D&D General The Importance of Page 33

[Li Shenron]

I definitely wouldn’t want to play with a DM who views any compromise on their precious campaign vision to be bad gaming.

It's not really about having a "precious" campaign for me. I know that players care nothing for whatever worldbuilding a DM has done.

For me it's all about escaping the vanilla flavor by either (1) sticking to a narrow theme, or (2) choosing a published setting.

As a DM I dream about eventually being able to run many campaigns each with a different theme, but if every time I make compromises that break the theme, I find myself always pulled towards that vanilla result, and never really ticking any theme checkbox off my list.

When it comes to published settings, I want to stick with defaults because I want to relive/share a similar experience with thousands of gaming groups that came before. If I ever play Mystara (just because it's being mentioned, thought I don't know what it is about), I want to know how it feels to play the same Mystara that the majority of those groups have played, not a setting polluted by elements that have nothing to do with it, otherwise I might as well just play once again that random vanilla campaign.

 

[DammitVictor]

If I ever play Mystara (just because it's being mentioned, thought I don't know what it is about), I want to know how it feels to play the same Mystara that the majority of those groups have played, not a setting polluted by elements that have nothing to do with it, otherwise I might as well just play once again that random vanilla campaign.

I suspect that a very large part of this problem is that all of the "official" settings for the past twenty years have been fantasy kitchen sinks, with even the more Arthurian/Tolkiensque Dragonlance and the Gothic Ravenloft being outsourced to third-parties. As much as I bitch about Dragonborn and Tieflings in Dark Sun-- and the sidebar about Divine classes-- it seems like there's a lot less pressure to turn a strongly thematic setting into a kitchen sink than there is to make the existing kitchen sinks broader.

But... my problem here is the same as my problem with the Radiant Triangle in Spelljammer: when a setting already has so little identity, those minor exclusions are the only thing that differentiates one from another, the only things those settings have left. When you drink out of the kitchen sink, the only flavor you taste is dishwater; mixing the dishwater out of a dozen different kitchen sinks isn't going to make it taste better.

Of course, it's also those little exclusions and those little incompatibilities that made AD&D's classic campaign settings exclusive, and led to their ultimate commercial failure. I can understand WotC's desire to avoid making those same mistakes all over again... but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[Oofta]

I like your post, but you said something about a dual gnome wielded by an oversized two handed rapier which was a holy sword in its past life or something along that line.
Shouldn't such an extraordinary race class combo exist in all settings per default and the DM be forced to go extraordinary steps just to shoehorn it in? Maybe if he cannot find any meaningful way, let us say he plans a darksun setting where neither rapiers nor gnomes exist, then just explain to be magic? Or if that doesn't work out then blame it on psionics?

Absolutely. Sir McStabsalot is the universal touchstone of awesome.

 

[Coroc]

I suspect that a very large part of this problem is that all of the "official" settings for the past twenty years have been fantasy kitchen sinks, with even the more Arthurian/Tolkiensque Dragonlance and the Gothic Ravenloft being outsourced to third-parties. As much as I bitch about Dragonborn and Tieflings in Dark Sun-- and the sidebar about Divine classes-- it seems like there's a lot less pressure to turn a strongly thematic setting into a kitchen sink than there is to make the existing kitchen sinks broader.

But... my problem here is the same as my problem with the Radiant Triangle in Spelljammer: when a setting already has so little identity, those minor exclusions are the only thing that differentiates one from another, the only things those settings have left. When you drink out of the kitchen sink, the only flavor you taste is dishwater; mixing the dishwater out of a dozen different kitchen sinks isn't going to make it taste better.

Of course, it's also those little exclusions and those little incompatibilities that made AD&D's classic campaign settings exclusive, and led to their ultimate commercial failure. I can understand WotC's desire to avoid making those same mistakes all over again... but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

love your dishwater comparison, but i disagree with the last paragraph, i do not think making niche settings was tsr s downfall it might have had a role, but then ds and dl e.g. Still have their fans

 

[DammitVictor]

love your dishwater comparison, but i disagree with the last paragraph, i do not think making niche settings was tsr s downfall it might have had a role, but then ds and dl e.g. Still have their fans

Sure, they always did. The problem wasn't that they were niche settings, the problem was that there was so many of them and that most TSR customers were only buying products for one or two of them, either because they were only interested in one or two of them or they could only afford one or two of them.

If WotC's biggest problem has been creating their own biggest rivals, TSR's... well, no, one of their biggest problems was always being their own biggest rival.

 

[S'mon]

I mean, cool for you? I’m not challenging your personal campaign, so... Not sure why you’re going all “all caps” over it.

It felt like you were ignoring my main point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not really about having a "precious" campaign for me. I know that players care nothing for whatever worldbuilding a DM has done.

For me it's all about escaping the vanilla flavor by either (1) sticking to a narrow theme, or (2) choosing a published setting.

As a DM I dream about eventually being able to run many campaigns each with a different theme, but if every time I make compromises that break the theme, I find myself always pulled towards that vanilla result, and never really ticking any theme checkbox off my list.

When it comes to published settings, I want to stick with defaults because I want to relive/share a similar experience with thousands of gaming groups that came before. If I ever play Mystara (just because it's being mentioned, thought I don't know what it is about), I want to know how it feels to play the same Mystara that the majority of those groups have played, not a setting polluted by elements that have nothing to do with it, otherwise I might as well just play once again that random vanilla campaign.

I don’t grok how having more races makes a setting more vanilla, or interferes with literally any theme.

when a setting already has so little identity, those minor exclusions are the only thing that differentiates one from another, the only things those settings have left.

This seems completely false, to me. Two settings can have the same list of races and still be completely distinct from eachother. Eg, FR and Eberron.

 

[clearstream]

I don’t grok how having more races makes a setting more vanilla, or interferes with literally any theme.

It's not the count of races, right? But simply whether they fit into the campaign theme, or bend it around them!

We have a number of tools available for affirming a theme in players' minds. If I assert a storm-wracked world where the only sentient beings are aarakocra, I can use that to give a certain feel to my game. Dropping in a dwarf character begs explanation. NPCs - aarakocra - won't just ignore that heavy, earthbound creature. A tool for crafting an experience is compromised. The additional race literally interferes with the theme.

And that is a very different statement from saying that a theme could not be successfully crafted around just those two races! Of course it could be. It would just have a different feel to it. The stories told in that world would not be identical.

This seems completely false, to me. Two settings can have the same list of races and still be completely distinct from each other. Eg, FR and Eberron.

I agree with your point here. It seems more than proven that two settings can have say - just humans - and yet be completely distinct from each other! That isn't in tension with not wanting to drop random races into a setting. The list of races is not the sole thematic axis, but it may be one of them.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don’t grok how having more races makes a setting more vanilla, or interferes with literally any theme

It may or may not, depends on the race and the theme.

Many of my still unfulfilled campaign ideas are human-only, so any race gets in the way.

But in many other cases races won't matter at all, except really special ones like Warforged or Tiefling.

It's certainly not exclusively about races. Non-core classes might create more problems than non-core races. Alignment also.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not the count of races, right? But simply whether they fit into the campaign theme, or bend it around them!

We have a number of tools available for affirming a theme in players' minds. If I assert a storm-wracked world where the only sentient beings are aarakocra, I can use that to give a certain feel to my game. Dropping in a dwarf character begs explanation. NPCs - aarakocra - won't just ignore that heavy, earthbound creature. A tool for crafting an experience is compromised. The additional race literally interferes with the theme.

And that is a very different statement from saying that a theme could not be successfully crafted around just those two races! Of course it could be. It would just have a different feel to it. The stories told in that world would not be identical.


I agree with your point here. It seems more than proven that two settings can have say - just humans - and yet be completely distinct from each other! That isn't in tension with not wanting to drop random races into a setting. The list of races is not the sole thematic axis, but it may be one of them.

I guess I just disagree that race is ever a strong axis. The aarakokra example, what is the point of it being only aarakokra? I can't figure that part out. How does a given race define that setting? A storm-wracked world I get, but...is the point to only have flying creatures survive? What about aquatic creatures? Surely there are fish?

If flying isn't the point, then why would there being multiple races matter?