D&D General D&D as a Curated, DIY Game or "By the Book": Examining DM and Player Agency, and the DM as Game Designer

[Snarf Zagyg]

This isn't just about the player and the GM. Lots of players, myself included, do get annoyed when other players insist on a character concept that doesn't fit the genre or the GMs setting. Obviously there needs to be buy in with the group for the campaign to function. The more threads like this I read, the more I think that is a fundamental dividing line in the hobby more than anything else. Neither side is bad for wanting what they want. But some people do like the characters to be expected to fit the campaign concept, the world or the genre, others prefer for players to have greater say in what is a good fit.

One issue that always seems to get ignored in the conversation is that when I think of "curated" campaigns (homebrew, DIY), I am not really concentrating on exlcusion.

Yes, exclusion of some standard things does accentuate what remains. But in my experience, most DMs that go to the effort of having a curated campaign are also altering and adding things to their campaign world as well!

I feel like, far too often, people conjure up this image of some tyrant, standing athwart the PHB and the DMG, yelling, "Stop, there shall be no dragonborn here, for I do not allow them to pass through these gates to my pristine world!"

Really, though, the DMs who have spoken up have discussed (at length) the custom races and/or classes and systems that they have added to their campaign worlds. The homebrew and 3PP material that would not normally be available.

I think that this aspect gets (sadly) overlooked.

 

[Krachek]

So this is an interesting take.

In effect, you are saying that there are two "layers" of rules. What I have referred to as altering the game "mechanically" or "thematically". Am I understanding you correctly?

You would say that the DM can alter the rules that affect the game thematically to "build a world of its own" - to make decisions on a setting level. Classes, races, etc.

But not mechanically? So, assume the following. Imagine a DM that looks at the hiding/stealth/perception system. And decides, "Eh, I don't like it." And rips out the system and replaces it with a new system she designed. That's not a setting decision, that's a pure homebrew.

Or if that seems too complicated, what if the DM designs a new psionic system that isn't class-based, but cuts across classes (similar to the OD&D/1e system) and places it in 5e. Again, this is a mechanics change that can affect a lot- even the "core" of the game.

Yes indeed, home brew can be Thematic or Mechanic.
Mechanic home brew can be of various level. Slight adaptation on initiative is not game shaking. Messing around with saving throw proficiency, spell recovery or other funny ideas can change the game more heavily. The two example you give are indeed mechanical home brew and can have big impact on a game. If the new rules are nice, why not? if they bring just different problems than previous ones, maybe keep the game as it is.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is why I'm clear on setting parameters when I let people know about my game before we even have a session 0.

Technically they can ask to run a different race (it's in my intro), it just hasn't happened since my 4E campaign.

That is why I boggles my mind on the concept of DMs not explaining or giving details of a world before players agree to play. I can't stress how important campaign clarity is.

It nudges to an idea that a DM knows what the players desire and turns hard into an idea that the entire group is similar in likes and dislikes.

As time goes on, WOTC or whoever holds the D&D IP will want to grow the base. The community will get more and more diverse. And DMs will be forced to design for a diverse market of players or take input on their worlds just to be sure that players are fully interested and vested in their campaigns. Games will have to be fully sold to players in the future and not simply thrown out there.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, exclusion of some standard things does accentuate what remains. But in my experience, most DMs that go to the effort of having a curated campaign are also altering and adding things to their campaign world as well!

I don't think there's a lot of outcry from players telling DMs "Please don't add any homebrew content, we want to stick the core books only!" (Ok, I'm sure there's somebody, but it's not common.)

It doesn't get talked about a lot because it isn't controversial. Removing options is always going to be a more controversial thing to discuss, because it creates a conflict between two ideals that are generally held as good within the community (which are empowering the player to realize their specific vision, and the DM working to create a unique play experience).

 

[Krachek]

Dragonlance is pretty exclusionary, since it throws out some broad swathes of the Monster Manual. Same with Dark Sun.

I don’t think excluding Monsters or races is changing the game.
An Arthurian fantasy, or a setting inspired from Games of throne can be 100% DnD without orcs and many other monsters.
The nine hells, the abysss are not mandatory to play DnD, the Dm guide give plenty examples for other visons of the planes. Page 44.

 

[TwoSix]

I don’t think excluding Monsters or races is changing the game.
An Arthurian fantasy, or a setting inspired from Games of throne can be 100% DnD without orcs and many other monsters.
The nine hells, the abysss are not mandatory to play DnD, the Dm guide give plenty examples for other visons of the planes. Page 44.

I agree, excluding monsters and races isn't changing the game.

 

[Oofta]

That is why I boggles my mind on the concept of DMs not explaining or giving details of a world before players agree to play. I can't stress how important campaign clarity is.

It nudges to an idea that a DM knows what the players desire and turns hard into an idea that the entire group is similar in likes and dislikes.

As time goes on, WOTC or whoever holds the D&D IP will want to grow the base. The community will get more and more diverse. And DMs will be forced to design for a diverse market of players or take input on their worlds just to be sure that players are fully interested and vested in their campaigns. Games will have to be fully sold to players in the future and not simply thrown out there.

Obviously I think a DM should be open about what kind of campaign they run. But I fundamentally disagree with the "forced to design for a diverse market". Maybe that's true in your neck of the woods, but it's not in mine. I've never had a problem finding players wherever I lived.

My current group has a mix of ages including two that are in their 20s. Heck, I wish I could lose a few players because I prefer a smaller group but when people left (because of schedules/moving out of state) my players invited friends and family.

I don't see how players could ever be fully interested and vested in my campaign if I'm not fully interested and vested in my own campaign. A DM being invested and excited about their campaign matters more to me than what options they allow or disallow.

 

[Krachek]

Dragonlance is pretty exclusionary, since it throws out some broad swathes of the Monster Manual. Same with Dark Sun.

I don’t think excluding Monsters or races is changing the game.
An Arthurian fantasy, or a setting inspired from Games of throne can be 100% DnD without orcs and many other monsters.
The nine hells, the abysss are not mandatory to play DnD, the Dm guide give plenty examples for other visons of the planes. Page 44.

Obviously I think a DM should be open about what kind of campaign they run. But I fundamentally disagree with the "forced to design for a diverse market". Maybe that's true in your neck of the woods, but it's not in mine. I've never had a problem finding players wherever I lived.

My current group has a mix of ages including two that are in their 20s. Heck, I wish I could lose a few players because I prefer a smaller group but when people left (because of schedules/moving out of state) my players invited friends and family.

I don't see how players could ever be fully interested and vested in my campaign if I'm not fully interested and vested in my own campaign. A DM being invested and excited about their campaign matters more to me than what options they allow or disallow.

i believe that players are smart enough to make difference between a control freak DM vs the one who has an unusual story world to share. Sadly they are sometimes the same person.

 

[Don Durito]

That is why I boggles my mind on the concept of DMs not explaining or giving details of a world before players agree to play. I can't stress how important campaign clarity is.

It nudges to an idea that a DM knows what the players desire and turns hard into an idea that the entire group is similar in likes and dislikes.

As time goes on, WOTC or whoever holds the D&D IP will want to grow the base. The community will get more and more diverse. And DMs will be forced to design for a diverse market of players or take input on their worlds just to be sure that players are fully interested and vested in their campaigns. Games will have to be fully sold to players in the future and not simply thrown out there.

Yes. I agree. But is also boggles my mind that players would sign up to play a game and make a character and not care about the details of the world of the intended theme of the campaign.

Yet this is much more common.

 

[prabe]

Yes. I agree. But is also boggles my mind that players would sign up to play a game and make a character and not care about the details of the world of the intended theme of the campaign.

Yet this is much more common.

I have little doubt there are more bad players than bad DMs, in absolute numbers--there are more players than DMs--but I don't think the percentages are all that much different. Which might not be disagreeing with you.