D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[DND_Reborn]

The low magic, low PC power campaign forced us to focus on events.

This, to me, is part of the essence of old school gaming.

Have you ever excluded monsters because they simply don't fit your vision of the game world, especially if it was something the players wanted to see included for some reason?

Yes to the first part, no to the second.

Most DMs I suspect know who their players are going to be, so BEFORE designing a world, discuss with players what they want to do in next adventure.

This depends a lot on the DM. Like many DMs I have an established world for my games, and I take my players there. When it comes to what they want to play or do, I tell them about the world if they are new and we go with it. Veteran players (to my game, that is) are already familiar with it, of course.

In some sense, the DM's enjoyment trumps all

IMO this is the case. The DM spends more time on the game than players IME and is responsible for the game in many ways. This is why when I play, I will certainly ask the DM if I can do this or that with my character, but if I can tell they don't really want it (or they just say "no"), then I move on to something else. IMO a good player (and DM) should really be engaged in making the game as much fun as they can for everyone. But, because the DM shoulders the most for the game, if they aren't enjoying running it, it won't be as good as it could be.

A DM isn't a novelist and the world at the table is for everyone.

But the DM is the storyteller. The players are actors in an improv game. They can change the world as much as the capabilities of their characters allow them to, certainly, but the DM can change anything they like at all because it is a world they made.

New York City is pretty cosmopolitan and it doesn't have, as far as I know, any sapient non-human races.

Sure, but it has plenty of non-sapient human races. (j/k)

I have one of two names for settings where every person has a place, depending on whether it's an in-setting decision or an out of setting one. If it's in setting choice by the rulers of that setting the name is "totalitarian". If it's an out of setting choice by the designers of the setting it's "sterile".

How about these words: fleshed out, fulfilling, robust, grounded, and so on.

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

It depends on how much fun you have with the group. I have certainly met groups whose play style and interests are so diverse from my own, spending time at their table would be painful to me. I would rather spend the time developing my own world (even if nothing more than a creative outlet) than play with such group.

I said that folks should collectively compromise. Sometimes, players should give in. Sometimes, GMs should.

This is excellent advice which often (myself included) people, both DMs and Players, seem to forget. DMs and Players are not against each other despite how the game might feel sometimes, we are playing it together.

I don’t place any more privlege or importance on the GM.

But here is where we differ...

I always expect players to respect that, as DM, my decision is FINAL PERIOD. If you can't convince me to see your side, sorry, but since I am running the game and doing the most work for it, I expect you to respect the dedication I have to the game and accept my rulings are final. And just to satisfy anyone's curiosity, when I am a player treat my DM this way. Their word is final. Period.

In groups where most of the would-be-players can also DM it feels symmetric. If there are five players and one DM, the game can go on without one of the players but not without the DM. So it feels like there is some imbalance.

This is also a good point. I've had some groups where every person in the group has DMed at one point or another, but then again I've been in groups where I am lucky if 1 or 2 of the players have ever DMed.... In the latter case, unless one of the players wants to DM, the game is dropped if I don't DM.

Like many others here, I DM 90-95% of the games I am in. This IS NOT by my personal choice. It is because my players really like my games, respect my experience as a DM, and want to see what I will come up with next. In the (very rare) cases I get to be a player, it is nearly always with a player who wants to DM a published module.

So, for myself, I will generally jump at any chance to be just a player and relax, enjoying the adventure more (provided I like the group and share styles, of course).

The question is how much you want the PCs to always stand out like a sore thumb. Assuming your setting is not super-conservative, a typical old-school PC group wouldn't necessarily attract a lot of attention in a cosmopolitan setting, and honestly, aren't necessarily all that distinct from people around them at least at lower levels.

As soon as you have a lot of exotics (and that's the important thing here--how uncommon they are. The Star Wars cantina is a bad example, because you find random aliens scattered all over the setting, and there's enough different kinds that any given one no one has seen before in a place that gets a lot of transit will only attract so much attention; a fantasy equivalent can potentially be the same) every place they go, even from the start, their distinctiveness becomes something of an issue in the way everyone is reacting to them. You can ignore it, of course, but that can feel very forced. And this becomes all the more pronounced when the whole group is like that.

I am so glad you brought this up!

Some games do have incredibly diverse worlds with lots of unique races intermixed. Most (IME) are human-centric with other established races. And of course many are somewhere in between.

One of the most fun (interesting?) games I ran recently we all started out:

1) as Monks
2) as an "animal-race" of some sort. We had an Aarakocra, Tabaxi, and Tortle, so bird-man, cat-man, turtle-man.

BUT as an experiment the idea was in this new world, there was literally an "animal-person" continent with a variety of established kingdoms, etc. The PCs were from those lands, and the people in the rest of the world knew of them--even if they had never seen such peoples before.

So, in many cases the PCs were strange to the regions they explored, and singled out because of this--sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

Not always. I personally tend to build a world with my players' input. We collaboratively build a world together. Or, at the very least, I'll build a world and allow them pretty significant contributions.

This gives me an idea I might try sometime. Start with a blank slate of regions or continents and let each group member choose one. Each member is responsible for fleshing out their region, to at least a basic level. Anything that seems to go against the grain can be left to a vote as to keep it or not--or just let anything go?

It might be a fun experiement.

 

[Cadence]

And given that race is one of the very few functional choices a player has in creating their own character it to me is very symptomatic of an entitled GM who does not play well with others that they seek to control one of the few major choices the players get.

A player who sounds like they won't be happy unless they get a particular race in this one game sounds symptomatic of a narrow minded trouble maker who can't flexibly roleplay.

 

[Oofta]

Other than the pacifist portion which is usually disruptive to the game, I don't see a problem with a 7 foot elf. Gigantism is a thing, so an abnormally tall elf would be unusual, but not impossible.

There were a whole lot of issues with the PC, not just being a 7 foot tall albino elf. Things like everyone was afraid of them when they walked into a room and when I asked why, thinking it was some power or ability I was not aware of, the response was "because they are".

So now we discuss character concepts before the campaign starts and I reserve the right to veto something that makes no sense. It's been incredibly rare that we can't come up with something that works. The only two instances I can think of were the "half-dragon half-vampire" guy and another that didn't want to play in a campaign where evil PCs weren't allowed. I don't allow evil PCs because if they are really, truly, evil and it's not just a label I wouldn't have fun running the campaign.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It depends on how much fun you have with the group. I have certainly met groups whose play style and interests are so diverse from my own, spending time at their table would be painful to me. I would rather spend the time developing my own world (even if nothing more than a creative outlet) than play with such group.

Sure, that's just a matter of choosing how one spends one's time. If it's more fun to prep a game world than it is to play a game with a given group, then have at it.

I think this is a criteria that many people need to consider. Is the fun I have in worldbuilding between sessions more enjoyable to me, or more important to me, than my time actually playing with the group at the table?

I think that's a tough question to actually answer for many people.

This is excellent advice which often (myself included) people, both DMs and Players, seem to forget. DMs and Players are not against each other despite how the game might feel sometimes, we are playing it together.

Right, RPGs are a group activity. As such, the interests and satisfaction of the group are what's important.

But here is where we differ...

I always expect players to respect that, as DM, my decision is FINAL PERIOD. If you can't convince me to see your side, sorry, but since I am running the game and doing the most work for it, I expect you to respect the dedication I have to the game and accept my rulings are final. And just to satisfy anyone's curiosity, when I am a player treat my DM this way. Their word is final. Period.

Sure, I don't mind the GM as a role having to have final say. It's more a function of the role than anything else, though.

Perhaps I should clarify my statement a bit.....I don't place more importance on the GM's enjoyment than any other participant's.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Perhaps I should clarify my statement a bit.....I don't place more importance on the GM's enjoyment than any other participant's.

Gotcha. Cool.

Of course, as a selfish person, I place the most importance on my own enjoyment. Otherwise, why am I there...

 

[Cadence]

This is actually something I've been trying to move away from. I've been trying to incorporate some player choices, ideas and actions into the campaign worlds I run.

Examples:
Playing Ghosts of Saltmarsh, a recent character chose to play a human Gladiator battlemaster. That led to the creation of a gladiatorial circuit in the Kingdom of Keoland, that may extend beyond its borders. I may have this link be a stepping stone to a multidimensional supernatural "fight club" from a campaign from years ago - which itself was a spur-of-the-moment creation based on player desire for some power-leveling.

In the same campaign, due to a random trinket rolled on the PHB (A book with iron pages) for the Kenku player (who is a wizard), it turned out the book previously belonged to Keraptis (of White Plume Mountain infamy), and it was an apprenticing spellbook from when he was tutoring under Xenopus. This turned into a convulted story/quest involving the Dungeon of Xenopus, The Haunted House of Saltmarsh, The Tower of Iverness and White Plume Mountain - now all located in the Kingdom of Keoland and interlinked.

Those all sound great. I think even when I have a fairly detailed campaign world, I always flesh it out more based on what the players characters are doing. (Sure, your magic school could have had that. Oh, there's definitely a trade in illegal drugs. Etc...)

 

[hawkeyefan]

This gives me an idea I might try sometime. Start with a blank slate of regions or continents and let each group member choose one. Each member is responsible for fleshing out their region, to at least a basic level. Anything that seems to go against the grain can be left to a vote as to keep it or not--or just let anything go?

It might be a fun experiement.

This is mostly how my group plays just about any game, whether D&D or another.

I think this is also a way to avoid many conflicts of the kind we're talking about in this thread. Prepare only what you need. There is no need to build an entire world ahead of time. Build a small area where things will start. Have the players make their characters. See how those characters fit into the area you've created. Are they natives? Are they from elsewhere? If they're from elsewhere, where? Add that place. And so on.

If a GM doesn't have preconceived ideas about the entire world, then they likely won't find themselves in conflict with a player offered idea.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I have a question what makes exotic races such a contention point? people fight lizard folk all the time so letting one join the group would be equally likely, also who other than the dm says what is mundane to begin with?

 

[Oofta]

This is mostly how my group plays just about any game, whether D&D or another.

I think this is also a way to avoid many conflicts of the kind we're talking about in this thread. Prepare only what you need. There is no need to build an entire world ahead of time. Build a small area where things will start. Have the players make their characters. See how those characters fit into the area you've created. Are they natives? Are they from elsewhere? If they're from elsewhere, where? Add that place. And so on.

If a GM doesn't have preconceived ideas about the entire world, then they likely won't find themselves in conflict with a player offered idea.

That's one way of doing it. It's completely valid. On the other hand having a pre-established world has other benefits as long as the DM carves out room for the PCs to have influence on that world is also valid.

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, I think a lot could be said by answering this question:

Which came first, the DM or the player?