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

[TwoSix]

Dang. I KNEW I spelled museum tourism! Burn down a village because they tried to lynch a fellow PC and suddenly 20th level archmages with gank you when you sleep. Teach those players to mess with my setting!

It always starts with "I have a carefully considered vision of my world" and it ends with "and I'm not going to let anyone change it unless I say so."

Exactly. The work you do for a campaign setting frame is like building a bonfire. You stack a bunch of pieces together to give the players something satisfying to burn down.

 

[Remathilis]

Exactly. The work you do for a campaign setting frame is like building a bonfire. You stack a bunch of pieces together to give the players something satisfying to burn down.

I mean, I tend not to have players who burn down villages but I also don't set up lynch mobs because they are an orc or tiefling or... Tabaxi...

 

[AlViking]

Dang. I KNEW I spelled museum tourism! Burn down a village because they tried to lynch a fellow PC and suddenly 20th level archmages with gank you when you sleep. Teach those players to mess with my setting!

If you burn down a village, the government that controls the region investigates what happened. When they realize it's a group of dangerous individuals, those individuals are dealt with. Especially if you kill a chicken just for the hell of it.

It always starts with "I have a carefully considered vision of my world" and it ends with "and I'm not going to let anyone change it unless I say so."

Actions have consequences both good and bad. I do my best to make the world a living breathing thing that responds in a realistic fashion. If you want an amusement park where you can do whatever you want without consequences have fun with that.

 

[AlViking]

I came up with the foundational structure and concepts for my primary campaign when I was in high school, long ago in the late 20th century. Since then I've added to it, adjusted, had time pass as campaigns came and went. The characters in the campaigns saw and either helped or were helpless to stop the rise and fall of kingdoms all while changing the course of the world in ways I could not have ever anticipated. What the characters do and the players have chosen to pursue continues to influence that world.

If someone doesn't want a world rich in history and lore to discover then, like a lot of players, you can ignore most of it and I'm not going to bore you with details you aren't interested in. It just all becomes foundational stuff for me as a DM. Along the same lines if a different DM wants a kitchen sink campaign with little built in lore or just uses FR or they create a new world for each campaign I might be interested in playing. But no one has the high ground, moral or otherwise because their preference differs.

One thing has remained consistent in my campaign world. I have a relatively small number of intelligent humanoids running around, both playable races and not. This is purely my preference, I want the world to feel "real" in a way that I just won't get if I allow dozens of different species. To me if there are dozens of species running around there is no way to give them all unique feel, they almost all become human in all but name only with rubber prosthetics. There may be thematic elements, but those thematic elements could apply to any species. In any campaign they're still just generally stereotypes of human nature boiled down into a few sentences with exceptions for specific individuals. But at least in my campaign I have a history, a place in my world for all the species.

The species someone plays is just someone else's made up stereotype of human existence and is a tiny fraction of what that character is and will become. Is there anything truly unique to a dragonborn other than scaly skin that couldn't be replicated in a human?

Funny thing is I tell people that if they want to play something not on my curated list they can always ask. The last time that happened was in my 4e campaign 15ish years ago. In that case we were able to come to a compromise, the character was not human and few knew they were not. There was no dimensional portal or a lab accident. They didn't just declare they were running a species not on my list. We did it by discussing options and coming up with something that we both agreed upon and we both gave a little. Radical.

 

[SkidAce]

It has never been able to do this. People try to do it. Wizards (and TSR) market it like it can. But it can't.

IMO, its been doing it since I started in the 80's.

I reckon its all in how you look at it.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean, I tend not to have players who burn down villages but I also don't set up lynch mobs because they are an orc or tiefling or... Tabaxi...

Well, "burn down" is metaphorical. Usually.

I'm more emphasizing the greater point that the rationale for a setting is to give the players and their characters a backdrop for their actions.

 

[tetrasodium]

I GM as often as I play. GMs don't need some special form of empathy.

If you're GMing for people who don't appreciate your efforts, stop GMing.

There's no Prisoner's Dilemma around people engaged in a shared hobby activity.

I didn't say special, I said lack/absence the fact that you need to reframe it so speaks volumes. None of those three are prisoners dilemma or even adjacent.

A player can always choose to not be a player or stop being a player, but a gm typically has 3-5 players and it's not reasonable for a single player to feel they are entitled to veto or undermine the game for everyone else if their desired PC doesn't fit

Edit: Lack and absence speak of quantity. "Special form of" something darker

 

[Scott Christian]

Players still don’t care about lore.

They might care about lore if the game is a licensed property they’re familiar with. Or if you present some lore that gives them a clear and demonstrable character-impacting choice within the game.

But no one wants to read your game notes to figure out why it’s super important there are no Dragonborn or Tabaxi or Tortles in this game.

See the bold. That is your answer, and it is a good one. There is no other reason to have lore other than that right there. That is the reason gamemasters create lore - to have an impact on the player. And if the player respects that - then they won't insist on going against the lore.

Your argument suggests that you don't have any trust in your DM. Sad. I have trusted all of mine, and it has turned out great.

 

[Remathilis]

If you burn down a village, the government that controls the region investigates what happened. When they realize it's a group of dangerous individuals, those individuals are dealt with. Especially if you kill a chicken just for the hell of it.

I assume the government also takes care of the powerful monsters and villains as well, making sure the community is safe and doesn't need adventurers. Or do they just sit around and monitor the player characters?

Actions have consequences both good and bad. I do my best to make the world a living breathing thing that responds in a realistic fashion. If you want an amusement park where you can do whatever you want without consequences have fun with that.

Sometimes crime happens and no one gets punished. Villages burn and no one is held responsible. But the controlling DM knows that such an attack on their world cannot stand unpunished and the guilty PC must be dealt with. Be it by powerful NPCs who spring up from the ground to battle the PC, a coincidental attack by a too powerful monster or the literal Gods showing up to provide divine justice.

Yeah, the red flags are glowing brighter.

 

[Belen]

Dang. I KNEW I smelled museum tourism! Burn down a village because they tried to lynch a fellow PC and suddenly 20th level archmages with gank you when you sleep. Teach those players to mess with my setting!

It always starts with "I have a carefully considered vision of my world" and it ends with "and I'm not going to let anyone change it unless I say so."

Burning down a village is an evil act as there will be innocent villagers.

If the PCs murder an entire village rather than just fleeing, then I am probably done with that group. I will just end the game.

I do not find evil fun. I would do the same if they slaughtered monster kids too.