D&D General D&D, magic, and the mundane medieval

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oofta

Legend
It feels like what he's getting at is that he won't run a game where he's not fairly happy with the set-up. Is that a controversial take?

I assume he doesn't expect players to play in one they aren't happy with either, and thus some DMs may choose never to run anything and some players may never find a game they want to play in.
If I'm not excited and invested in the campaign world I'm running, I'm not going to do as good a job as DM. I don't see why that's controversial. If the world doesn't make sense to me how can I build on that?

I'm not going to be a good DM for an all evil PC game. It just wouldn't work for me. In the same way, I accept that the DM makes the final call whether I'm playing or DMing. The buck has to stop somewhere.

Paraphrasing the DMG, the DM is in charge but they should always listen to feedback from their players.

When it comes to the thread topic, I have a default setting and assumptions which includes technology level, how much influence magic has, political structures and, yes, what species populate the world.

On the other hand I thought a space fantasy campaign might be a fun break. But when I raised it as an option people weren't interested so I dropped it. So no you can't play a leonin but if you want to be a Goliath we can chat and make them a tall human with Goliath traits.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

For us, when it's time for a new game the potential DMs make pitches and the group tries to choose the one that made the most people happy.
we do something similar... on average we vote but each also any of us can veto... and any "my way or the highway" isn't going to fly (and Ican't even imagine one of us acting this way
Typically we have some back and forth about options.
always we do... I can't remember a time that I was DMing that someone didn't insert something that made the world/idea better
I just don't see how "I want to run something set in Krynn (or somewhere with no Orcs) or in a historical setting (with no Orcs), or where everyone is a kobold..." Is that strange of a pitch.
it's only strange if someone says "I want to play an orc" and you both have no reason why there are not orcs, nor will bend to allow them to be inserted changing nothing else...
Pitching a character idea that directly conflicts with a setting is fine. Needing to play that character that conflicts with it right now and not being able to find a back up character idea seems bizarre.
again, I agree within reason
"I want to play an orc" "Sorry they were genocide 3000 years ago it's a plot point"
that seems reasonable
I want to play an orc" "sorry but I said no, and no there isn't a reason just no"
that doesn't

I would expect the player in the first example to pitch a second character, I would expect the group to threaten to pitch the DM for that in the second example...
Always wanting to be the square peg for a round hole would annoy me. Same as DMs with no flexibility at all. ("How about a human who looks orcish for some reason? A curse? A pact?". "No, I want to be from a tribe of Orcs in your all human pseudo-France!").
yeah but no one is arguing this, you are tilting at windmills and calling them giants
"why can't I be an orc" "there are no orcs in this setting because it is human only based on pseudo France" isn't the same as "cause i sai"
 

But is excluding them the point of Dragonlance?

I think that's really the heart of the debate. The appeal of DL to some seems to be the authorial nod to hedge out most player species.
I can change the elves to another long lived race and no one would notice... I can add any race (maybe almost any) to DL and not change theme or feel of setting
 

I'm not going to be a good DM for an all evil PC game. It just wouldn't work for me. In the same way, I accept that the DM makes the final call whether I'm playing or DMing. The buck has to stop somewhere.
this is the heart of our clashes... the buck stops where? in my mind at our tables it's "at a group vote" in yours and at yours it "with the DM"
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
we do something similar... on average we vote but each also any of us can veto... and any "my way or the highway" isn't going to fly (and Ican't even imagine one of us acting this way
What's the significant difference between a veto and my way or the highway? (I want to run classic Krynn with no Orcs. Veto. I want to run classic Krynn but with Orcs. Veto.)
always we do... I can't remember a time that I was DMing that someone didn't insert something that made the world/idea better

it's only strange if someone says "I want to play an orc" and you both have no reason why there are not orcs, nor will bend to allow them to be inserted changing nothing else...

again, I agree within reason
"I want to play an orc" "Sorry they were genocide 3000 years ago it's a plot point"
that seems reasonable
I want to play an orc" "sorry but I said no, and no there isn't a reason just no"
that doesn't

I would expect the player in the first example to pitch a second character, I would expect the group to threaten to pitch the DM for that in the second example...

All sounds good.

yeah but no one is arguing this, you are tilting at windmills and calling them giants
"why can't I be an orc" "there are no orcs in this setting because it is human only based on pseudo France" isn't the same as "cause i sai"
I thought it was you going against windmills and this flood of DMs who say no Orcs with no reasons :)

But seriously, as per the middle part, it sounds like we pretty much degree except in maybe how prevalent the offenders are on each side.
 

Oofta

Legend
we do something similar... on average we vote but each also any of us can veto... and any "my way or the highway" isn't going to fly (and Ican't even imagine one of us acting this way

always we do... I can't remember a time that I was DMing that someone didn't insert something that made the world/idea better

it's only strange if someone says "I want to play an orc" and you both have no reason why there are not orcs, nor will bend to allow them to be inserted changing nothing else...

again, I agree within reason
"I want to play an orc" "Sorry they were genocide 3000 years ago it's a plot point"
that seems reasonable
I want to play an orc" "sorry but I said no, and no there isn't a reason just no"
that doesn't

I would expect the player in the first example to pitch a second character, I would expect the group to threaten to pitch the DM for that in the second example...

yeah but no one is arguing this, you are tilting at windmills and calling them giants
"why can't I be an orc" "there are no orcs in this setting because it is human only based on pseudo France" isn't the same as "cause i sai"
There are no Drow PCs in my campaign because they live in Svartleheim (basically the underdark) and refuse to stay on Midgard (prime material) for extended periods of time.

How is that not "No Drow because I said so" with more words?
 

What's the significant difference between a veto and my way or the highway? (I want to run classic Krynn with no Orcs. Veto. I want to run classic Krynn but with Orcs. Veto.)
if the person in question vetos multi orcs and half orc we will ask why (if for no other reason then to find out how to accommodate) and if no reason is given that is unreasonable.

I mean I can't imagine this will come up that often, and I still am yet to be shown a reason other then 'a book 30+ years ago said so
 


Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I can change the elves to another long lived race and no one would notice... I can add any race (maybe almost any) to DL and not change theme or feel of setting

It doesn't feel different to you. I imagine it would feel different to a lot of DL fans.

I'm somewhat perplexed why no one would notice elves being subbed out of a popular series, but this one player NEEDS orcs instead of just any other brutish looking basically person. :)
 

There are no Drow PCs in my campaign because they live in Svartleheim (basically the underdark) and refuse to stay on Midgard (prime material) for extended periods of time.

How is that not "No Drow because I said so" with more words?
knock it off. You are picking this fight for no reason.
the difference is once you explain a compromise can be reached but you wont have a compromise because it is your way or the highway... so in YOUR case it is no different in our case it would be.

"I want to play a drow I have this great concept"
"No my drow live in the underdark and never come up"
"That's perfect that fits my concept... I am a runaway"
in my group would lead to the group discusion some give and take and make the concept work...

I bet you say "Nope wont run a drow"

only respond if you are NOT going to just argue to argue please. I have answered your "whats the diffrence"
 

Unless your table can vote to make a DM run something they don't want to... I don't see a difference.
why would the DM 'want to run' a 'no X' without a reason... that is what you are not getting... there is no why here. there is no motivation, just 'cause I said so'
 

It doesn't feel different to you. I imagine it would feel different to a lot of DL fans.
please show your work... how does a tribe not yet shown in a book added to the game change anything?
I'm somewhat perplexed why no one would notice elves being subbed out of a popular series, but this one player NEEDS orcs instead of just any other brutish looking basically person. :)
no one needs anything... but a reason and normal human curtsey at the table.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
why would the DM 'want to run' a 'no X' without a reason... that is what you are not getting... there is no why here. there is no motivation, just 'cause I said so'
I completely agree with you if there is "no reason".

I disagree with your dismissal of what others think of as reasons. If a long run setting has always had/not had X, why isn't that a good enough reason.

Or, why is it any weaker than finding out the player only wanted a Drow because they were either told there weren't any or because they had an idea before learning about the campaign?
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
please show your work... how does a tribe not yet shown in a book added to the game change anything?

Jurassic world, it's just the real world with an extra tribe related to birds added in. Just because we haven't seen them yet, it doesn't change anything. :)


It feel like adding a tribe must change something in the mind of the player wanting to add it, or there would be no pointing in doing so, would there? (Since it doesn't change anything and so they could just use one of the others?)
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Mod Note:
Folks,

When a thread gets to the point of generating more acrimony than interesting points, it is probably time for it to close....
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top