Is campaign flavour sacrosanct in your game?

[irdeggman]

IMO there is a difference between "flavor" and "definition".

For example (using a couple of TSR settings):

Dark Sun.

By definition has no gods. The clerics worship the elements and thus are "different" then the standard D&D.

Arcane magic draws on the power of life force. So it has rules for defiling.

(see athas.org for the 3.5 update of that setting)

Birthright.

All druids gain their power from the god of nature.

Elves are immortal and have no gods (hence can't be clerics or druids).

The old gods died and were replaced by newer goeds. The battle that caused the death of the old gods also allowed their blood to be spilt thus empowering "mortals" with a spark of divinity.

Arcane magic (wizard/sorcerer) requires a great toll physically from the caster so only those with elven blood (due to their inherent tie to power of magic in the land) or have that "spark" of divinity.

(see birthright.net for the 3.5 update of the setting)


IMO the tendency for WotC to go with everything, everywhere tends to remove the "uniqueness" of setting from the game.

Recent setting conversions from Dragon magazine just go to show that tendency, IMO.

The almost bending over backwards to accomadate everything published that Eberron goes almost ruins the setting's uniqueness IMO and IMO Forgotten Realms has lost a lot of its own uniqueness by doing the same.


Ahh I miss "true" settings.

 

[Cadfan]

Greg K- reread the message. I didn't say that DMs who ban things are horrible.

 

[Bardsandsages]

Heh... I don't need to resort F-16's or mecha in order to make wholly inappropriate PC's... all I need is a little inspiration and a PHB.

I've yet to find a DM willing to accept my hip-hop pirate, Master Irate-P the Pirate G., aka The High Seas MC, and his "crew"; Ol' Scurvy Bastard, Inspectah Poopdeck, and the Ghostface Tillah, err, Tiller. I even have some of raps worked out... "Yo ho ho and a forty of rum. Batten down your shorties, 'cause here I come".

Forget about limiting classes, you have to start by limiting ideas.

I would totally have accepted this, as he surely would have become an admiral in Pirate Queen Honey's army. (In one of my games, two of the characters were married. The husband never actually introduced his wife to the other PCs or any NPCs, but just always referred to her as "Honey". Her character, a CN rogue with some psychological issues, had dreams of becoming a Pirate Queen and leading a pirate armanda to attack Thay. So everyone just called her Queen Honey, even though that wasn't her name.)

 

[Wombat]

The world is the world. By laying down groundrules, you create the flavour and character of the game.

My mantra is "world first, rules second". This means that you decide on what your world is like, then find the rules (or alter them) to make sure that the rules serve the world, rather than the other way around. Don't start with a set of rules and force the world to fit them.

I am quite willing to work with players to allow their characters to be very unique, but there are certain absolutes about the world that will not be altered. In D&D terms, there are probably restrictions on certain races, classes, PrCs, equipment, and the like. Such alterations might be Absolutes (there are no half-races in the world, for example) to Suggestions (there are very few wizards in this world, so we should have no more than one in the party, for example). Still, it is important to make sure the world feels unique and that the rules serve the vision of the game.

What if the playters rebel? If they rebel as a group, the vision of the world needs to be altered. If a single player rebels, the player needs to get in line with the group or find a game run by someone else that would be more attractive to his/her tastes.

 

[Shadowslayer]

The world is the world. By laying down groundrules, you create the flavour and character of the game.

Yeah...or you could let the players create it. Sorry, I just don't get the sense of proprietorship that a lot of you guys are talking about. Last I checked, there was more guys sitting around the table than just me.

Here's what I'm talking about: Say I have a player...a good player and a good guy who is fun to game with. And he's really nuts about martial arts, and gets off on playing monks and ninjas and the like. But I tell him no, because it doesn't fit the "flavor" of my world. Does that make me a good DM?

Big fat "no" is what I'm thinking.

All that makes me is a gamer that cares more about what I want than what my players want...one who cares so much more about my wants, that I go so far as to justify it by saying "well, if they don't like it, they don't have to play...I'm more important than them"

If other guys are going to screw up my artistry by bringing half baked ideas into it...then just maybe its time for me to find an art that doesn't require other people's input in order for it to work...something a little less collaborative than a game.

You can talk about RPGs like it some kind af art if you like. You can also put whipped cream on a horse turd too...it still ain't cake.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Yeah...or you could let the players create it. Sorry, I just don't get the sense of proprietorship that a lot of you guys are talking about. Last I checked, there was more guys sitting around the table than just me.

Here's what I'm talking about: Say I have a player...a good player and a good guy who is fun to game with. And he's really nuts about martial arts, and gets off on playing monks and ninjas and the like. But I tell him no, because it doesn't fit the "flavor" of my world. Does that make me a good DM?

Big fat "no" is what I'm thinking.

All that makes me is a gamer that cares more about what I want than what my players want...one who cares so much more about my wants, that I go so far as to justify it by saying "well, if they don't like it, they don't have to play...I'm more important than them"

If other guys are going to screw up my artistry by bringing half baked ideas into it...then just maybe its time for me to find an art that doesn't require other people's input in order for it to work...something a little less collaborative than a game.

You can talk about RPGs like it some kind af art if you like. You can also put whipped cream on a horse turd too...it still ain't cake.

Whoa, whoa. Hold your horses, mate!

I don't believe anyone is stating that they are "better" than the players, or more important at all. It's one interpretation, sure, but one I think is a mistake (all IMO, of course).

That's the important part about having the "buy in" session. Where the DM and the players all sit down and discuss what the game is to be about, and if the players are interested.

If they don't want to do that, they don't need to play, even if they are the greatest players in the world! I had to face up to the fact recently that not every flavour of D&D is for me. I simply do not belong at the table of my friend when playing D&D. His style isn't right for me, due to the way he runs it, and the flavour of his setting. It doesn't mean his game sucks, just doesn't suit me (or I don't suit it).

The same thing applies here. If a player wouldn't enjoy a game without martial arts/ninja, they shouldn't play in a setting/game without them. As you said, the DM is but one person... but so too is a player only one...right? If all the players wanted ninja, then they should be in a game with ninja in it.

I'm running an SE asian game soon...with no wizards or sorcerers (a witch-like class is used instead). No races other than humans, and close to human races. And a whole bunch of house rules. It's pretty out there, and is largely an experient to see what the d20 system can do if you tweak a lot of assumptions. I don't know if anyone will want to play it in my area... though I hope they do.

My vision isn't the most important thing, but it is what I want to run... if I can get two or three people interested, that'd be really nice. But if a fourth player came along (after being told about the alternate rules) and demanded to have a Sun Elf as a PC, that'd be a bit rude IMO. I'd just have to say "I'm really sorry, but this isn't for you. You'd be welcome at future campaign, though. Have a nice day!"

It's not about disrespecting anyone or ownership of the game, I'm sorry if I or anyone else gave that impression. My campaigns are ideas I come up with in my spare time...and I work hard at it for the benefit of my players. I put forward an idea...and if others are interested in such a thing, I run it. Effectively, I run adventures and campaigns for those that like my ideas. If you don't like that...my game isn't for you, obviously. If you've got a better idea for a game...I might play in that instead (and bring my existing players too).

I'm not sure if I addressed your worries or concerns, but I hope I at least made enough sense to you to understand my own point of view.

Peace!

 

[Mallus]

You can also put whipped cream on a horse turd too...it still ain't cake.

On the other hand, you can toss random ingredients into a pot and cook them, but the odds are you won't get veal marsala when you're done.

Which is either good or bad, depending on how much you wanted veal marsala.

It all depends on what you want out of the game. There's nothing inherently wrong with an "all options on", kitchen-sink approach, and I don't think anyone here is suggesting that.

But doing so makes other kinds of campaigns impossible. It's hard to do Aurthurian Romance when you have honest-to-God Art of Invisibility ninja running around Camelot. Is it too obvious to point out that mutually imcompatible things are, in fact, often mutually imcompatible?

What I rarely see mentioned in these threads is the fact options become restrictions, if your goal is a campaign that deviates from the standard "almost everything goes" D&D model. And this is just as limiting, albeit in a different way, for people that want something other than baseline D&D.

 

[Rolzup]

At this point, I feel myself more inclined to shift things in favor of the players' preferences, rather than my own. If a guy is enthused about the character's he's playing, then he's more likely to have a good time...and that means that I'M more likely to have a good time, which is pretty much key to the whole thing.

If someone wants to run a Half-Dragon Warforged Ninja who uses a black-powder weapon, I'll find a way to make it fit the campaign that I have in mind. To be entirely honest, I kinda like the challenge of it.

 

[Psion]

At this point, I feel myself more inclined to shift things in favor of the players' preferences, rather than my own.

I sort of come at it from the angle of "is there a reason this character shouldn't or couldn't exist?"

If the answer is yes, then, well, them's the breaks.

But some DMs seems to delightfully crow how they run their carefully walled off campaigns and thumb their nose in the players faces and refuse to allow a character concept if they didn't think of it first. I see this is the DMing equivalent of pointy-haired-bossing.

Or a pointy-haired-DM, if you will.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah...or you could let the players create it. Sorry, I just don't get the sense of proprietorship that a lot of you guys are talking about. Last I checked, there was more guys sitting around the table than just me.

And, if you create a world as a group, that's just peachy. From my experience, though, the problem with this approach is that you don't have to worry about whether or not you should "let" the players create a world. Is my creating a world somehow preventing you from creating another world? I think not.

And, if you like your world (group or otherwise) as much as I like my world, I'm always happy to sit in the player seat for a while. You running a game in your world in no way means that you cannot also be a player in mine.

The idea that a DM can somehow force a world down someone's throat is simply untrue. The idea that a player might want a world that meets his specifications without having to put in the work, OTOH, is altogether too plausible.

(And, hey, I'd be happy to work on/run your world as well....but at that point it becomes a job, and I expect to be paid! )

Here's what I'm talking about: Say I have a player...a good player and a good guy who is fun to game with. And he's really nuts about martial arts, and gets off on playing monks and ninjas and the like. But I tell him no, because it doesn't fit the "flavor" of my world. Does that make me a good DM?

Big fat "no" is what I'm thinking.

And I agree.

However, I don't think that makes you a bad DM either. Nor do I think agreeing makes you a good DM. Good or bad DMing has to do with a lot of things; very rarely does it have to do with what restrictions are placed on a world.

I've run into a lot of people who bellyache about the idea of restrictions placed on a game world, yet I've never yet run into a player or DM who thinks that allowing F16s and M203 grenade launchers into their otherwise standard D&D world was a good idea. Go figure.

Everyone restricts what is allowed into the game world, including the players. To some degree, this is absolutely necessary to have anything that resembles a coherent world at all. The only questions are, how much restriction, and what specific restrictions, are approriate for a particular gaming group and/or campaign world.

And I for one do say "If they don't like it, they don't have to play"...but not because "I'm more important than them". I say this because I believe that a consistent, flavourful world provides a greater good to more people across the multiple groups I DM for than allowing Johnny to play the same Samurai Jack-type character he always plays in a setting that cannot -- or should not -- support that character.

If some player feels that having to make a character that fits into my world is "going to screw up his artistry" then just maybe its time for him to find an art that doesn't require other people's input in order for it to work...something a little less collaborative than a game.

You can also put whipped cream on a horse turd too...it still ain't cake.

No, it isn't.

But you are a hell of a lot more likely to get a cake by controlling your ingredients, their proportions, and how long you bake it for than you are by just tossing in anything you find on the road. It seems like the "throw everything in" method is more likely to include whipped cream and horse turds than trying to follow a recipe to make cake. YMMV.


RC