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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Not at all. There are enormous swathes of FR that are barely detailed at all, and huge chunks of it can be significantly massaged into more or less whatever the GM wants. Maztica, for example. It was zorped over to Abeir during the Spellplague, and came back after the Second Sundering. It literally spent a hundred years in a completely different world, one bound by different rules and very much not like Toril. That is a golden opportunity for any GM to do basically whatever they want, because you can just say that it was some not-previously-known weirdness of Abeir that now has found its way to Toril.

And that's saying nothing about any of the other like seven multiplanar catastrophes and upheavals that have rocked FR over the centuries. At this point, for having so much of Toril allegedly mapped and catalogued, there's an absolutely ENORMOUS space of "well...we don't really know!" to work with.

A GM who declines to do so is not in any way specially respecting the written story of FR. They're just saying they don't feel like going to the incredibly token effort of saying "oh, things like that now live no Maztica because of the time it spent on Abeir, so they're very rare in the wider world but not impossible" or the like.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

...have...what...?

Aw crap, I'm sorry. I jump around between paragraphs while I write, and I totally forgot to complete that sentence.

My preferred solution would be to place reasonable limits on PC-race flight, such that it being an always-on thing is either only for high level (say, 12+) characters, or only for those who sink a resource into it (like a feat or two), or some other similar thing. Rather than just slamming down the banhammer, I find it much more productive to make a powerful feature be earned over time. Not only does that respect the player's legitimate, non-abusive interest and enthusiasm, it also helps them to feel a sense of ownership over their character's abilities, because they were well-earned, not just something the player was bestowed from day 1.

 

[mamba]

Are you serious, right now?

I'm throwing fits?

When it was LITERALLY said that even asking a question about playing something the GM isn't into would be considered a breach of friendship???

I mean, yes, I am serious, and I’d take this post as confirmation too

That doesn’t mean that everyone else always posts stuff that I agree with 100% and can never be twisted in any way (like you are doing now, and not for the first time…)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, yes, I am serious, and I’d take this post as confirmation too

That doesn’t mean that everyone else always posts stuff that I agree with 100% and can never be twisted in any way (like you are doing now, and not for the first time…)

I didn't see you finding any issue with it either though. One should think that, if you find a position extreme and unwarranted, at least a "that seems kind of odd to me, could you explain more precisely what you mean?" would be in order.

Unless you're ignoring Max, I suppose. Then you'd have never seen it in the first place. If so, then I sincerely apologize.

 

[mamba]

I didn't see you finding any issue with it either though. One should think that, if you find a position extreme and unwarranted, at least a "that seems kind of odd to me, could you explain more precisely what you mean?" would be in order.

Unless you're ignoring Max, I suppose. Then you'd have never seen it in the first place. If so, then I sincerely apologize.

no, I see Max’s posts, I just do not read them the way you do given how you ‘summarize’ them.

When it was LITERALLY said that even asking a question about playing something the GM isn't into would be considered a breach of friendship???

is not something I literally read in them

I assume you are referring to the below, given that you clarified the poster, before that I had no idea what you were referring to…

I don't have to exclude, because my players, being decent human beings, wouldn't want to play something that causes me even minor discomfort due to dislike. Just as I don't include things in the adventures I prepare that they would dislike. It's how social games work. All I have to do is let them know that I don't like something, and they immediately just drop it of their own accord and go with something else they like.

I am not seeing even asking questions being a breach of friendship there

 

[EzekielRaiden]

no, I see Max’s posts, I just do not read them the way you do given how you ‘summarize’ them.


is not something I literally read in them

I assume you are referring to the below, given that you clarified the poster, before that I had no idea what you were referring to…


I am not seeing even asking questions being a breach of friendship there

They immediately drop it of their own accord and never bring it up again.

How can you ask questions, or try to find a way to make things work, if the instant you get even the slightest hint of disgruntlement, you immediately cast aside any interest you had and never even consider it again?

 

[TwoSix]

Not at all. There are enormous swathes of FR that are barely detailed at all, and huge chunks of it can be significantly massaged into more or less whatever the GM wants. Maztica, for example. It was zorped over to Abeir during the Spellplague, and came back after the Second Sundering. It literally spent a hundred years in a completely different world, one bound by different rules and very much not like Toril. That is a golden opportunity for any GM to do basically whatever they want, because you can just say that it was some not-previously-known weirdness of Abeir that now has found its way to Toril.

And that's saying nothing about any of the other like seven multiplanar catastrophes and upheavals that have rocked FR over the centuries. At this point, for having so much of Toril allegedly mapped and catalogued, there's an absolutely ENORMOUS space of "well...we don't really know!" to work with.

A GM who declines to do so is not in any way specially respecting the written story of FR. They're just saying they don't feel like going to the incredibly token effort of saying "oh, things like that now live no Maztica because of the time it spent on Abeir, so they're very rare in the wider world but not impossible" or the like.

Yep. Forgotten Realms is a map, a bunch of place names, and occasional pieces of lore, assuming you're running it in the early 16th century DR time frame. You want to stick in half-illithid dwarves or a colony of tortles in the Moonsea, that's absolutely trivial.

 

[Remathilis]

Bit difficult when during the setting-design process you've more or less no idea who the players will be.

Every game has totally new players? You don't keep the same players from campaign to campaign?

I mean, I could design something that caters to what I happen to know player Z's interests are with a long-range view toward inviting that player in, but that doesn't mean player Z will be available to join the game by the time the setting is done.

The option remains open but unused. But it left an option open that either a different player may use as a choice or the player may use later.

Add to that, people's interests and tastes change. A player might be all over furries right now but in six months when the game starts could have tired of them and moved on to something else.

And not every player will pick that choice every time. The option still remains open though if that player or any player wants to use it.

I'm just asking because if I was to infer from the comments on this board, most DMs design a campaign world for themselves and allow options that they would also be willing to play, creating a game completely centered on their own tastes and no thought is given to the players. Akin to inviting people over to a party and serving only your favorite foods and hoping the other guests have the same food preferences as you (or will just suffer in silence if they don't).

 

[TwoSix]

The option remains open but unused. But it left an option open that either a different player may use as a choice or the player may use later.

And not every player will pick that choice every time. The option still remains open though if that player or any player wants to use it.

I mean, if I was designing a setting without knowing who the players were (I wouldn't, but hypothetically), I would make the setting as open and approachable as possible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm just asking because if I was to infer from the comments on this board, most DMs design a campaign world for themselves and allow options that they would also be willing to play, creating a game completely centered on their own tastes and no thought is given to the players. Akin to inviting people over to a party and serving only your favorite foods and hoping the other guests have the same food preferences as you (or will just suffer in silence if they don't).

Exactly.

No one, as far as I can tell, is asking GMs to suffer through a campaign full of things they hate. Nobody. There was that one guy several threads back, but mod-voice put a stop to that.

What folks like you and I are asking is, why on earth are GMs creating campaigns designed only to please them, with apparently zero care for anything players might want--indeed, seemingly opposition to what players might want!