D&D 5E Enforcing theme/structure by saying NO to players

[EzekielRaiden]

But "anything" and "everything" are different ideas. In a world where everything is possible, everything exists, making it the same everything over and over.

I would argue that this is you reading something in that isn't there. "Everything is possible" =/= "everything exists." You might see those as being the same, but that's not how I'd use them. For example, if it just so happened that there were no Tieflings in a particular adventuring group, then even though it is possible for them to appear, it is not guaranteed that they MUST appear. Their status is left open, unstated in-fiction. Later on, whether purely by DM choice or through interaction among the whole group, it might turn out that Tieflings weren't actually possible. They used to be--purely from a Doylist perspective, the transition is from "you could, but don't have to" to "you can't." The Watsonian shift is from a lack of information (positive or negative) to a presence of (negative) information.

But from the outset, everything is possible, and only the declaration or discovery of new information (positive or negative) can change that.

Perhaps you prefer to call this "anything" rather than "everything" being possible. I see that as a distinction without a difference, myself.

 

[DMCF]

I say allow it. The world will place it's restrictions on their choices i.e., a tiefling in DL would likely be met with antagonistic actions no matter their alignment in any civilized area. They will have to work harder for it. The only hard requirement I have is for them to figure out how this creature is on this plane of existence. Because: "Magic" won't cut it but in my experience most players don't do thus. They'll jump at the opportunity yo get creative.

I have Fazio from Leprechaun 3 in one of my FR campaigns. He happened to have the leprechaun coin on him when he was hanging out in his brother's apt. Waiting for him he saw a DL book on his brother's coffee table. He began to skim it and thought "I wish I had powers like this, then I could really make a difference". He eventually passed out and woke up in a dungeon (due to the coin's power) with the rest of the party captured by goblins. He goes off about technology and Las Vegas and everyone thinks he's a nut. He has no arcane knowledge so he doesn't really roll. He has no monster knowledge or any history of the area. He's epic and i do everything I can not to kill him (but still come close).

Let your players PLAY. They are as much creators of the world as you. Adapt and you will prosper.

 

[The Human Target]

I long ago realized forcing people to play to my preferences or to play though my half baked idea for a fantasy novel was a recipe for disaster.

Games work best when they're a co-operative group experience, even in regards to world building.

Want to be a Goliath druid/assassin? It's not my bag, but I'll work with it and hopefully will be inspired by it as a DM.

D&D is a kitchen sink game, and I prefer to keep it that way.

When I ran a 4e Midnight game, I tweaked Midnight to fit 4e not the other way around.

Can you play a game in a very specific world with a story and themes from the word go? Sure, but it isn't easy.

My last game was set in Eberron. I really wanted someone to be a warforged so I could play around with all the story ideas that they have baked in. No one was interested. I accepted it, and had some adventures involve racism against warforged instead.

 

[Mecheon]

Interesting replies. I tend to run only established settings and as such, try to stick to any limitations or restrictions that setting might infer. So far, Dragonborn haven't been allowed in any 5e games that I've run, simply because other than 4e's Nentir Vale, their fluff has been incredibly sketchy. The current FR setting is the biggest kitchen sink there is, basically burning and pillaging other settings for the sake of having said kitchen sink, and then badly explaining and contradicting itself. In short, it's the worst of the worst.

Why did WotC have to go and ruin the specialness of FR and all the other settings by kitchen sinking? Ugh.

FR started as a kitchen sink, it just upholds its traditions. That's why it became their main setting: They needed a kitchen sink, and given FR had already co-opted Drow and whatever else, shrugged and said "Hey"

Quite frankly though, Nentir Vale is better than the 3.5E lore of it which skeeved just close enough to weird for me

 

[Li Shenron]

I do have a bare bones campaign setting that does have some restrictions, probably quite a lot. It's a primal setting where humanity lives in tribes and have to set out and explore the world.

Races: Human only (at least initially)
Classes: Barbarian, Bard (valour only), Druid, Fighter (champion, battle master only), Paladin (Ancients only), Ranger, Rogue (thief only), Sorcerer, Warlock

The world has no known gods so does not have any clerics; druids fill their role in the tribal society. I want all the players to start out as coming from the same tribe or clan so the race is restricted. Wizards seem like a class that requires some form of civilisation to exist, and monks require some monasteries for formal training.

I haven't really looked at the backgrounds but those would also likely be restricted.

Equipment would also be restricted although I haven't gone over it to decide what would be available. Light armour would certainly exist and I would probably want some form of medium and heavy armour.

That looks amazing. Personally I think that this kind of fantasy setting "setup" is a great idea and I would love to play in such a game. Because my favourite class is the Wizard, and playing in a game where there aren't Wizards will make me look towards other classes and try something different. You don't need freak races and obscure classes to play something new, you just need to look at all the many core options that you always neglected because they weren't your favourites.

 

[pemerton]

"Make PCs and then I'll create an entire setting around your choices"? That seems odd.

I could do a bare-bones, no-substance campaign that way, I guess. Otherwise, the players are going to have to wait so long to play, they won't remember what they made.

It doesn't seem very odd to me. It's a pretty well established way of RPGing!

 

[The Human Target]

FR started as a kitchen sink, it just upholds its traditions. That's why it became their main setting: They needed a kitchen sink, and given FR had already co-opted Drow and whatever else, shrugged and said "Hey"

Quite frankly though, Nentir Vale is better than the 3.5E lore of it which skeeved just close enough to weird for me

Yeah I think the reason FR is so popular is because it is bog standard D&D with specific details.

Most of the other settings are Like D&D But <insert difference here> settings.

 

[Agamon]

It doesn't seem very odd to me. It's a pretty well established way of RPGing!

Fair enough. I love winging it during the game, just not so much to start the game. A nice foundation, where everyone's expectations are met and no surprises with regard to the fundamentals of the game has made for a more sturdy foundation to the campaign, in my experience. Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fair enough. I love winging it during the game, just not so much to start the game. A nice foundation, where everyone's expectations are met and no surprises with regard to the fundamentals of the game has made for a more sturdy foundation to the campaign, in my experience. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Have you ever tried Dungeon World? Sometimes starting with very little can work stunningly well.

Personally I love both methods - the ultra-detailed pre-existing campaign and the working from very little. Neither produces a game with more "substance", merely with different substance.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not sure/don't see how (and am having legitimate trouble following the conversation and objections, because of it) the two are being viewed as dichotomous?

I mean, yes, you can have a campaign world that is incredibly detailed and established...or you can have a "make it as you go along/start with the homebase village and create as you go." I get that. That's fine.

But how is the reality of the "both" not obvious? The players, even experienced players who have adventured in the same game world for a long time [IRL], are not ever going to know everything about a place. The DM needn't (nor, truly can ever) have every detail in place and immutable throughout the world. FR probably comes closest from any campaign world I've ever seen, but even there there are areas and details that do not officially (been put to paper) exist [yet]. Let alone the PCs!

There's a lot of conflation in these kinds of conversations of Player and Character, and the idea that if there's something in a book and the player reads it, then the character just automatically knows something. Separation of Player and Character knowledge (and the enforcement, by the DM, in game) seems/sounds like it is all but extinct. No character is going to know everything about any given world.

My homebrew world is...fairly well estabished. The continent's general shape and size, borders, areas of notice, persons of interest, geographical locations, locations of the major/known strongholds of the various races, racial/ethnic/cultural/historic tensions/rivalries, and general overarching plot possibilities are all in place...have been for a while.

But it isn't really until a party/characters are placed in their starting location (which will give them a degree of starting info) and they begin to roam/adventure/explore the world around them that any real understanding of what's around them/available in the world...let alone how the reality of what an area/region/kingdom is like vs. what they have heard/is common knowledge about it.

So the paradigm of play, from a character's perspective is [I maintain "should be"] always "starting from nothing/little and learning/creating more detail as they move out from there." And "details (both established and just ideas)" of the gaming world can be altered as needed or wanted as the characters encounter them. As long as a particular group's version of the game world remains consistent/intact (locations not changing, etc...) I can have as detailed a world as I want....doesn't mean a player or character or group of characters are all going to encounter/experience the world in that level/amount of detail...or that the detail might not change, over time, by location, depending on the player's curiosity and thoroughness.

Am I making sense? Or just rambling before having sufficient caffeine? It's tough to tell before coffee #2.

What I'm trying to say: a campaign world can [and I submit, the best "should"] be detailed while the reality of the characters (definitely) and players (possibly) still knowing very little/having a very small known window with more being filled in as you need, as you go.

I am not following how this is being discussed as a "A campaign world is/must exist as one or the other"...or, for that matter, what either approach has to do with shaping and enforcing a particular view of the world for the players through the use of "no."

If I say "No, there are no dragonborn on this world [because: detailed world creation sez no]."
OR
"No, in the valley/village/city/region/square mile where you guys are going to start the campaign and know about, no one has ever heard of/seen a dragonborn before. There's no reasonable way/reason such a character would/could exist there. But I haven't really thought out/detailed anything beyond that. Maybe we can introduce them later...maybe not...but they are definitely not here/available to start."

The answer is the same, make a non-dragonborn character.