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

[TwoSix]

How is this any different than setting a game in a pre-determined franchise setting that also has limitations? That one player wanting to be something that goes against the established world building is also feeling the impact.

Seems like a double standard.

You see it as double standard because you're focusing on the impact on the player.

I'm laser-focused on the difference between a collaborative game and one where the GM's concepts are privileged.

If the players and GMs agree on a curated setting, than that curation was shared.

If the player then wants to violate that curation later during character creation, then they're also violating the agreement they've made with the group to play that game with that curation in place.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree that as a player, if you agree to a curated setting, you're being problematic if you later on try to renegotiate that curation.

But I still think the GM needs to examine why they are so attracted to that strict curation in the first place. From my perspective, that attraction to strict curation is a GMing weakness, not merely one playstyle choice among many.

I don't think it has to be a weakness.

It can be a weakness, for example a beginning DM might want to keep things more narrow, perhaps excluding full spellcasters until they learn more(gain strength as a DM). So even as a weakness it's not always a bad thing.

It can also be a strength. A DM who is making an interesting combination of classes and races to fit into a unique campaign built around it.

And for some DMs, they're just bored with the same old kitchen sinks and want to mix it up, which is neither a strength nor a weakness.

 

[TwoSix]

Asmodeous is a FR thing tied to a plane that is part of a planar structure totally unrelated to the planes and planar structure of eberron to the point where I don't think there is even the same number of planes. Not only that, friends are native rather than extra planar and [details].in fact they aren't really even considered friend related since most are caused by manifest zones and such

A player who wants to join my eberron game with a tiefling is going to be told a somewhat more detailed version of that and have the chance to ask questions to help them flesh things out. If said player starts talking about asmodeous or ties to devils I'll be annoyed because they agreed to abide by the lore they are ignoring to lore dump from fr in ways that cause a disruption I need to correct mid game.

If I'm running a darksun game tiefling is not even an option.

I have every published setting connected in a loose multiplayer framework precisely to alleviate those kinds of concern. There's plenty of room for Asmodeus and devils within Fernia, Shavarath, Mabar, etc.

 

[Remathilis]

I just say it bluntly without sugarcoating, like other people here in the thread ...

You have a very specific friendship dynamic where everything hinges on a D&D game. That is a lot of pressure for a game.

What you are doing now is to generalise from your specific friendship/d&d dynamic that all DMs need to act as yo want or they are bad DMs, because otherwise that would kill friendships!

But that is only a danger in your very specific friendship/D&D situation.
And woe the friend who has enough of D&D and doesn't want to play that anymore and wants to play monopoly!

You are making presumptions you know nothing about. But seeing that I do not wish further red text, I will end this conversation now.

 

[TwoSix]

It can also be a strength. A DM who is making an interesting combination of classes and races to fit into a unique campaign built around it.

And for some DMs, they're just bored with the same old kitchen sinks and want to mix it up, which is neither a strength nor a weakness.

I think tightly curated settings are great fun.

But if the players aren't interested, then it's the concept that goes away, not the players.

Maybe another group at another time may want to try that idea; if not, it doesn't make it to the table just like thousands of other campaign ideas I've had.

 

[Bae'zel]

The heated debate going on in this thread has been about curation. What's acceptable to various people when a player wants to go against the agreed upon curation. Is it "RIGHT" to say no, yes or compromise? Lines in the sand have been drawn and much judgment and shade has been cast at those with differeng opinions and playstyles on how they approach those breaches.

MY personal bugbear has been the perceived opinion that unless the setting already has mass appeal as a published work, curation is a bad thing for DMs to do. Which I believe is preposterous and unfair.

 

[Scribe]

But I still think the GM needs to examine why they are so attracted to that strict curation in the first place.

Because its my world.

 

[AlViking]

When you curated the setting, you unfortunately made your worldbuilding impact their focus on "just" their character.

It's not like we don't discuss what the next campaign is going to be like, we've had many discussions about what we want to do next over the years. But no current or past player has ever expressed an interest in collaborative world building.

Your way is not the one true way or even a better way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's one way of doing it but it's a fairly uncommon one as far as I've seen. Most worlds are not built for a specific campaign or even for a specific group of players. Either it's a DM's homebrew or a published setting like FR or Eberron.

And my experience is precisely the opposite. Either the campaign is using something not created by anyone in the group in the first place, so we're all operating under limits players will already know because they can just read the material; or the campaign is bespoke for this specific thing, and thus it can and will be adjusted.

Worlds invented by a single GM which are intended to only be used by that GM's groups, and which every group must be beholden to, are rare. Mostly because that requires a single GM with a many-year-long, generally multi-decade-long semi-stable group that wants to do the same sorts of things repeatedly, given...it's the same world with the same concepts and contents.

The simple truth is that most groups are not multi-decade arrangements, and most players look for something fresh when they're aiming to join a new game. Do I have objective data proving this, no, it would be pointless to ask because you know I don't and I know you don't either. But I don't think it requires much more than straightforward logic to conclude that groups which fall apart sooner rather than later are more common than the reverse; that groups which decide to do different things rather than sticking to the same thing will outnumber the reverse, since there are so many ways to change, and only one way to stay the same; and that players who are not currently involved in a game, but want to be, are much more likely to join a fresh group than to join a long-term otherwise stable group that needs new players.

 

[AlViking]

The heated debate going on in this thread has been about curation. What's acceptable to various people when a player wants to go against the agreed upon curation. Is it "RIGHT" to say no, yes or compromise? Lines in the sand have been drawn and much judgment and shade has been cast at those with differeng opinions and playstyles on how they approach those breaches.

MY personal bugbear has been the perceived opinion that unless the setting already has mass appeal as a published work, curation is a bad thing for DMs to do. Which I believe is preposterous and unfair.

I always try to find a compromise, something that will work for all of us. But I also have to think about what I want out of the game and what every other player who signed up for and like (or at least accepted) the curation want.

If you joined my game you must have been okay with the curated list of species because you knew what it was before you joined.