GMs altering established campaign setting elements to suit players?

[Arnwyn]

This came up in my last D&D campaign. GMs here, how do you feel about altering established campaign setting elements to suit the desires of one or more players? I don't mean rules, unless the rule reflects an integral setting element. I'm thinking things like (literary examples) the human sacrifice in Slaine, racism in Hyborea, sexism in Nehwon, anti-Catholicism in His Dark Materials. Would you be ok with removing undesired elements?

Only if it suits the desires of me, the DM, as well. If I'm not interested in such a change, then I'm not doing it. That person can make such a change when he/she DMs.

 

[eris404]

Thanks - JoeGK I take your point about making sure everyone has fun. I guess I do tend to prioritise the world integrity over the fun of the players, partly it's because I have players in faraway places who still have a vested interest in it and might be upset if it was changed too much - changed out-of-game I mean, rather than in-game by the actions of PCs and NPCs. Mostly though I just can't stand the idea of saying something like "OK, the Demonwar never happened, so the past 400 years of game time/19 years of real time was all different..." - unless that was the result of a cool time-travel scenario, of course.

Ah, changing something mid-stream (so to speak) is a little bit different to me. It's one thing for me (as a player) to say at the beginning of a campaign to the DM, "I'm not really comfortable with this idea or don't want to play in a world where Y exists." Once the game starts and has gone on for several sessions, it gets a little harder to change the world in a way that doesn't feel like the DM had to hit the reset button.

I think it also depends on the reason why a player is asking for the change. If a player is uncomfortable with certain elements based on moral convictions or personal beliefs (or something similar), I think that the DM should take that player's opinion and feelings into consideration at least. But if a player is asking for changes out of boredom or personal taste, (such as wanting to play an elf when the DM specifically states there are no elves in his homebrew world), then it's entirely up to the DM whether to honor or even listen to the request. I think it is important for the DM to know what his players like and I do think that a DM should tailor his world to maximize the fun of everyone in the group. But, I also don't think he should make huge changes just to suit one player either.

But, then again, there are ways in game to make big changes to a world and thus keep the history consistent, if you want to go that route.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Nothing is sacred when it comes to making sure everybody has fun.

Exactly. Playing "right" means people having fun, not satisfying purists who aren't even at the table.

 

[nopantsyet]

I have to agree, nothing's sacred except the fun.

 

[Virel]

My group was confronted with this way back right after we started playing OAD&D. I think the example is still relevant so I'll share it.

We'd been playing for a few weeks, when surprise surprise my older cousin decided she wanted to join the group. This was in part because her little brother insisted he play but she was also interested in playing after watching a session. The gaming group was made up of seven males and the rest of the group very much wanted her to play as she was smart, well spoken, cool and most important off all in their eyes - attractive.

She rolled up a fighter using Method 3 in OAD&D and ended up with an 18 in strength. She decided to play a human and rolled 18/95 exceptional strenght. However, being a group that played by the "rules", the books said human females were limited to 18/50 strength. I mentioned that, she didn't think that was fair to her as a player despite the fact men have greater upper body strength than women do.

So here we were with a very basic core rule getting in the way of a player enjoying the game. So on the spot being DM, I house ruled the male/female strength limits abolished and male or female PC's would use the male limits. Went forward and had fun.

This was in the early days of my fledgling Greyhawk campaign back in 1980. Greyhawk can treat women as second class citizens due to it's historic basis in medival Europe. In the interests of fun for the group my Greyhawk got ERA in year 0. Women had the same rights as men etc, sexism was present in some areas but not in many areas. So this became a core element in my version of Greyhawk.

Later a few of the male players complained they couldn't rape and pilliage with my cousin present. At this point, I was very happy she was an active player in the game because I didn't want my OAD&D campaign to go down the route so many other D&D games had went down. My PC Greyhawk stayed the way it was in the developed civilized areas. Another player argued about the strenght limits but did some reseach and discover the limits for human females were too low as 18/63 was female max at the time which is pretty darn strong in anyones book. At this point several in the group realized sometimes the world isn't exactly the way we might think it is.

While many DM's critized this aspect of my campaign back in the day. To my delight, in college there were several attractive females that were willing to play in this same Greyhawk campaign. Today this same campaign is still around and active with four females and six males.

Three of women that play in the group had strong reservations at first. However, when describing the campaign world where they would be adventures, I mentioned something about how women had equal rights under the law in civilized areas and used the same strenght limits as the males. I gave them the same campaign summary I'd been giving since 1980. Quickly they warmed up to playing and I learned later mentioning the way the campaign world worked regarding women had a lot to do with this. The ERA part as just another matter of fact part of the world was important to them.

I will say there were a few potential male players that couldn't deal with the idea and wouldn't play as a result. However, I think that was their loss, not mime or my campaigns. I think the reason my 1st ed OAD&D game is alive and well is the discovery that having fun meant adapting.

BTW - on another board discussion the female strength limits, I found examples thanks to the Olympics that 18/76 should be the current female strength limit if someone still insist on using them and 18/00 is still too high for max human male strength as 2004. ~18/95 is about right for the current human max.

 

[TheLostSoul]

Hmmm.... I will generaly not change my world to suit someones moral viewpoints. I often run historical games and I take alot of offense at people trying to rewrite history to suit current moral views. So if I run a medieval game, I tend to have a game where women are second class citizens (but that does not mean that they do not have any power...) and racism runs high.

That being said. When I run games set in a fantasy setting, I usually go for a more equal view of the relationship between men and women. These settings are still full of racism, slavery, murder etc.

This is also one of my favorite annoyances about Political Correctness in D20. How come it is okay to slaughter entire tribes of orcs, but not engange in sex? Genocide is okay, but sex is not... Ridiculous!

I am most fortunate, however, that I have only rarely come across players who has refused to participate in my games on moral grounds (only once or twice). My other players stand by my side in this as they also think that PC is generally silly. I am a Dane, so that might be some part of the reason.

 

[scourger]

...the human sacrifice in Slaine...

That facet of Slaine is why I got rid of the game. I don't want to play the kind of game that encourages human sacrifice to empower magic abilities through the rules mechanics. I have no compunction about taking that or any other element out of a game--or refusing to support it.

Similarly, a friend refused to run Deadlands after buying a lot of material from the creator at a convention once he realized that all the magic comes from making deals with demons. I had previously played the game without any magic, but I can sure understand his reluctance to run it as written.

Changes that favor one individual or a class of players or characters are unsatisfactory, however. Another friend's camapign essentially ended for me once I learned that it hinged on one other player. The player's absence nearly derailed the campaign, and I just had the increasing feeling that things were different for older characters (player and non-player) than for newer characters. The worst was when 2 PCs died: my newer PC and another older PC. Conveniently, the older NPC buddy of the old PC was there to announce that they could undertake the difficult process of resurrection which was otherwise unheard of in the campaign world. Notwithstanding the fact that my character was a cleric with actual ties and significant tithing to a powerful church, he was in the ground never to come back. I felt it had more to do with me and the way I played the PC. It reeked of BS. I'm kind of glad it ended with all the old players essentially quitting (although it was sad since all of them were childhood friends of the DM). They quit because the DM wanted magic to work "like it always did" in 1e AD&D even though we were playing 3.5 D&D by mutual agreement. The result was that a bunch of magic stuff got destroyed by some "old school" saving throw failures, and 3 "old school" players essentially quit out of disgust. These are examples of bad changes, in my opinion.

The bottom line, I think, is that players want a level playing field. If we all agree to play a certain game using a certain rules set, that set of rules should be followed for that game. A DM can define the rules ahead of time but is ultimately dependent on the players' initial and continued assent to play.

 

[S'mon]

Re Slaine - eliminating human sacrifice for the 'good guy' northern tribes would actually accord with Pat Mills original version of the setting, where it was only the 'evil' southern Drune tribes who acted like the Romans' view of Celts, while the north was more PC. Mills has got more hardcore subsequently.

 

[S'mon]

I agree with the idea that change to a setting are best done at the start, through consultation with players. Also, at the start of a game it can be decided that some things will be emphasised or deemphasised - eg deciding that Greyhawk has sex-equality isn't a big deal if done early on, even Gygax's Greyhawk isn't _that_ sexist by real-world standards, though the Gynatrix of Hardby might have to be changed if you didn't want fem-on-top sexism.

 

[MonsterMash]

I would generally say that the players should try to adapt to the setting rather than impose their mindset (unless they want to go to the trouble of creating a setting themselves). In the Wilderlands setting I use slavery is routine, but as valuable property slaves are not necessarily treated badly, to an extent there are equal rights as women adventurers do occur and they are allowed to own property, run businesses, appear in public unveiled, etc, but as a 'classic sword and sorcery' setting there are naturally houris and exotic dancers and lots of other non-PC elements.

And in terms of characters tolerating (or even enjoying) things in game that would be unacceptable to the players in real life it should be remembered that it is a role-playing game, and how many of us make our living by killing monsters and taking their stuff?