And I think that maybe all that effort is what’s being defended in this thread. Which is understandable, I suppose.

But what about the enjoyment each participant gets from the game? Shouldn’t that be equal? Just as it would from almost any other social event.

 

[Mort]

But what about the enjoyment each participant gets from the game? Shouldn’t that be equal? Just as it would from almost any other social event.

Absolutely, everyone at the table should be having fun!

That's actually another great use of a session 0. For everyone to express what they'd like for the campaign, and to state what they're willing to put in.

Always best to know what peoples expectations, tensions, limits, etc. are.

 

[aco175]

2nd: I don't have to work with a player concerning things I don't like. They have to accept that if they want to play in a game I DM, then xyz aren't options.

Wow, this says a lot. I'm not sure I ever played like this. I do agree with what a lot of people are saying about discussing things in session 0 and most things can be worked out, but I think I have been blessed with good friends and players to not need this approach.

 

[robus]

For me thematic integrity is pretty major which is why FR bugs me because it’s basically an “anything goes” setting. I also don’t want evil PCs so it was an easy 4 vote for me

 

[MechaPilot]

I appreciate the question the OP is asking, but I don't think the answers we can choose from are very good. For example, to some degree, I agree with 3, 4 & 5. I should be able to set limits based on things like the campaign setting; I should be able to limit who at the table can play an evil character based on my experience with their ability not to be complete jerk in doing so, and I should be able to make modifications as play progresses if something proves to be a problem.

However, while I agree with part of 5, it also (by the lack of mentioning any collaboration or discussion with the players) describes a situation that I would consider to be in very bad form. Yes, I should be able to modify things as the sessions progress. But, if I didn't come up with some valid reasons why the things I want to modify are a problem and didn't have a sit-down discussion with the player of that character about what the problem is, what's creating it, how I'd like to fix it, and what input the player has on proposed changes, I'd consider myself a pretty awful DM.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As a response to the example of a player really wanting to play a tiefling in an upcoming game and then finding out the setting they would be using doesn't have them... and that the DM should really find a way to bring that tiefling idea into the game...

...I personally think that's a false argument. Because more often than not, I believe that player doesn't ACTUALLY want to play a tiefling. What they WANT is to play with a certain number of squiggly lines on a character sheet and roll a certain type of dice. They want to play the mechanics that they get from the tiefling but don't actually care about roleplaying the race itself.

Because if they DID want to play the race and all the roleplaying that comes along with playing a tiefling... they would have actually read the setting guide to see how the tieflings as a race fit within that setting so that they could get an idea of how they would go about roleplaying it. And had they done that... they would discover that there wasn't a place for tieflings, and they would actually care that what they hoped to roleplay about being a descendant from an infernal/human union would never be addressed because the pair just didn't exist. Being a "tiefling" would never actually come up, and the character would essential end up being played just like a human except the squiggly lines on the character sheet would be different-- the letters and numbers that make up the different abilities of the tiefling versus the human. If you want to play a tiefling that badly, I presume its because you wish to actually address what it means to BE a tiefling. And if that never actually comes up, why would you actually want to waste your time playing that character in that world at that point?

I'll be perfectly frank... I have seen very few players who have ever thought about, looked at, or played the actual racial differences that comes from being a non-human race. Like, no one who has ever played an elf has truly tried to get into the idea of being an extremely long-living race. What that means, the psychology behind it, how it affects them. Instead, you look around the table and an outside observer would have a very difficult time distinguishing any character as being non-human based upon the roleplaying, because everyone just essential roleplays character personality. Is that gruff-speaking character a dwarf, or just an irritated human? You can't tell. So the need of a player to HAVE to play this exotic race that doesn't fall within the world they are living in is unnecessary and really goes against what they are CLAIMING is important to them and the reason why they want to play it.

If you claim you want and need to play a certain race... but truth be told what you end up playing is no different than how you would play that character if they were human... then what tells me is that underneath everything all you really want is just to the different mechanics. The ability score boost. The racial feature. The squiggly lines and numbers that allow you to roll different dice. And if that's the case, then no, I have no problem in saying to the player they should choose the squiggly lines and the different dice that actually fit within the world I have set up.

 

[Jester David]

That’s a good question. I don’t know if it has an easy answer because everyone’s game is different. The amount of input that the players have on the game world will vary, and as a result so will the DM’s. I’ve played in games at both ends of the spectrum, where the DM decides everything about the world and dictates all options, and where all the participants collaboratively create the game world together, and at every point in between. I have my preference, but I wouldn’t say that any approach along that spectrum is guaranteed to result in either a good or bad game.

Which raises an interesting alternative.
What happens if, during the collaborative worldbuilding, when one player says "No orcs. They're overdone."
Is it still okay for the player to argue about bringing in a half-orc then?

My players are responsible for a good deal of the content in our game. As a DM, I no longer craft a world from top down, detailing everything from the gods to the towns to the guilds and everything in between. Now, I create a sketch and then rely on my players to help fill in the details through their characters and concepts they bring to the table. I’ve found that this actually makes us all more invested in the world, and creates a kind of creativity feedback where our ideas play off each other and inspire new ideas and so on.

Making an expansive campaign setting is how I "play" the game and engage in the hobby between sessions. It's the DM equivalent of making builds and testing characters. Lonely fun.

I've seen collaborative worldbuilding work quite well.
I've also seen it fail. Where the players just want to play and have no interest, freezing like a deer in headlights, and the one or two creative players end up dominating the worldbuilding. (They also seldom make sense. Kingdoms and terrain placed randomly and developing over time, and are seldom logically situated.)

I also think you lose some of the continuity you gain from having a DM created worlds. Where the actions of your campaign and the players can affect the world for an extended time, and even be encountered by future campaigns or even other groups. The success or failure of the party matters: you don't just win and then sweep the board clean.

So I just think that DMs sometimes need to hear that message. You can change your setting to accommodate the players. I agree that a player can indeed change their idea to better fit a game. All I’m saying is that so can a DM.

Story time from my current game. Just to emphasise that I do understand.
My campaign setting is one I wrote in 2e and heavily revised during 4e. A player has decided to retire their PC and bring in a new one, and be a tortle druid. Tortles not being a race I really considered or incorporated into the world. It's super awkward just having turtle people running around.
(The player asked to play a tortle in part because when he ran the Tortle Package adventure as a one-shot when another player was MIA for a month, and I painted four tortle minis for him to use in that game. And so he wanted to keep using one.)
But that's not a big deal. It's easy to add a tortle. Especially when the motives are known and, well, pure. It's not like it was just the most optimal race to synergize with his build, or he wanted to be special and unique in a lazy way so he wanted to be the only tortle on the planet.

I don’t know if that’s me saying that the roles are equal. I do think that DMs tend to put in more work by default, even if the worldbuilding is heavily shared. Of course, the DMs who’ve written a 25 page campaign guide and predetermined every detail about the world are going to have put in a lot more work.

25 pages. That's cute.
Mine is sitting at 170-pages and I plan on sending it to a PoD site to be printed as a physical book I can place on the shelves alongside my other D&D settings.

(Of course, the moment I do it becomes out of date, as the actions of the PCs will change things and shift the world.)

But what about the enjoyment each participant gets from the game? Shouldn’t that be equal? Just as it would from almost any other social event.

Which assumes all the other players are neutral in these matters.
Which might not be the case, especially if playing in a publish setting.
Almost every published D&D setting has limits. Dragonlance and Dark Sun have class and race limits. Mystara doesn't have gods. Even Eberron, the sinkiest of kitchen sinks, has dragonmarks tied to certain houses.

And that's presuming you're not doing something like Adventures in Middle Earth. To say nothing about non-D&D games like a Marvel Heroic Roleplaying or Star Trek Adventures.
Players playing what they want has to have limits. If the group has decided to play AiME then you shouldn't push to play a dragonborn cleric. If you're playing Marvel Heroic you shouldn't demand to be Batman. And if you're doing STA, you shouldn't request to play a wookie. This isn't unreasonable that you should try and fit the world and tone of the game.

Just like if the group has decided to play a gritty horror campaign, you shouldn't play a halfling bard named Sprinkles Von Toot Toot.

 

[Draegn]

My game is a combination of option three and four which I explained during our session zero at character creation. For example the area the game started in was described in terms of population as being 30% human, 25% halfling, 20% gnome, 15% dwarfs where a third of the dwarfs hate elves, the remaining 10% comprised of the other races who are generally relegated to menial and hard manual labour.

I explained the basic economy. In short how the local nobles earn their coin.

I explained that as a house rule, that "warlocks" have glowing marks somewhere on their body of certain sizes (higher level spells have larger marks) that are "brands" given by the powers denoting possession. Overwhelmingly the powers are infernal.

All this because the game is cooperative with the GM/DM/Referee have the final say.