D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Lanefan]

I suspect that's because I came up on different Fantasy novels.

My preferred fantasy is about guile heroes fast-talking and manipulating through a cool world whose rules they also manipulate to their advantage. Magic and supernatural and fantastic elements aren't so much a cool set piece as interesting parts of the world the hero makes use of and even if new locations might be cool and awe-inspiring to me as the reader, it's a place the hero knows and inhabits and swims through like a fish in the ocean. Think Lies of Locke Lamorra (though Lynch has a worse output scheule than me at this point) or Sanderson's non-doorstoppers like Elantris or Warbreaker, or my most beloved Legend of Nightfall

Lies of Locke Lamora is an interesting example (and a great read!).

Part of the book deals with Locke's background and childhood, and how he becomes a thief in the first place. The rest of the book tells a tale of what he does much later, when he's become a master at his craft.

There's a huge gulf in between those two times in his life during which he develops all those skills and contacts and - in game terms - gains a bunch of thief levels along the way. IMO that's what the game should cover: that long and winding journey from having just become a thief* to being a true master. What's in the Gentlemen Bastards books (which are LoLL plus two sequels) would equate to a late-stage series of adventures in a long campaign.

* - feel free to substitute any other class here, of course; but Locke's a thief, hence the example.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Lies of Locke Lamora is an interesting example (and a great read!).

Part of the book deals with Locke's background and childhood, and how he becomes a thief in the first place. The rest of the book tells a tale of what he does much later, when he's become a master at his craft.

There's a huge gulf in between those two times in his life during which he develops all those skills and contacts and - in game terms - gains a bunch of thief levels along the way. IMO that's what the game should cover: that long and winding journey from having just become a thief* to being a true master. What's in the Gentlemen Bastards books (which are LoLL plus two sequels) would equate to a late-stage series of adventures in a long campaign.

* - feel free to substitute any other class here, of course; but Locke's a thief, hence the example.

have you considered that 5e is really not a zero to hero system?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Doesn't that model rather destroy the player-side wonder of exploring the setting in-game, when the players already know what's out there because out-of-game they helped put it there?

Absolutely the reverse in my experience. Both the sense of wonder and the sense of satisfaction are massively enhanced where the players can see some of the building blocks and see how things fit together.

The thing is that the DM can ass-pull literally anything. So "This weirdness is there because the DM says it is there" in practice doesn't actually produce too much of a sense of wonder in my experience. An integrated system with "this is why the weirdness fits" is far better than the utter nonsense in a number of Old School modules of things being there without rhyme or reason other than to trap the PCs. And the biggest senses of wonder are when the players find that the things they themselves have added to the game are integrated in and are either the tip of the iceberg or tie in to the larger picture. What they knew they both knew and didn't at the same time.

 

[Umbran]

have you considered that 5e is really not a zero to hero system?

One bad guy with a weapon can still kill most 1st level characters pretty easily. Close enough for government work.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Lies of Locke Lamora is an interesting example (and a great read!).

Part of the book deals with Locke's background and childhood, and how he becomes a thief in the first place. The rest of the book tells a tale of what he does much later, when he's become a master at his craft.

There's a huge gulf in between those two times in his life during which he develops all those skills and contacts and - in game terms - gains a bunch of thief levels along the way. IMO that's what the game should cover: that long and winding journey from having just become a thief* to being a true master. What's in the Gentlemen Bastards books (which are LoLL plus two sequels) would equate to a late-stage series of adventures in a long campaign.

* - feel free to substitute any other class here, of course; but Locke's a thief, hence the example.

See, I'd much rather play through the awesome magic high rise casino heist and have the background stuff be the background.

Zero to hero is boring and tedious in play to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, I'd much rather play through the awesome magic high rise casino heist and have the background stuff be the background.

Zero to hero is boring and tedious in play to me.

Well, it's a good thing that not everybody likes the same thing then.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What's wrong with them just being human? It makes the world look more consistent, I don't have to explain why they've never been seen or mentioned before.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with it. But flip the question around. Why is it more important that they be human than that the player gets to play what they're looking to play?

Honestly, if the only reason is because that's what the GM would prefer, then I think that's a bit of a problem. Is it an earth-shattering problem? No, of course not.

And I'm including your take on the bookkeeping element here....how can this be explained....as GM preference. It's really not much of an issue to have a tribe of people that was previously not widely known.

Do y'all (on both sides) view choice of character class the same as race? Sub-classes? Alignment? Deities?

I tend to try not to restrict any of that stuff. I've come to realize over the years that homebrew worlds, generally speaking, aren't really all that compelling in and of themselves. They're not as unique and interesting as a GM tends to think. Can there be exceptions? Sure. Are most perfectly suitable? Sure. But most homebrew settings really don't make players say "Oh wow, I'm interested in this world and want to play in a game set there."

And I think that's part of the issue here. Whatever restrictions are placed on the player choices have to add up to a compelling enough world that the players no longer mind the restrictions.

The setting should be one suitable for play. That's its actual function. Being suitably detailed for a novel is not.

So, when things like "no drow as PCs" come up, if the reason is nothing more than "because I'm an old school GM and drow are evil NPCs only", that's not all that compelling.

So for me, any restriction tends to either need a strong reason, and one my players will agree is strong, or it comes up naturally as a result of play. For example, I really don't dig gnomes all that much. I don't really get them, they seem redundant with halflings, and I've only ever seen one interesting gnome character in all my years of D&D. But I don't restrict gnome PCs. But, when my players make their characters and none happen to be gnomes.....guess what race won't ever be making an appearance in the campaign?

This means that the players' choices are influencing things more than just my whim.

Yes, the so-called No Myth games. I'd attract red mod-text like a horse attracts flies if I typed what I'd like to here...

There's nothing "so called" about them. They work just fine. In fact, I'd say that they often tend to result in far less contradictions than worlds built almost entirely ahead of time.

I don't consider "the GM does all the work" to be a problem; rather, I consider it a problem when GMs (and, in some cases, game systems) try to pawn off that work onto the players It's not their job.

It surely can be a collaboration. It can be everyone's job.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, it's a good thing that not everybody likes the same thing then.

It's almost as if we're discussing and explaining our preferences and there was no need for a drive-by here!

 

[Mind of tempest]

Well, it's a good thing that not everybody likes the same thing then.

that is true but as likely the only person here who never dms I find being weak in-game scary and depressing I could play a zero in real life.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's almost as if we're discussing and explaining our preferences and there was no need for a drive-by here!

Fair enough. I just get the impression that some treat their preferences as more than just that. No one's favorite is inherently better than anyone else's, and sometimes I feel that needs to be emphasized.