D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[JiffyPopTart]

Even offensive, they still qualify as innovative.

Well, halflings would no longer be farmers or foodies, as the surface world isn't able to grow food. If they want food, they're going to have to switch over to hunters, perhaps nomadic hunters. That also serves to remove the whole hearth and home aspect of halflings, since there won't be any, so those gods go away and are replaced by hunter and/or ranger gods.

Elves we could change from being a generally CG race to xenophobic protectors of wildlife, since animals would be hunted in far greater numbers now that no crops grow. We could switch them to LN and they become a generally "bad guy" race known for killing those who hunt or kill animals, and even those who stray into their protected lands.

I mean, that one 5 second idea easily grows into an extremely innovative campaign setting.

People make world building out to be much more difficult than it is. I have no doubt that with a day and a notepad you could make a niche for 30+ intelligent humanoids that all fit in that new setting, each one avoiding a stereotype.

Orcs, having long been under attack from most of the other power groups on the mainland have taken to life on the open seas. Their network of trade in goods and passengers and their stronghold ports sprinkled around the coasts protect them from those that still wish them harm.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree... though just because one can do something doesn't mean you can do it well.

Sure, but the only way they'd ever be able to do it well is if people are willing to let them do it. And of course, they have to be willing to try.

So it may be...
scarier than being a player
more (something) to handle than being a player
more time than being a player
more/different skills than being a player

Sure, it is all of those things. But is it SO much more those things? And if so, must it be so?

For example, there have been comments in this thread about needing to build a game world for 12 to 18 months before involving the players. That's a lot of time, and while it may be perfectly enjoyable to the person doing it, and it may be exactly what they want, it is by no means necessary.

I don't think that GMing must be significantly scarier, more involved, or more time-consuming than playing.

I disagree here... if more people want to GM they should... but honestly that doesn't seem to be the case. There has to be a reason for that.

Well, I didn't say more people wanted to. My point was that more people can do it than currently do. I think some are turned off by it, for sure, but I think a lot of that boils down to perception. Not always of course, but I think very often players have been conditioned to believe that D&D or RPGs in general are significantly more difficult to run than to play....mostly because of the things you listed above.

I don't think that's actually the case nearly as much as it is perceived to be the case.

I also don't think this is an area where D&D does itself any favors in the way it's structured.

I agree here as well... I enjoy it but I have been on both sides of the screen and my experience is that being a DM is all the things you said above... It's scarier (especially the first time) than being a player because unlike a player I don't have a group of other DM's at the table I can draw from, acquiesce to if I need a moment or follow the lead of if I don't want to be front and center. There's more of everything to handle than being a player, from descriptions of people, places and things to roleplaying NPC's to keeping the lionshare of the mechanics straight in order to make rulings to improv'ing... there is more. It takes more time than being a player, because as a player I can, if I choose,literally not think about the game until the second we begin play and I'll do fine, maybe there are DM's out there like that but I've needed to do at least some minimal prep work before a game session to feel comfortable enough to run. Finally the skills are different... screen time management, pacing, acting, the ability to clearly describe various and numerous things, and so on. These are skills a player doesn't necessarily have to bring to the table but are near necessities for running a good game.

EDIT: Also many DM's tend to be the host, set the schedule, get the group together and so on. I guess what I'm saying is maybe it isn't hard to be an above average DM but maybe, just maybe it's more effort than most people are willing to put into a leisure activity when they can just play.

I think players tend to have those skills, too. They're typically not required to use them as much as the DM in a game of D&D, but that doesn't mean they don't have them. Or that they can't get better at them.

But to comment on some specifics you mentioned.....I do think the DM has other people at the table he can lean on when needed. There's no reason that he can't ask the players questions to get inspiration, or to have them help with descriptions or other things. I absolutely involve my players as much as possible. Not just to engage them even if it's not their character's turn to act, but to give myself some new input on which to build, or to buy myself a moment to come up with an idea, or similar.

D&D does require prep of some sort, so yes, it takes more time to DM than to play. Are there was to mitigate that? Absolutely. Some folks may claim otherwise, or others may enjoy the effort and not want to cut down on prep time. But it can be done.

These things can act as barriers to people trying. Tell someone they need to build a world for over a year before they can begin play? That's gonna be a small list of people who think that makes sense.

 

[Minigiant]

If you don't like 5E there are plenty of other options. The game works well enough for me and the people I play with but no game can work for everyone.

Or are you saying that there's a reason the game would be inherently better if it were less popular? It's a game. The reason WOTC made the game was to make money. It's exceeded all expectations. Always baffles me when people think the game would have been better if they had targeted the niche that suits their specific tastes.

If you don't want the McDonalds of TTRPGs, D&D is not the right choice.

If you were referring to me, by what I meant that 5e was too conservative and traditional is that a lot of the stuff that wasn't traditional was poorly designed as if they didn't care so much about them (monks, sorcerers, rangers, dragonborn, half-orcs). And the stuff tht was traditional ended up needing optional rules to help people do new things with them (race customization, alternate class features)

A lot of this stuff could have bee hashed out in the early design but was abandoned.

And without worldbuilding advice "My Dwarves are Swashbucking Pirates" becomes something only a confident veteran DM can handle.

 

[Oofta]

If you were referring to me, by what I meant that 5e was too conservative and traditional is that a lot of the stuff that wasn't traditional was poorly designed as if they didn't care so much about them (monks, sorcerers, rangers, dragonborn, half-orcs). And the stuff tht was traditional ended up needing optional rules to help people do new things with them (race customization, alternate class features)

A lot of this stuff could have bee hashed out in the early design but was abandoned.

And without worldbuilding advice "My Dwarves are Swashbucking Pirates" becomes something only a confident veteran DM can handle.

All I can say is that the proof is in the pudding. The design is good enough, no design will ever be perfect.

 

[Maxperson]

All I can say is that the proof is in the pudding. The design is good enough, no design will ever be perfect.

But you can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Don't think I said it is, but the fact some people treat it as the self-evident way it should go is still a problem in discussion and sometimes in play.

(And it should be noted my GMing style is probably more top-down than not; I'm just aware that there's nothing "holy" or "expected" about it.)

I agree on holy, but the words of the DMG are pretty clear that it's expected.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How much of a car can you change before it becomes a different car? Everything but the body? Less? Does it take a body change?

Engines can be replaced with different ones. Different tires added. You can add in hydraulics if you want to be ghetto. Lots and lots can be changed without replacing the body of the car.

I agree with you, though, that not all rebuilds are good. D&D, though, is a game built on the idea that the DM/group will like some things and dislike others, changing what they want into what they need(or think they need). Things are "broken" if the DM/group thinks it is and "repair" is something they should jump right into when they come across those.

D&D is definitely the Ship of Theseus of RPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

If we want to decenter the DM, I guess: "The participants (that is, both those playing characters and the DM) decide how these rules will be used in the game. The participants should talk about problem areas with each other and consider each other's requests. The participants should determine how they will handle disagreements that occur in play and what to do if a full resolution seems likely to hold things up. If any participant disagrees enough, they may quit the game (and if it is the DM then the other participants will need to designate a new one). It is up to all of the participants to create an adventure they all enjoy."

To me that's the very definition of a petri dish in which one hopes to develop new styles, types, and durations of at-table arguments.

Pass.

 

[Lanefan]

You can't get to the good cheese without breaking the mold.

Problem is, one person's good cheese is another person's moldy socks. Stilton, I'm lookin' right at you...

 

[Lanefan]

Creating a single character is indubitably less work that creating an entire setting.

Not necessarily.

I mean, have you even tried char-gen in 3e?