Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Darth Shoju]

Playing a care bear is another matter, because it's a non-standard race. Unless the player can come up with a decent set of rules for a care bear character (meaning, I agree that it's balanced), I'll just propose adapting something similar for the mechanics: for example, using the Ewok or halfing race as a base, and taking levels in the bard class.

What is a standard race? Do warforged count as standard? Is the sky the limit for characters as long as I can come up with rules for it?

 

[FireLance]

But I thought limiting options was bad? If we are playing a "Mummy Returns" type adventure we can't do Red Hand of Doom with the same characters. Isn't that a problem?

I don't see any problem (and I don't see how my post relates to limiting options, either). Adaptation is the key. The easiest is probably to covert the "Mummy Returns" characters to D&D analogues (Rick, Evie and Jonathan map rather nicely to the fighter, adept and rogue archetypes). It would be more difficult to convert the monsters in RHOD to something that could exist in a pulp setting with Egyptian elements, but it could be done, too. Porting the "Mummy Returns" characters directly into a RHOD adventure is probably the most difficult, but it could still work in a "fish out of water"/"modern characters in magical setting" way.

 

[Imaro]

Okay, this sparked off a minor insight (at least for me). I think the key issue here is: who's the star of the adventure? If the PCs are the stars, whichever campaign world they happen to be adventuring in is largely irrelevant, and the details can be changed without significantly affecting the flow of the adventure. Does it matter if the paladin serves Torm, Hieroneous, or Dol Arrah? Does it matter whether the adventurers are based in Sharn, Waterdeep, Greyhawk or Tyr? If the PCs are the stars, the answer is no.

If the world is the star, or one of the stars (it's not all or nothing - there can be varying degrees of importance), then the setting elements matter and are important. That's not just another epic-level wizard; he's Mordenkainen. That's no ordinary scimitar-wielding drow ranger; he's Drizzt Do'Urden. That's not just another magic-blasted wasteland; it's the Mournlands. Players can enjoy this kind of world, too. An established, detailed and well-known campaign setting (whether published or homebrewed) offers the advantages of familiarity to the players. It also helps break down the barrier between character knowledge and player knowledge, which in turn helps the player to immerse himself into his character's role and view the world from his perspective.

A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.

I think one important piece you might be overlooking is...what if the players want to play in a specific world because of that worlds trappings. If we all want to play a gritty survivalist game of Dark Sun and one out of six players decides to play a "care bear" should the atmosphere and mood of game everyone else expected and want be sacrificed for this player? What if it was two out of the six? At what point should it be a consensus thing where someone whether it be DM or a player has to make a sacrifice?

 

[FireLance]

Why not? *Firelance* was willing to change things to make it so I was the only Warforged Ninja in the world (but possibly secretly make it so I'm not).

To be fair, there is a question of reaction time. If the player had been telling me he wanted to play a generic dwarf fighter, and showed up on the day of the game with a warforged ninja, I'd be rather annoyed, too.

 

[FireLance]

What is a standard race? Do warforged count as standard? Is the sky the limit for characters as long as I can come up with rules for it?

It would vary from DM to DM, but to me "standard" generally means "WotC material", so warforged count as standard. I have problems with a few things, mostly stuff that I dislike for mechanical reasons or for the way they affect game play (like the frenzied berserker), but changing the flavor is usually not a problem (I'd eveb allow a Lawful Good warlock that channels the power of the Silver Flame).

I'm also okay with player created material, as long as I have time to review it beforehand and I think it's balanced.

 

[FireLance]

I think one important piece you might be overlooking is...what if the players want to play in a specific world because of that worlds trappings. If we all want to play a gritty survivalist game of Dark Sun and one out of six players decides to play a "care bear" should the atmosphere and mood of game everyone else expected and want be sacrificed for this player? What if it was two out of the six? At what point should it be a consensus thing where someone whether it be DM or a player has to make a sacrifice?

If the players want to play in a world because of the world's trappings, that comes under the general point of the world being one of the stars.

As for the other issue, a playstyle preference problem is broader than just whatever setting you choose to play in. It could be the assassin in a good-aligned party, the power gamer in a group of method actors, or the rogue that steals from the other PCs. If your gaming group can't come to an agreement that everyone is happy (or at least, not unhappy) with, then it's probably best that you don't play together.

 

[Aaron L]

Okay, this sparked off a minor insight (at least for me). I think the key issue here is: who's the star of the adventure? If the PCs are the stars, whichever campaign world they happen to be adventuring in is largely irrelevant, and the details can be changed without significantly affecting the flow of the adventure. Does it matter if the paladin serves Torm, Hieroneous, or Dol Arrah? Does it matter whether the adventurers are based in Sharn, Waterdeep, Greyhawk or Tyr? If the PCs are the stars, the answer is no.

If the world is the star, or one of the stars (it's not all or nothing - there can be varying degrees of importance), then the setting elements matter and are important. That's not just another epic-level wizard; he's Mordenkainen. That's no ordinary scimitar-wielding drow ranger; he's Drizzt Do'Urden. That's not just another magic-blasted wasteland; it's the Mournlands. Players can enjoy this kind of world, too. An established, detailed and well-known campaign setting (whether published or homebrewed) offers the advantages of familiarity to the players. It also helps break down the barrier between character knowledge and player knowledge, which in turn helps the player to immerse himself into his character's role and view the world from his perspective.

A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, the world being one of the stars... not one of the leads, but an important background character. I think that an Elven Fighter/Wizard from the Forgotten Realms should be different than an Elven Fighter/Wizard from Greyhawk, and that the world they live and adventure in should be reflected in the characters.

A band of adventurers in the Forgotten Realms should reflect the feel of the Realms, have more of a high fantasy, slightly whimsical, epic flair, perhaps seeking to rid the world of evil or restore the lost glory of ancient kingdoms, and have a grand name like the Company of the Crescent Blade (to use a name from my last Reams campaign) complete with a charter from Cormyr; while a party of adventurers in Greyhawk should have a different feel: more of a treasure seeker, mercenary attitude... professional adventurers with a hard edge, looting tombs and subduing dragons to sell in the market in the City of Greyhawk. A classic old school D&D "kick in the door and kick some ass" attitude.

I think that the world or setting the PCs are in should have a heavy influence on the characters, the cultures that characters come from should be reflected in the PCs personality. Setting as a secondary star in a game is an excellent way to put it. The PCs should be the focus, but I think the setting should be almost as significant.


I usually run my homebrew setting, but the same idea applies there, too. I have lots of background setting material, and I make sure everyone knows the attitude and feel of my world. When I DM I let everyone know from the beginning that my world has a certain feel and characters that don't fit won't be allowed, but I also let everyone know that we can play in any other setting they want if they want to play things that wouldn't fit in my setting. I enforce the flavor of my setting, but I don't force people to play in it if they don't want to.


But so far, for everyone I game with, when I run a game they know it will be in my world, and they expect it, and I only run when they ask me to, so they know and accept what they're getting into. It's the same way with all of them, too: everyone in my gaming group DMs and has their own setting, complete with it's own flavor and attitude. A group from my setting of Alterra would seem out of place in my friends homebrew setting of Camathria, and a party from either of those worlds would seem out of place in the Realms, just because of character attitudes, personalities and expectations. For us, every world comes with it's own set of expectations, and that's the way we like it. Every setting has it's own personality, and stripping that away robs the game of a lot of it's flavor for us.

 

[Hussar]

A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.

I dunno. What is the basic plot of The Mummy? Adventurers awaken an ancient evil and must battle that evil to send it back down. It's not like that plot hasn't been done a whole bunch of times. If you were enamoured with mummies in particular, there are a number of cultures which had mummies of different forms. You could also go with natural mummification processes that have been perverted by ancient evil.

I really don't think that too many stories can't be retold in a different setting. It's only when setting becomes a star that it becomes difficult.

Originally Posted by Hussar
What I'm not going to do is rewrite my entire evening's plans to accommodate a single player.


Why not? *Firelance* was willing to change things to make it so I was the only Warforged Ninja in the world (but possibly secretly make it so I'm not).

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could be. I don't presume to tell the DM that he or she has to trash tonights adventure because of my character. I do presume to tell the DM that changing a couple of paragraphs in his setting bible will let me play the character I want to play.

In other words, and i mentioned this in the other thread were the warforged ninja was brought up, if there are solid mechanical reasons for the DM to say no, i have no problems. If you are runnign a campaign where disease and lack of food are a real issue, then my taking a warforged would bypass all of that. I would not expect the DM to allow me to do that. However, if the only reason the DM is saying no is because his view of his setting bible is so fixed that he is incapable of change, then I will have to pass. Sorry, as a player, I want to be the star of the show. An ensemble cast, sure, but, one that doesn't play second fiddle to Gandalf in every scene.

 

[Priest_Sidran]

What would be more helpful than simply quoting some non entity science fiction author who few people have heard about, is to have some one who actually had relevent material give us some ideas about World building. Ed Greenwood, or Gygax, or Keith Baker for instance...

Something Else I would like to see (around here) is a DM's help forum which allows DM's to ask questions from other DM's about how to do things better. I for one am good at World Building in great detail, but when it comes to drawing a dungeon I get cold feet, and a case of the DM's Shuffles (as I call it, perhaps a Creativity block would be a better way of calling it.) I can run a dungeon, I just can't draw a dungeon. Two pennies worth of thoughts from other DM's would be a nice help around these parts.



WORDS FOR HUSSAR

AS a rule I will not allow things that are outside of my "Setting Bible". I have gotten tired of pandering to players who want this or that character type for their character, even though It is firmly outside of what I have put in print as allowable or not allowable. At some point a DM has to set his foot down and tell players NO, or else they run over him rough shod. Subjects like Can I play this or that race, or is this class allowable in this form are a constant, and while I am a flexible DM, I am tired of having the atmosphere of my world changed every time a new campaign starts, simply because a player would be more happy outside the context of allowable races/classes/feats, etc. The phrase give them an Inch, and they take a mile is a familiar one to me, and very applicable to this topic. My players are on average a manageable lot, but that doesn't mean that I should allow them to play things which they know they shouldn't be asking me to play.

Some DM's I have played under will not allow anything other than the PHB, Others are every book counts BUT..., and then my type of DM grants a list of allowable stuff, and a few restrictions such as no EL above 0, or in my case No Monks (without a good reason why their a monk), No Rangers w/ spells, etc. I have an idea about my world that I am not going to change so a player can play a character they want simply because they want it. I will however make exceptions for players who spend the time to give me a valid reason why I should allow them to play a restricted, or limited race or class. In addition I have supplied my players with numerous home brew races, classes, equipment, feats, etc which they are capable of taking any time they want, and I did this as a way of circling around my restrictions (in a manner of speaking anyway), as well as to fill out my worlds flavor.

So to end my wordy rant, all issues in which a DM says no should be taken as Mechanical issues. If a DM is fixed on his "setting bible" then it is something that is important to him, and thus constitutes mechanical reasons. Just because a Base ball player thinks that he should allowed to be able to run from 1st to 3rd and bypass 2nd all together doesn't mean that the ref should would allow it, neither would a Ref allow the same player to insist on a Basket ball, or a 4th base. Its the same for any DM who says no to a player in regards to character concept vs. world design.

I learned this very early when I made the mistake of allowing a character to play a half dragon pc in a world that originally had little to no dragons. The actions of the character, and the party as a whole influenced the world around them in a way that was harmful to my world concept. Since then I have limited players away from things that are restricted, or limited in my Setting, so that they will not influence the world in such a dramatic way in the future. This includes the removal of the Half-orc as a player race (replaced by Giant from Arcana Unearthed), the lack of characters to learn Draconic (secret language), and the limitation of players seeking to play as dwarves (who are a dying race in my world)

 

[Hussar]

I have an idea about my world that I am not going to change so a player can play a character they want simply because they want it.

This pretty much gets right to the heart of my point. I am not going to change my world. IOW, the DM's world and NOT the player's world. How realistic is it to expect players to engage in a role play setting in which they have no input?