D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

[Distracted DM]

Even aside the Dark Sun, I feel "every setting must have everything" is a poisonous idea that thwarts creativity and I really wish we could abandon it.

I'm sure you'll find dissenters, and I imagine that they're mostly folk that are play more often than they GM... Probably because they want to play what they want to play regardless of setting, whereas a GM might be inspired by the restrictions of a setting.

 

[Remathilis]

thing is, how often does the player ever ask what kind of campaign the GM wants to run and tweak their characters around that? far less often i'm guessing, the give and take is not equal here.

Ah, a bugaboo of mine.

I ALWAYS sell my next game by tipping my hand on the setting, adventure path, or both, so that my players know way in advance what to expect.

I did a pirate campaign in Eberron. I got Eberron PCs with a nautical theme
I did a Ravenloft campaign: I got tortured heroes and cursed adventurers
I plan on doing Wild Beyond the Witchlight and I'm getting ideas for fey-or-whimsical PCs.

My group is good like that, mainly. I DO have one player who will directly go against type or find some strange thing to do their own way. But we humor his eccentricies and then ignore them.

 

[Yaarel]

thing is, how often does the player ever ask what kind of campaign the GM wants to run and tweak their characters around that? far less often i'm guessing, the give and take is not equal here.

When discussing what to play next, I offer my feelings too. We arrive at a decision as a group.

A magicless setting would be painful for me. But hi-tech can effectively function as magic, so there is some breathing space.

 

[CreamCloud0]

When discussing what to play next, I offer my feelings too. We arrive at a decision as a group.

A magicless setting would be painful for me. But hi-tech can effectively function as magic, so there is some breathing space.

sure, but my point was more about the GM-player dynamic in general, rather than your or any other specific group.

 

[Yaarel]

sure, but my point was more about the GM-player dynamic in general, rather than your or any other specific group.

I encourage the group to take turns DMing. Mainly switch after each level up. It helps everyone be sensitive to both sides of the screen.

In any case, once the group decides on a setting flavor, it helps to remove the unused options, in order to heighten the flavor. Generally, soft ban them, by organizing regional settings, with unused options rare or far away.

I admire Eberron. In a thematic division of Psionic, Primal, and Elemental, it moreorless removes Primal and puts it on an other continent. The remaining Psionic Elemental regional setting feels intensely urban.

 

[Distracted DM]

No, just some could be gone or radically altered. It's probably easier to drop them all and start fresh than to only do some, IMHO.

If this is the case then there are a two that I can think of off the top of my head:

@xoth.publishing 's sword and sorcery World of Xoth wholly discards some classes and changes others.

@Shardstone 's Scavenger changes the subclasses a lot.

 

[bedir than]

Ah, a bugaboo of mine.

I ALWAYS sell my next game by tipping my hand on the setting, adventure path, or both, so that my players know way in advance what to expect.

I did a pirate campaign in Eberron. I got Eberron PCs with a nautical theme
I did a Ravenloft campaign: I got tortured heroes and cursed adventurers
I plan on doing Wild Beyond the Witchlight and I'm getting ideas for fey-or-whimsical PCs.

My group is good like that, mainly. I DO have one player who will directly go against type or find some strange thing to do their own way. But we humor his eccentricies and then ignore them.

A player that doesn't buy into the theme of the campaign shouldn't join it. It's not that hard.

 

[Yaarel]

A player that doesn't buy into the theme of the campaign shouldn't join it. It's not that hard.

How is it not hard?

The players that I play with are either good friends or become good friends.

It would be less good to shut them out.

Meanwhile, sometimes it is difficult to get a group together, because of location, schedules, and so on. Every player is important.

 

[bedir than]

How is it not hard?

The players that I play with are either good friends or become good friends.

It would be less good to shut them out.

Meanwhile, sometimes it is difficult to get a group together, because of location, schedules, and so on. Every player is important.

If my friend hates fish inviting him to come to fish fry Fridays is rude.

Not inviting them doesn't mean they aren't a friend. It means you are trying to do things that both people enjoy.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm sure you'll find dissenters, and I imagine that they're mostly folk that are play more often than they GM... Probably because they want to play what they want to play regardless of setting, whereas a GM might be inspired by the restrictions of a setting.

Fun game exercise...have the players make characters as normal. Then revamp the setting so that the player's race and class choices are now the centerpiece of the setting, and other options are removed or minimized.