D&D as humanocetric ... or not?

[Lanefan]

I think the issue is the same, really, whichever way you look at it. Is the player’s character concept the only way they can have fun? Probably not. Is the DM’s setting so original and specific that it can’t handle something a bit out of the ordinary? Probably not.

Taken in isolation this is completely true.

The problems arise only when the perfect storm hits: you-as-DM have prepped an ancient Greek setting with a campy Hercules-Xena flavour to it, hoping for - but not insisting on - mostly Human and mostly warrior characters to fight the warlord-of-the-week, but each player has for whatever reason (and independently!) this time decided to go off the farm in char-gen. So, after the roll-up session you're presented with a Gnome Artificer* whose solution to everything is to build some crazy device; a Tiefling Rogue** whose mission is to steal 1000 g.p. worth of loot in order to prove herself to her clan; an Arctic Elf Ranger whose goal is simply to get home to the northern icefields; and a sodden Dwarven Cleric (to the god of beer, natch!) who most of the time is too drunk to stand up***.

* - named Heath Robinson, of course
** - shouldn't this race-class combination just be called Thiefling?
*** - dibs on playing this one!

Were I the DM here I'd probably stand back, shake my head, and then go ahead and run it anyway; establishing the intended flavour of the campaign as far as I could while hoping I could get lucky and kill off some of these wingnuts in short order.

 

[Zardnaar]

Taken in isolation this is completely true.

The problems arise only when the perfect storm hits: you-as-DM have prepped an ancient Greek setting with a campy Hercules-Xena flavour to it, hoping for - but not insisting on - mostly Human and mostly warrior characters to fight the warlord-of-the-week, but each player has for whatever reason (and independently!) this time decided to go off the farm in char-gen. So, after the roll-up session you're presented with a Gnome Artificer* whose solution to everything is to build some crazy device; a Tiefling Rogue** whose mission is to steal 1000 g.p. worth of loot in order to prove herself to her clan; an Arctic Elf Ranger whose goal is simply to get home to the northern icefields; and a sodden Dwarven Cleric (to the god of beer, natch!) who most of the time is too drunk to stand up***.

* - named Heath Robinson, of course
** - shouldn't this race-class combination just be called Thiefling?
*** - dibs on playing this one!

Were I the DM here I'd probably stand back, shake my head, and then go ahead and run it anyway; establishing the intended flavour of the campaign as far as I could while hoping I could get lucky and kill off some of these wingnuts in short order.

Well there's that Odyssey if the Dragonlords.

I would probably remove some phb races in such a setting and add in Minotaurs, centaurs etc as playable races.

A sailor background, cleric of one of the Olympian gods, things like that.

If it was built from the ground up to incorporate the other races maybe.

But yeah if you join a game "inspired by ancient Greece" get with the program" or don't join IMHO.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Taken in isolation this is completely true.

The problems arise only when the perfect storm hits: you-as-DM have prepped an ancient Greek setting with a campy Hercules-Xena flavour to it, hoping for - but not insisting on - mostly Human and mostly warrior characters to fight the warlord-of-the-week, but each player has for whatever reason (and independently!) this time decided to go off the farm in char-gen. So, after the roll-up session you're presented with a Gnome Artificer* whose solution to everything is to build some crazy device; a Tiefling Rogue** whose mission is to steal 1000 g.p. worth of loot in order to prove herself to her clan; an Arctic Elf Ranger whose goal is simply to get home to the northern icefields; and a sodden Dwarven Cleric (to the god of beer, natch!) who most of the time is too drunk to stand up***.

* - named Heath Robinson, of course
** - shouldn't this race-class combination just be called Thiefling?
*** - dibs on playing this one!

Were I the DM here I'd probably stand back, shake my head, and then go ahead and run it anyway; establishing the intended flavour of the campaign as far as I could while hoping I could get lucky and kill off some of these wingnuts in short order.

Yeah, stuff happens. In a crazy situation like this, if I was very attached to my faux-Greek setting, I’d likely put it aside for another time. If not, then sure, why not run it as is and see what happens?

I mean, if the setting is so interesting, it’d probably be good for more than one campaign, right?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah, but even without any backstories involved, "soap opera" can just as much arise out of what happens during play. Once the PCs get to know each other, in-party romances, jealousies, flirts, couplings, breakups, pranks, etc., etc. are all fair game; and IMO it does the game a dis-service if these things aren't given time to play out in character.

That, and if I'm playing a character for any length of time it's nearly inevitable I'm going to want to explore it and figure out what makes it tick, and then roleplay the results.

That said, there's a difference between a) playing one's character and b) using one's character to try and sort out real-life issues; the latter rarely ends well.

I don’t really understand where the whole idea that anyone is “working out” any issues based on anything in this thread. It’s...just odd?

 

[Zardnaar]

I don’t really understand where the whole idea that anyone is “working out” any issues based on anything in this thread. It’s...just odd?

Previous post made the arguementvtgay D&D is an escape from reality which gives them the right to play whatever.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, stuff happens. In a crazy situation like this, if I was very attached to my faux-Greek setting, I’d likely put it aside for another time. If not, then sure, why not run it as is and see what happens?

I mean, if the setting is so interesting, it’d probably be good for more than one campaign, right?

What I'd hope for would be to turn the party makeup over to something more normal as time went on and characters died or retired and were replaced. If after the first half an adventure I was left with only one of the initial wingnuts and three more normal characters I'd be cool with it (a highly likely outcome, given as their initial lineup included no warriors in what would be a battle-heavy setting)

For me, 'setting' and 'campaign' are one and the same; my campaigns tend to be many-year multi-party multi-storyline affairs all in the same setting. Then for a new campaign I'll dream up a new setting (mostly because I usually want to also seriously mess with the game rules, and to do that to an existing setting IMO largely invalidates whatever's already happened there).

 

[hawkeyefan]

What I'd hope for would be to turn the party makeup over to something more normal as time went on and characters died or retired and were replaced. If after the first half an adventure I was left with only one of the initial wingnuts and three more normal characters I'd be cool with it (a highly likely outcome, given as their initial lineup included no warriors in what would be a battle-heavy setting)

Hm that doesn’t sound very neutral of you.

For me, 'setting' and 'campaign' are one and the same; my campaigns tend to be many-year multi-party multi-storyline affairs all in the same setting. Then for a new campaign I'll dream up a new setting (mostly because I usually want to also seriously mess with the game rules, and to do that to an existing setting IMO largely invalidates whatever's already happened there).

Right...this was kind of my point. If the setting that’s been made is interesting, then it can be used for more than one campaign.

If the faix-Greek setting you used in your example is interesting, then the players will be willing to continue playing in that setting. If it’s not, then they won’t.

 

[Hussar]

I've come to the realization that no matter what I say, my players will come to the table with whatever character idea they've come up with on their own anyway. My Thule game was "No casters" and the first three character concepts were all full casters (oh, I'm just the only one). My Greyhawk game, as I mentioned, has a firbolg and an orc. Not a single character is actually from the Saltmarsh area or has any direct links to the Saltmarsh area. My Dragonheist game, as I mentioned, has a talking skeleton and a warforged.

Sigh.

I've found that no matter what, the players do not give the slightest crap about the setting. So, I either get new players, which I don't want to do, or I adapt and overcome.

This whole "the setting fidelity matters" thing is a DM bugaboo (something I'm somewhat guilty of) and, honestly, players don't seem to care in the slightest. Someone upthread mentioned needing a place for Samurai to come from if you add a Samurai to the Egypt game. Nope. No one cares. The players could not give the slightest crap about it. So, let it go and roll with it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've come to the realization that no matter what I say, my players will come to the table with whatever character idea they've come up with on their own anyway. My Thule game was "No casters" and the first three character concepts were all full casters (oh, I'm just the only one). My Greyhawk game, as I mentioned, has a firbolg and an orc. Not a single character is actually from the Saltmarsh area or has any direct links to the Saltmarsh area. My Dragonheist game, as I mentioned, has a talking skeleton and a warforged.

Sigh.

I've found that no matter what, the players do not give the slightest crap about the setting. So, I either get new players, which I don't want to do, or I adapt and overcome.

This whole "the setting fidelity matters" thing is a DM bugaboo (something I'm somewhat guilty of) and, honestly, players don't seem to care in the slightest. Someone upthread mentioned needing a place for Samurai to come from if you add a Samurai to the Egypt game. Nope. No one cares. The players could not give the slightest crap about it. So, let it go and roll with it.

Hence why limiting options is a good idea IMHO.

Players that okay ball get plotline s, inspiration and treasure customized for them the ones that don't well don't.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've come to the realization that no matter what I say, my players will come to the table with whatever character idea they've come up with on their own anyway. My Thule game was "No casters" and the first three character concepts were all full casters (oh, I'm just the only one). My Greyhawk game, as I mentioned, has a firbolg and an orc. Not a single character is actually from the Saltmarsh area or has any direct links to the Saltmarsh area. My Dragonheist game, as I mentioned, has a talking skeleton and a warforged.

Sigh.

I've found that no matter what, the players do not give the slightest crap about the setting. So, I either get new players, which I don't want to do, or I adapt and overcome.

This whole "the setting fidelity matters" thing is a DM bugaboo (something I'm somewhat guilty of) and, honestly, players don't seem to care in the slightest. Someone upthread mentioned needing a place for Samurai to come from if you add a Samurai to the Egypt game. Nope. No one cares. The players could not give the slightest crap about it. So, let it go and roll with it.

This is very much one of those group dependent things.

IME, if I didn’t actually worry about that stuff, my players would start suggesting things other than dnd when we hang out, or someone else would start a new campaign and I’d become merely a backup DM.

my players ask me to run my campaigns when we meet up in large part because their characters and deeply invested in the world, and who they are and where they come from genuinely matters in the course of play.