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

[Bae'zel]

Correct. I know you seem to find it problematic that I don't regards a quality published work to be equivalent to someone's written notes, but to my mind it's a pretty obvious distinction. A published work is shared among all the participants, someone's specific homebrew is explained to the other participants. It elevates the GM's vision into a primary position of table focus, in a way I find inimical to collaboration.

That's a bummer that some folks, in principle, don't have faith in homebrewed settings, only officially published ones.

Some great indie stuff out there has been created by random people, not big corpos.

Dolmenwood, for example.

 

[Bae'zel]

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 think that really depends on the setting and campaign theme.

As a general, broad statement? I wholly disagree and find that take really depressing.

 

[TwoSix]

That's a bummer that some folks, in principle, don't have faith in homebrewed settings, only officially published ones.

Some great indie stuff out there has been created by random people, not big corpos.

Dolmenwood, for example.

Never said anything about "corpos", did I? (Feel free to check my posts.)

I own Dolmenwood, and have played in Dolmenwood, and have advocated for it (in this thread) as a great idea of what a curated setting should aspire to be.

But the key piece is that it is NOT the GM's setting.

 

[Umbran]

If you were here to lecture about unsafe social dynamics, you failed miserably.

Mod note:

The unsafe social dynamic you all should be concerned with is the one you all are creating in this thread.

Dial back the hostility, folks.

 

[AlViking]

Which is the cause of a lot of problems. A lot of DMs are too precious about their creations, and don’t want those irritating players messing it up. Hence all the ways they try to limit player freedom.

Playgrounds are built for children to enjoy. If the designer starts designing it to amuse themselves they are doing it wrong.

I don't build my world to amuse myself even if I do enjoy world building. No good DM has that as their only motivation. Meanwhile plenty of things built by committee are the equivalent of The Homer Car.

Don't tell me I'm doing it wrong because I don't do it your way and I'll return the favor.

 

[AlViking]

Yep. The majority of players just aren't that interested in exploring someone else's creation as the focus of the game.

Most have no interest in world building.

 

[TwoSix]

I think that really depends on the setting and campaign theme.

As a general, broad statement? I wholly disagree and find that take really depressing.

I'm sorry if I've bummed you out. But yes, I do think that a GM that thinks something like "Eberron but with Tolkien races only" is a clever idea that players will actually want to explore is a GM who needs some actual awareness.

 

[Bae'zel]

Never said anything about "corpos", did I? (Feel free to check my posts.)

Sorry: it was implied by your preference for published works over "someone's written notes". That specific choice of words makes homebrewed work seem disjointed and disorganized. Of lower quality than published works. I've met people who've done a lot of great work, even just in online blogs, that were more innovative and interesting than published works.

Dolmenwood started off as blog posts and amateur booklets. Basically "someone's written notes".

So yeah, it comes across as appeal to the authority of publishers to me.

 

[TwoSix]

Most have no interest in world building.

Yes, but most also have no interest in having their options restricted. They might endure it, but very few will think it's making their experience better.

 

[Bae'zel]

I'm sorry if I've bummed you out. But yes, I do think that a GM that thinks something like "Eberron but with Tolkien races only" is a clever idea that players will actually want to explore is a GM who needs some actual awareness.

We're talking about specifics here. Where's the line drawn? Running Forgotten Realms with specific races omitted is weird, yeah, but is running a "Dwarf-only" campaign okay? Still wrong?

What about a 1920s Call of Cthulhu campaign as humans only? Or a Middle Earth Campaign pitch that's Hobbits only?

There are so many examples that could be construed as confusingly exclusionary. It's coming down to personal preference and boundaries.