D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[hawkeyefan]

Discussion and compromise is the best way to handle these kinds of elements. There are always ways to resolve these things beyond just alllowong everything or banning everything.

Aside from that, I think a very important element of this, and one that many GMs should ask themselves….what’s more important: the game played collaboratively with the GM and players, or the game played by the GM alone?

Is Setting Solitaire more important than the game with the group?

 

[Minigiant]

It feels like there is a big space between being blind to all the world's lore and knowing the entire MM and DMG. In zero to hero, why would the kids at the isolated woodland village know much, for example?

Why are players limited to isolated kids from a woodland village?

The ONE thing a DM can't do is make a player's PC without permission.

 

[Oofta]

Discussion and compromise is the best way to handle these kinds of elements. There are always ways to resolve these things beyond just alllowong everything or banning everything.

Aside from that, I think a very important element of this, and one that many GMs should ask themselves….what’s more important: the game played collaboratively with the GM and players, or the game played by the GM alone?

Is Setting Solitaire more important than the game with the group?

What's better, a setting the DM believes in and is enthusiastic about or a setting the DM feels is fundamentally goofy? Why is it that players can be prima donnas that demand every race under the sun but the DM who builds the world has no say in the matter? Why does "compromise" always seem to mean "let the players decide what can be a very important part of setting feel and continuity"?

 

[Umbran]

If the world and it's inhabitants don't work for me then I don't see how I can sell the world to others.

"I'm sorry, but I can't DM well if you take too many races," does not seem like a great selling point.

A Bugs Bunny toon may fit in your campaign world, it would not fit in mine unless it's a dream sequence.

The point is, ultimately, that the campaign world is not the meaningful unit of game to the players. The players are not sitting down saying, "Oh, great! Another chance to make the GM's world a reality!"

With restrictions on player choices, the GM is asking the players to take the burden of supporting the campaign world, rather than the campaign world supporting their play. In this, the players are giving something to the GM. They ought to get something back. Basic fairness, there.

Note: this comes from the perspective that the GM is not ultimately "superior" to other players. "The GM does all the work, so the players should generally bow to the GM's desires," is an old, and I think largely outdated, model. If, in order to run a game, you need the players to give up a lot of stuff, that's not their fault, so they don't owe you the solution.

As far as selling my world, not sure what to say. I've never had an issue attracting or retaining players.

So, your "What harm does it do?" comes from the position of a person who doesn't actually have any problems. Players, are not, in fact, taking a bunch of characters that don't work for you. I suspected as much - this is a hypothetical situation, for you.

The answers to the question you have asked clearly then do not apply to you. What harm does it do? Well, in your case, nothing. Your status quo is fine for you. Go, have fun.

But realize then that your personal perspective does not apply to the answers, either. You don't really have much to say on why GMs might want to roll back on restrictions, or why it might be a positive for a GM to do so.

 

[Oofta]

Why are players limited to isolated kids from a woodland village?

The ONE thing a DM can't do is make a player's PC without permission.

But the group can agree that they're starting out as kids in an isolated woodland village because that's what the DM pitched. Right? If that's the case then it's likely they've never been more than 15 miles from home and the only news from the outside world is from the occasional trader who may not have seen much more than them.

 

[Cadence]

Why are players limited to isolated kids from a woodland village?

The ONE thing a DM can't do is make a player's PC without permission.

I didn't say they had to be...I was giving an example of where the characters wouldn't know a lot. (You seemed to be implying that would never be the case )

Maybe he DM tried to sell it as "So, I've got this idea where y'all start off in this isolated village. Here's the kinds of things you would know, and here's what will happen to get you to set out from the village.". If the players say good, then their characters would have limited knowledge.

 

[Umbran]

What's better, a setting the DM believes in and is enthusiastic about or a setting the DM feels is fundamentally goofy?

But...that's just the GM's side. What about the players? The more complete question is more like, "What's better, a setting the DM believes in, but players who bear up with restrictions, or a setting the DM feels is fundamentally goofy, but the players get to revel in their cool ideas?"

Why is it that players can be prima donnas that demand every race under the sun but the DM who builds the world has no say in the matter?

You apparently play in a place in which you don't have to worry about this. Please stop using the emotionally loaded language as if you are personally put upon here, when you are not.

You aren't personally being asked to do a darned thing here Oofta. Accept that as a given.

 

[Cadence]

"I'm sorry, but I can't DM well if you take too many races," does not seem like a great selling point.



The point is, ultimately, that the campaign world is not the meaningful unit of game to the players. The players are not sitting down saying, "Oh, great! Another chance to make the GM's world a reality!"

With restrictions on player choices, the GM is asking the players to take the burden of supporting the campaign world, rather than the campaign world supporting their play. In this, the players are giving something to the GM. They ought to get something back. Basic fairness, there.

Note: this comes from the perspective that the GM is not ultimately "superior" to other players. "The GM does all the work, so the players should generally bow to the GM's desires," is an old, and I think largely outdated, model. If, in order to run a game, you need the players to give up a lot of stuff, that's not their fault, so they don't owe you the solution.



So, your "What harm does it do?" comes from the position of a person who doesn't actually have any problems. Players, are not, in fact, taking a bunch of characters that don't work for you. I suspected as much - this is a hypothetical situation, for you.

The answers to the question you have asked clearly then do not apply to you. What harm does it do? Well, in your case, nothing. Your status quo is fine for you. Go, have fun.

But realize then that your personal perspective does not apply to the answers, either. You don't really have much to say on why GMs might want to roll back on restrictions, or why it might be a positive for a GM to do so.

Do you ever have any restrictions on race or class in the games.you run?

If not, cool.

If so, what's an example and what do the players get for it?

 

[billd91]

The point is, ultimately, that the campaign world is not the meaningful unit of game to the players. The players are not sitting down saying, "Oh, great! Another chance to make the GM's world a reality!"

We aren't? If we didn't want in on the campaign the DM pitched, why are we showing up?

With restrictions on player choices, the GM is asking the players to take the burden of supporting the campaign world, rather than the campaign world supporting their play. In this, the players are giving something to the GM. They ought to get something back. Basic fairness, there.

And here it is again - it's like clockwork around here. Why isn't the basic fairness the players agreeing to the DM's restrictions on some choices? The DM is giving quite a bit of work and effort to the players by running the game. They ought to get something back. Basic fairness, there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It feels like there is a big space between being blind to all the world's lore and knowing the entire MM and DMG. In zero to hero, why would the kids at the isolated woodland village know much, for example?

Yeah. And if you want genuine wonder of exploration and discovery, it is beneficial for the players to start with limited knowledge.