D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Marc17]

I'm happy to talk about another topic. What are you interested in today?

How about social encounters? I found some help tips in So You Want to be a Game Master book, although it was mostly upping the number of things I was doing already. Mainly prep on descriptions, NPCs, and what they would want to talk about or ask the players. Do you think mechanics of some type might be desirable? How about determining XP for such?

 

[mamba]

We are discussing the notion that a character can be vetoed because a player (including the DM) doesn't like them. No in setting reason, just "I think sorcerers are so offensive that I won't play a game which has one."

‘fit the campaign’ is just another way of saying ‘the DM doesn’t like them’, haven’t you guys been shouting this from the rooftops for 100+ pages over multiple threads by now?

 

[mamba]

So we should be bending over backwards to thank the gracious overlords who cannot have fun if someone does play a Tortle?

if picking another one of the ten options you are interested in is bending over backwards, then absolutely f*ing yes

You constantly demand it of the DM but are throwing fits if you are being asked to give an inch…

 

[DammitVictor]

He never outgrew the "sure, you can play X" and then a few weeks later saying "on second thought, I don't like X. Change your character." Which is frankly bull pucky unless the character is disruptive or broken.

Yeah, it's gross. The sort of restrictions we're discussing are... on the level of house rules. They should be clear and up front before the in-character portion of the game starts, and they shouldn't change unless there's a massive problem at the table. I'm not going to call it "entitled" because, well, pot meet kettle... but it's immature, and just because a prerogative rightfully belongs to someone doesn't mean they can't exercise it abusively.

I'm glad he's less passive-aggressive these days, at least, because that kind of behavior pisses me off more than the arbitrary bad calls. Right alongside people who claim they have an "aesthetic" for their campaign, a reason for limiting character selection... and the whole campaign is a dungeon crawl where ancestry as a social qualifier never matters and the restrictions are just "common races only".

 

[Lanefan]

Don't you take notes during play? Or do you design a 320 page setting Bible first?

Such very limited notes as I take during play are almost exclusively recording what the characters do in the moment (and, thus, who gets xp for what).

Before play starts I've got basic setting maps (with lots of blank areas for later development if needed), history in point form, pantheons, and something of a gazeteer with brief descriptions (i.e. what a typical halfway-educated character would likely know) of key locations, realms, and so on. It's all online thus anyone can access it at any time, unlike the days of paper when the only chance to read it would have been during the sessions.

Whether players ever read any of this stuff (other than Cleric players checking the pantheons and everyone referencing the maps) is an open question; but if it's there and they haven't read it, their lack of knowledge ain't my fault.

 

[Lanefan]

Yep. And the argument I feel like we've been making is that the same logic also applies to the GM as another player. They don't get special privilege for their aesthetic dislikes just because they're primarily responsible for the campaign frame.

That's just it, though: the DM does - and should! - get to have their aesthetic likes and dislikes inform the campaign.

A player can always leave or decline to play in the first place, and the game can go on, but a DM is intrinsically tied to the game she's running. No DM is going to run a game halfway well - or at all - if he doesn't enjoy running it, and obviously no DM means no game.

 

[Lanefan]

Why would it change just because I didn't prep it beforehand? Once something is introduced in the fiction, it's fixed into the setting. That's pretty core to pretty much all RPGs.

Having a setting bible doesn't help me be more consistent.

It helps me, for two main reasons:

--- my in-game note-taking is awful. I can't talk, write, and think at the same time; and as writing is the least important of those three when running a session it's what usually gets punted to the side
--- my setting started out quite big and sprawling and has since had many years in which to grow bigger (and it has!); with far more lore and other elements than I'd ever be able to remember without that "setting bible".

 

[GrimCo]

He never outgrew the "sure, you can play X" and then a few weeks later saying "on second thought, I don't like X. Change your character." Which is frankly bull pucky unless the character is disruptive or broken. You deciding you don't like the idea of a druid, or a bard with 8th level spells, or a shadeling (in a planar campaign, which it was written for!) weeks after you allowed the character to be played is entitled and immature.

The only difference is that he doesn't hide it by intentionally killing your PC and making it look like a random death.

Yeah, that kind of behavior sucks. It's like giving kid a lolipop for a few licks then taking it away. IMHO, if you wanna exclude some options, tell it to player straight forward when you pitch campaign. So they know, even before they start thinking about what they will play, what limitations are. Personally, as a player, i'm fine if DM excludes options so long as it's up front before i commit to game so i can just thank DM for invite and decline participation if i don't like what options are available.

Unrelated to that, about DM. DM is player, but not just player. DM is one that does most of the work in setting, adventure hooks, encounter bulding, npcs, factions, relations between them. He sets the stage for the PCs. If DM envisions his world without bards and dragonborn for instance, you still have lots of other options for your character as well as an option to not play in that campaign. And to be completley blunt. It's easier to find players than to find DMs. So, like in life, if you are in demand, you can set terms.

 

[Lanefan]

Precisely! Could not have put it better myself (most likely much worse).

When the world is so precious to the GM that they nail down 95% of it before it ever encounters a player, I can tell where the GM's priorities lie--and it isn't with the players.

If I go and pick up the latest version of Forgotten Realms and run a game in that, far more than 95% of the setting has been nailed down before ever encountering a player.

The only difference is that the setting was designed-written by someone else rather than homebrewed by the DM. And the huge advantage of a homebrewed setting is that the DM will far more likely be at least somewhat familiar with it and not have to keep looking basic things up in the setting book mid-session.

If all I start with is a town and a dungeon (pretty typical stuff), then I-as-DM have much more homework to do every week expanding the setting as or after the PCs encounter more of it. I'd much rather have as much of this work done ahead of time as possible, such that (ideally!) once play begins the setting runs itself, and all I have to worry about is what the PCs are doing in the moment.

 

[Remathilis]

Unrelated to that, about DM. DM is player, but not just player. DM is one that does most of the work in setting, adventure hooks, encounter bulding, npcs, factions, relations between them. He sets the stage for the PCs. If DM envisions his world without bards and dragonborn for instance, you still have lots of other options for your character as well as an option to not play in that campaign. And to be completley blunt. It's easier to find players than to find DMs. So, like in life, if you are in demand, you can set terms.

I legitimately wonder how many DMs actually take into account their players preferences when designing their campaign or world. For example, if a player likes furry species, would you provide a anthropomorphic option for them or do you adamantly keep to just the Tolkien style species? If a player tends to play spellcasters, would you still design a setting with limited magic? If a player likes dark and edgy characters but you dislike them, would you restrict tieflings and necromancers?