D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Zardnaar]

I'm not sure what you're reading, but in Dragonlance dark elves were just surface elves who were evil. No underground. No underwater.

I know that and I dont like Dragonlance. DM pitches Dragonlance I'll probably say no.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

No? That's not Dalamar at all.

Dalamar is very consistently portrayed as a Silvanesti outcast, except for one of the Wizard's three articles where Greenwood has him talking about "raiding the surface folk" which shows Greenwood liked to write about characters he didn't have the first idea about. (His Mordenkainen was pretty terrible too)

 

[QuentinGeorge]

It is what I have been told by an actual user on this forum. I don't want to name names, particularly when the poster in question clearly has chosen not to participate here. But I assure you it is a specific person. I can DM you the name if you care enough to know it, but I would request that you not invoke it here, again just to respect their space.

I'm pretty sure you've been in the thread when this person has specified just how much they know about their world. They know every continent, every city on those continents, and most (if not all) factions. They know so much information, it's simply impossible for there to be a location in the world they haven't already described in their notes, or so they claim.


Except the level of detail is the reason why the "theme/premise" can't fit it.

Because there literally isn't a campaign theme or premise which is so utterly incompatible with turtle-people that it cannot possibly be done. I'm quite happy to be proven wrong if you can give me, say, two themes/premises that are not literally "Just No Turtles", where it would genuinely be utterly incompatible. "Sword and sorcery" ain't gonna cut it, sorry--because "sword and sorcery" is gonna include a bunch of other Weird Stuff, so the forbidding is still completely on the GM, not because "Sword and Sorcery" actually has any problem with turtle-people or whatever. (As if it were any less problematic to have elves or dwarves!) Dark Sun is "sword and sorcery" and it accommodates all sorts of things just fine. E.g. the dray, which allowed seamless integration of dragonborn into a classic setting!


But that's precisely what's being said. Player fun inherently, necessarily, takes a back seat to GM fun. If the GM's worldbuilding fun is impinged upon, to even the slightest degree, it is an unacceptable destruction--so the player's fun must be impinged upon to protect every single part of the GM's worldbuilding fun. If sacrifices must occur, only the player(s) must make those sacrifices.

That's not what I would call leadership. In fact, I would call it behavior blatantly unbecoming of anyone GMing or wanting to GM.

Again, I don't expect leaders to simply suffer all the time etc., they deserve to be happy too. But if someone has to make a sacrifice for the good of the group? I expect the GM to take the lead on doing that. I encourage the players--including myself!--to take one for the team now and then too, as that's one way of showing respect for their GM's leadership.

"There is not tortles in this world" is a campaign premise that is incompatible with tortles. That's it, it doesn't need any more justification.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is not a matter of whether someone can have preferences or not.

It is a matter of whether someone is inventing BS excuses in order to reify their preferences. Whether someone is pretending that the actual problem is some external, objective thing--like "I cannot do that, it would violate setting consistency"--rather than being honest and admitting that it's simply because they dislike X thing and thus don't want to see it.

If the plain and simple answer is, "I think tortles just look goddamn stupid," then I don't really have a lot of sympathy for that perspective because it seems rather judgmental, but I can at least respect being honest enough to admit it. Prettying it up with distractions like "well but see it would violate the consistency of my setting to allow that, so I'm sorry, my hands are tied!" appears disingenuous--especially when someone goes out of their way to prioritize that thing allegedly binding your hands....and then you still say it's not okay. Because that makes the original invocation of "setting consistency" (or whatever other external, semi-/pseudo-objective characteristic) look manipulative and deceptive.

"I think the things you like are stupid and thus don't want you in my game" is blunt to the point of hostility, but at least it is honest.

DM doesnt need to provide a reason though. Here's what I'm doing.

Last plsy I recruited she was watching us play. After two hours or do I asked her to join in.

BG3 themed game. The made a Drow eith Mizora/Asterion vibes and was willing to sign infernal contracts.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Except they dont have to justify anything why they exclude something.

Yeah, they do. The DM is building a playground for the players. They have a responsibility to them. If they want to world build purely for their own amusement, that’s fine, Tolkien did it, but they are not entitled to have other human beings perform in it for their entertainment.

 

[Mecheon]

The "half-orc" is an error in a book produced during an era of badly edited and rushed works. In the world as a whole "goblin blood" is used as a descriptor for similar characters. "Dark elf" in Dragonlance refers to an outcast elf.

Canon's canon. If Transformers can use a random occurrence of a blatantly Autobot character showing up as a jet for a Decepticon to later tie into that character having an inferiority complex and later trying to redeem himself for past actions such as joining the Decepticons, then I can easily say "Yeah orcs exist in Krynn but something's up with them so they're not the force they are in other settings". Maybe they're on another continent. Maybe they're just rare. Much more fun to lean into that and ask questions about why they're rare, not just wave your hand and go "Yeah they don't exist that's an error"

That many elves in Krynn anyway and it has a ready made "Yeah this just made a thing from another setting generator" in the Greygem, its not like a random orc or two is gonna break things

 

[Zardnaar]

"There is not tortles in this world" is a campaign premise that is incompatible with tortles. That's it, it doesn't need any more justification.

Hell Tortles exist no you can't be one is also fine.

Most things are fine most of the time. Occasionally I want to go more restricted or focus on new product.

Say ive bought a new campaign setting . I'll probably want races added to that setting even if its technically more open. Eg Eberron would probably be PHB+Eberron races allowed.

At least first game. If everyone picked random crap I would be asking why they picked Eberron to begin with and kill the campaign before it started.

If the players aren't onboard with what youre offering its a waste of time running it.

Assuming the players picked Eberron or you advertised it.

Eberron could be any world just an example.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Yes. Exactly like that.

I love Dragonlance, it's an amazing setting that I do think strikes a wonderful balance between "being D&D" and "being different".

But the canonical lack of orcs and drow are not what makes Dragonlance unique or special, IMO. In fact, I think this official TSR world-building by subtraction is the weakest part of the setting.

If, in your homebrew Dragonlance, there happens to be a drow city deep under Ansalon . . . it really doesn't change the setting much, other than adding a new element. If you add orcs . . . you'll barely notice, especially if they hang out with the goblins and hobgoblins.

But you're missing the point of curation, part of the joy of a curated setting is the increased versimilitude from removing thematically redundant creatures and tightening the focus on the major components of the world. The Krynnish goblinoids and ogre races render orcs redundant and unnecessary. The tying of elves to Paladine makes drow ill-suited to the world. Adding them back in is a terrible idea, with no upside. Players should engage with the fiction rather than creating the same bog-standard D&D characters that populate the Realms.

 

[Zardnaar]

But you're missing the point of curation, part of the joy of a curated setting is the increased versimilitude from removing thematically redundant creatures and tightening the focus on the major components of the world. The Krynnish goblinoids and ogre races render orcs redundant and unnecessary. The tying of elves to Paladine makes drow ill-suited to the world. Adding them back in is a terrible idea, with no upside. Players should engage with the fiction rather than creating the same bog-standard D&D characters that populate the Realms.

This. I dont like Krynn so generally wouldn't play it. If I did yeah Krynn rules apply.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Yeah, they do. The DM is building a playground for the players. They have a responsibility to them. If they want to world build purely for their own amusement, that’s fine, Tolkien did it, but they are not entitled to have other human beings perform in it for their entertainment.

Why is there this persistent idea that DMs are forcing players to join games?

DM builds world, proposes campaign. Puts guidelines up for campaign.

Player says: Do I want to join this? Yes or No.

Player builds character as guidelines tell him.

There is no compulsion and no one is performing for others in this scenario.