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

[doctorbadwolf]

I want to run a campaign set during the Pilgrimage of Mansa Musa.

I have done an adventure where the PCs were an escort for a group of specially selected young students being sent along the new Royal Road to be enrolled at the University in a neighbouring nation (modelled on Sankore University in Timbuktu)

Hell yeah! That sounds awesome.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Man I’d have to completely change how I run a game for a group like that. I think I’ve got one player who doesn’t initiate worldbuilding wrt his PC’s background during chargen, and even he gets into it when a storyline involves his history.

There is probably an element of self-selection with regards to who we play with. I'm not into world building, and am only DM because no one else wants to do it.

I'm more of the brainless action movie type.

 

[Maxperson]

That worldbuilding is a burden on gameplay. That holds things back.

It's not. It can be a burden on some playstyles, but it's not inherently a burden on gameplay.

 

[Maxperson]

i agree there is some amount of coherent sense that must be made, but just a flat 'no orcs' that has no why doesn't pass that to me

Why can't it just be that they never traveled to this world?

 

[Maxperson]

yes everything... but not all at once. If you have a reason to say no that's fine, but you have 3-6 players on average, even if everyone of them wants something you said no to (a sign you really need to go back to drawing board) that is 6ish races.

Or a bunch of bad players. If you've created a setting where 6 out of the 42 are gone and after you tell the players in advance that they can't choose those races, they try to choose them anyway, they're being pretty self-centered. They have 36 races left to choose from. None of them need to try and play a race that they know isn't in the setting and will cause problems.

 

[pemerton]

It's not. It can be a burden on some playstyles, but it's not inherently a burden on gameplay.

Or a bunch of bad players. If you've created a setting where 6 out of the 42 are gone and after you tell the players in advance that they can't choose those races, they try to choose them anyway, they're being pretty self-centered. They have 36 races left to choose from. None of them need to try and play a race that they know isn't in the setting and will cause problems.

My view is that these two posts are in tension. The fact that worldbuilding helps give rise to this category of "bad" and "self-centred" - whose only "problem" is that their conception of the fiction doesn't fully align with the GM's worldbuilding - seems to me an illustration of the sort of burden that I was referring to.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My view is that these two posts are in tension. The fact that worldbuilding helps give rise to this category of "bad" and "self-centred" - whose only "problem" is that their conception of the fiction doesn't fully align with the GM's worldbuilding - seems to me an illustration of the sort of burden that I was referring to.

It's a "tension" that's easily released by matching like-minded players and DMs, and avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach to D&D.

 

[Baron Opal II]

My view is that these two posts are in tension. The fact that worldbuilding helps give rise to this category of "bad" and "self-centred" - whose only "problem" is that their conception of the fiction doesn't fully align with the GM's worldbuilding - seems to me an illustration of the sort of burden that I was referring to.

So, playing a griff in your Torchbearer game would be acceptable? Or would that player choice be in conflict with your setting design?

I still don't have a grasp on what the difference in "worldbuilding" and "setting design" is except perhaps in scale.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It's a "tension" that's easily released by matching like-minded players and DMs, and avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach to D&D.

Yes, having everyone on the same thematic page makes for a better game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why can't it just be that they never traveled to this world?

it can, but again there is (IMO) a hard no of "here is why" and a soft no of "just cause" and in this case, the orc it is at best a soft no...

Or a bunch of bad players. If you've created a setting where 6 out of the 42 are gone and after you tell the players in advance that they can't choose those races, they try to choose them anyway, they're being pretty self-centered. They have 36 races left to choose from. None of them need to try and play a race that they know isn't in the setting and will cause problems.

see I don't see that as bad players, I see that as you made a world they aren't happy with. IN my experience that shows the DM made the issue not the players.

Imagine I sat down in 2e and said "here is my world but no clerics, no psionics, and no elves/half elves" (and this is a made up example but totally something me or one of the guys from 2e COULD have said at some point). if the 5 players all complain "I wanted to be an elf" "I wanted to be an elf too" "I wanted to use the psionics handbook for the first time I never get to use it" "I had an idea for a cleric" and "I actually told you guys months ago I wanted to do the three way multi class half elf fighter/mage/cleric" then the DM is being unreasonable here... the players have handed you what they want and you just poo poo all of them.

now I have meet (and in this or the DL thread even gave an example from recent 5e) seen players just choose to be contrary... and it is annoying, but again, if it really matters the DM can explain WHY it matters, and no one has any idea other then 'it says so' why orcs can't be in DL