Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[Urriak Uruk]

I always get that mixed up. I thought that the gnomes were killed off in Dark Sun because the kender ate all of them?

Close, it's the templars (paladins) who killed the gnomes. But don't worry, I'm making a module where the kender travel my Spelljammer to Dark Sun to eat the templars.

Then I'll need something to eat the kenders, I'm still working out the details...

 

[Nebin]

I rip off the good parts for my home game. spells locations ideas, always steal prom the best :
).

 

[Oofta]

See here's my disagreement with you; they are, they're the players in it. If you make a king and they kill and overthrow him, they're defining the world. If you arbitrarily block that move, you're removing player agency, which to me defeats the whole point of why you're actually playing D&D.

In a recent campaign a PC because of their choices and actions did become the king (well, emperor/over-king). The future of that region will be changed for many campaigns to come and the land will be much more peaceful and prosperous, at least for a while.

But I put the king there in the first place. I decided that there were kings in my world. I decided in this particular case that the king had no legitimate claim to the throne and was actually a red dragon. Oh, and the dragon's mother is really pissed off with her son. I haven't decided what the long term fallout of that will be or how/if I will integrate it into future campaigns.

Players also help me fill in the world and it's background all the time. But I have final say.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

In a recent campaign a PC because of their choices and actions did become the king (well, emperor/over-king). The future of that region will be changed for many campaigns to come and the land will be much more peaceful and prosperous, at least for a while.

But I put the king there in the first place. I decided that there were kings in my world. I decided in this particular case that the king had no legitimate claim to the throne and was actually a red dragon. Oh, and the dragon's mother is really pissed off with her son. I haven't decided what the long term fallout of that will be or how/if I will integrate it into future campaigns.

Players also help me fill in the world and it's background all the time. But I have final say.

See this just sounds like railroading under a different name. Do your players have any choices at all? Or only a list of options that you "allow"?

If my players divert from my original plan for the campaign, I adapt my plans and world for that. I don't try to force them back, though I'll offer them carrots and sticks to get them back on track if there's something I really think they'd enjoy.

If the game is just "Here's my world and story, and I expect you to follow the breadcrumbs I lay out," in storytelling terms that's not much different from a video game. And if I want that, I'll just play a video game.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

See this just sounds like railroading under a different name. Do your players have any choices at all? Or only a list of options that you "allow"?

If my players divert from my original plan for the campaign, I adapt my plans and world for that. I don't try to force them back, though I'll offer them carrots and sticks to get them back on track if there's something I really think they'd enjoy.

If the game is just "Here's my world and story, and I expect you to follow the breadcrumbs I lay out," in storytelling terms that's not much different from a video game. And if I want that, I'll just play a video game.

If everyone in the game is having fun then telling someone they are running the game in a bad way is 'Your way is BadWrongFun'.

So what if someone runs a game in a way you don't approve of? You're not playing in that game are you? Live and let live.

 

[Fenris-77]

Deciding that the king is in fact a red dragon isn't railroading. No one is having a choice forced. All that's happened is that the DM decided that X is the case. What the players do about it, how they find out about it, well that's up to them. If the dragon king is somehow key to the plot, then even if the players make no effort to find out that fact, I'd have them find out anyway, because they need to know. Once agin, after they know, they go back to deciding what to do about it. It isn't railroading.

On a separate note, the DM probably should justify the scope and limitations of the campaign, that would be good practice - that's what a pitch and session zero are for. However, if you show up at session zero with the Centaur character without knowing anything about the campaign, you probably shouldn't just expect to be allowed to use it. As a DM I'm under no obligation to allow any damn thing a player wants to play just because they want it. That's the worst kind of player entitlement.

 

[Oofta]

See this just sounds like railroading under a different name. Do your players have any choices at all? Or only a list of options that you "allow"?

If my players divert from my original plan for the campaign, I adapt my plans and world for that. I don't try to force them back, though I'll offer them carrots and sticks to get them back on track if there's something I really think they'd enjoy.

If the game is just "Here's my world and story, and I expect you to follow the breadcrumbs I lay out," in storytelling terms that's not much different from a video game. And if I want that, I'll just play a video game.

Huh? They chose to fight back against the emperor, they didn't have to. The group made multiple choices along the way of who to ally with, where to spend limited resources. When to save innocents or raid the caravan bringing payment for the soldiers to fund their revolution. They uncovered secret plots and were betrayed when they didn't suspect an ally of being a spy despite multiple hints.

But at various points I gave them major arcs they could pursue. At the end of most sessions I tell them "here are the obvious options and opportunities in front of you what do you want to pursue next session or do you want to do something else?"

That's not a railroad, it's an open road. I create the map, they decide where to go. It's a far, far cry from saying "I don't want drow as a playable race" to saying I run a railroad campaign. But even if I did (which most modules seem to), who cares if everyone at the table is having fun?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Huh? They chose to fight back against the emperor, they didn't have to. The group made multiple choices along the way of who to ally with, where to spend limited resources. When to save innocents or raid the caravan bringing payment for the soldiers to fund their revolution. They uncovered secret plots and were betrayed when they didn't suspect an ally of being a spy despite multiple hints.

But at various points I gave them major arcs they could pursue. At the end of most sessions I tell them "here are the obvious options and opportunities in front of you what do you want to pursue next session or do you want to do something else?"

That's not a railroad, it's an open road. I create the map, they decide where to go. It's a far, far cry from saying "I don't want drow as a playable race" to saying I run a railroad campaign. But even if I did (which most modules seem to), who cares if everyone at the table is having fun?

My mistake I misunderstood your post; I read this as you had purposefully designed that emperor to have them fight, and funneled all the options to that end result.

And I agree, if people are having fun at your table with some races excluded, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

My mistake I misunderstood your post; I read this as you had purposefully designed that emperor to have them fight, and funneled all the options to that end result.

And I agree, if people are having fun at your table with some races excluded, it really doesn't matter.

Ah, pleasant conversation restored - for now!

 

[SkidAce]

That's why Greyhawk doesn't work as a human-centric world - the Monster Manual says it's full of aliens, whether or not the DM allows them to be player characters. If you want a human-centric campaign world the first thing you need to do is tear up most of the Monster Manual.

Not really.

The monster manual(s) have never implied that everything in them exists in the world, IMO.

I see them as a toolkit from which you choose monsters for your campaign.

Now adventures set in a world that include certain races, I can see your point there.