D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[EzekielRaiden]

Cough aether
Cough coriolis
Cough centripetal
Is it just me, or is it dusty in here?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

There is no luminiferous aether. Even if there were, by its own theoretical claims, you cannot see it if you're inside an enclosed space. That would be like saying you could see the drag on the water in your fishbowl from the Earth's motion around the sun.

Coriolis effects are (much like the Unruh effect) undetectable at human scales. They're something like one ten-millionth of the acceleration due to gravity. Many people think the Coriolis affect applies to things like bathtubs and toilets, but it doesn't (or, at least, it does but it's legit invisible beneath much more salient factors like the product design.)

Likewise, centripetal forces again can only be observed if you can see outside. If you cannot look outside to see the point of rotation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is what I look for in a game. I'd much prefer this to the DM changing their setting to accommodate me.

You portray this as though it's a ridiculous bit of nonsense. Not exactly the "everyone's tastes are valid" perspective you were laying claim to previously; this is characterizing the "other side" in an inherently negative light, whether you intend it or not. It's not "changing the world to accommodate"--it's recognizing that there is value in having a "beyond-the-horizon" from which novelty, whatever the reason for its inclusion, could arise.

This sounds delightful and like it would lead to a game with high player agency.

Whereas to me it tells me "you are a mere spectator in this world", and thus affords almost no agency whatsoever.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This sounds delightful and like it would lead to a game with high player agency.

I'm hard pressed to see why "I'd like to set up some elements of my home village" reduces agency in a meaningful way.

 

[The Firebird]

I'm hard pressed to see why "I'd like to set up some elements of my home village" reduces agency in a meaningful way.

Yeah, I'd also be fine with that. The character's family, a small village, some minor cultural elements, seem all good to me, because they don't affect anything major about the world.

New species, cultures, or political organizations are different though. Tieflings, for example, imply something about the cosmology, the existence of demons and devils, and the existence of and role of alignment. As a limiting case, if the GM wrote up a human-only world where other planes don't exist, it would be inappropriate to include them.

 

[The Firebird]

You portray this as though it's a ridiculous bit of nonsense. Not exactly the "everyone's tastes are valid" perspective you were laying claim to previously; this is characterizing the "other side" in an inherently negative light, whether you intend it or not. It's not "changing the world to accommodate"--it's recognizing that there is value in having a "beyond-the-horizon" from which novelty, whatever the reason for its inclusion, could arise.

Hmm? There is nothing wrong in the abstract about changing the world to accommodate player ideas. I've run fun games with more collaborative world building in the past. But it isn't what I prefer these days.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is your argument that if the GM doesn't want a particular species represented in the game and/or the setting and the player does, too bad for the GM?

No.

It is that someone who nails down that much of their world is taking meaningful agency away from their players by turning the world into something so heavily fixed, the players are merely pushing around the preconfigured elements.

As said above, there is genuine value--to both player and GM--in having a "beyond-the-horizon", a "not-fully-known", from which things may arise as more is learned.

It wasn't until the post-Renaissance that folks had more than an incredibly loose idea of what Europe, Africa, and Asia looked like overall. "Hɪᴄ ꜱᴠɴᴛ ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏɴᴇꜱ" only appeared on a single (disputed) map, but more common variants (e.g. ʜɪᴄ ꜱᴠɴᴛ ʟᴇᴏɴᴇꜱ) existed too. The Romans sincerely believed there were dog-headed humans only a relatively short ways outside their explored territory, for example.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why put everything to such extremes?

Because I'm talking about an actual poster's game: Lanefan's.

This isn't an invention. It's a real thing. @The Firebird likewise doesn't see it as an "extreme" at all.

The DM doesn't have to know everything, she just has to know if tieflings are part of her campaign or not. And if she is willing to add them or not, if asked.

It's a difficult enough task to be a DM that I don't see the benefit of placing an unneccessary burden of total preparation on them.

I'm with you! But the "traditional GM" apparently needs to do this.

 

[AlViking]

Okay.

Now imagine you ask, "Can I play a tiefling?" and the GM says, "No, I'm sorry, there are no tieflings on this world anywhere"...because they know ABSOLUTELY EVERY race and culture on EVERY part of the planet.

It's not just "oh, make sure there's a pretty good idea of what's going on in advance".

This is a world completely determined, down to local economics, EVERYWHERE. Nothing can be modified. Period.

Reasons for a DM not to allow tieflings

• Fiends don't exist in this campaign world. No fiends, no tieflings.
• Fiends do exist and they are a constant threat, anything that looks like a fiend is not going to survive long*. Even if they do it would be logical that they would face fear (and therefore discrimination) everywhere they go and the DM doesn't want to deal with it.
• Tieflings were not on the list of allowed species on the invite (with a couple variations)
  • This is a bit of a test. You knew when you were invited what the restrictions were, there are still plenty of other options.
  • The DM runs a persistent world, runs for multiple groups, keeps things consistent across groups. If a tiefling is allowed then there will always be tieflings, if there is a tiefling there is no reason to not have any other random species.
• The DM just doesn't like them
  • They don't like the mechanical benefits
  • They feel that people that people who want to play them tend to want to play "edgy" characters that end up being "annoying" characters.
• The DM doesn't have to give a reason if they don't feel like it. It's their game.

Now, I'm not saying I personally believe any of these** but I would accept any of them because it's my choice to join their campaign.

*I'm not saying this is a good attitude to have, I can see it being realistic
**If it's my main campaign world it's persistent and I decided on the allowed species decades ago and, depending on the region, there have been within living memory invasions from fiends.

 

[Maggan]

I'm with you! But the "traditional GM" apparently needs to do this.

That's not what I'm taking from their posts. They tell us what they like, what they do, how they play, and not how everyone else must play. At least that's how I read it.

And whatever anyone here says, regardless of how I read it, no DM have to do what they say.

 

[The Firebird]

I'm with you! But the "traditional GM" apparently needs to do this.

There is a difference between "the traditional GM must have everything determined" and "the traditional GM can limit choices in character creation based on the world they have created".