D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[Greg K]

It's not like Gnomes in Athas has never been considered by anyone. A quick Google search finds this article: http://www.rpgmusings.com/2010/10/opportunity-actions-races-of-athas-gnomes-and-shardminds/ which turns gnomes into Derro. So, it's not like it's a completely bizarre notion.

No thanks. That is building on 4e Darksun. The revised Darksun under Bill Slavicsek was bad enough and ruined Darksun, in my opinion. Yet, as bad as the revised Dark Sun was, the 4e version was even worse.

 

[Celebrim]

I think, for me, this is the biggest point. I've found that it works much better for me to put the responsibilities for the table having fun back onto the players, rather than just on me, the DM. If you want to bring in your oddball character, and it's not going to force me to rewrite my campaign (for example, a gnome cleric in Darksun is a much bigger issue than a gnome fighter. The appearance of a divine casting individual in DS would be a HUGE change), I've become much, much more willing to let the character in and simply rewrite a bit of campaign lore. For DS, that gnome figure would be rewriting the line that so and so killed all the gnomes to so and so killed almost all the gnomes. For me, not a huge deal.

So, for me as a DM, this largely comes down to an issue of player trust. If we agree to play a Dark Sun campaign, and if I set out in my head to think up some myth, setting, schemes and antagonists sufficient to embroil a group of characters in a full campaign, then I'm anticipating exploring that setting. If a player then shows up and insists on violating two tropes of the setting, one of which - being a cleric - is an absolute deal breaker, then that player has pretty much nothing in the bank to draw on. They've got no stored up trust that they can spend insisting on being a special snowflake in the setting and within the party. So the answer is going to be first, "No, neither gnome nor cleric is an option.", and if they are insistent about it, then the answer is, "Heck, no."

One thing that rubs me the wrong way is always wanting to play the aberrant character. Drizzt Do'urden would be the classic type here. You want to play a Drow, but its not an evil drow. He doesn't believe drow things. He doesn't have drow mannerism. He doesn't have drow tropes. He's a ranger that is specialized in a non-ranger, non-drow weapon. And he's brooding and all emo. This is not a pitch that builds trust.

And the thing is that all of those characters that play purely against type are not nearly as creative as the average 17 year old thinking them up thinks that they are. What you end up with is the main type you are playing against is non-existent. You end up with the entire race or class or archetype been known for playing against its nominal type. Every Paladin is a jerk that gets around to being nasty, stupid, and falling sooner or later. Every evil race is known most its good members. While Planescape: Torment was a very good computer RPG with an engrossing story and great level design, one thing that did bother me a lot about it is that it eventually carried its schtick of every character playing against type so far that it got to be redundant and unsurprising. Not one single character in the story actually plays to type, so that for the vast majority of people who are only going to play the game their entire experience of numerous races of monsters is going to be of something that is the opposite of their nominal nature.

That at some point just isn't creative. It's essentially a very cartoonish shorthand for making memorable characters. And there is a time for that, but on the whole it's not good writing and it can clobber an otherwise really good story. I can think of several examples in fiction - the ensemble cast of 'The Sparrow' is filled with simplified cartoonish characters with exaggerated against type traits that ultimately ends up reducing the sympathy the story requires we have for the characters. Robert Silverburg is one of my favorite authors and he's known for writing really deep thoughtful explorations of the concept of identity. One of his works takes place on an alien world were the concept of identity is banned, and self-referent pronouns like 'I' and 'me' are deeply injurious profanities equivalent to say racial slurs in modern times. But the otherwise wonderfully conceived story is just beaten with a hammer by the fact that the only window we have on to this society is a rebel within the society that has escaped its constraints. So the conceit is ruined, and the only real experience we end up with is someone playing against the type of this alien society, which makes him just well... ordinary.

Now simplified cartoonish traits definitely have a place in RPGs for making memorable characters, but its really easy to go to far with that. Mostly those characters should be minor characters that don't stay on stage long enough to wear thin, unless you can really think of something completely novel and nuanced that transcends the cartoonish concept. And, therefore, the PC's are the characters that I think should least be drawn so thinly and lacking in nuance.

But if a player impresses me with his ability to role play and bring alive characters that make me want to root for them and make me care about them and which generally enrich the game, then if that player whose played characters that are just good characters without being spot light stealing special snowflakes comes to me and says something like, "I've got this really odd idea, and I'd understand if you'd say no to it, but I had this idea for playing a character who was the last surviving gnome of Athas.", then I'd probably say, "Ok, that's a bit of a stretch, but tell me about it." If you build up some trust by showing me you play well with others, that you entertain others, that you share the spotlight well, and you can handle intraparty conflict maturely and consensually, then yeah, I might be willing to break the rules for you. But, get all in my face about it? Forget about it, or find the door. I left behind all that drama in high school, and as a DM I've got five other players (on average) I'm responsible to and who rely on me to not let one player bully the rest of the group so he can have his own way at everyone's expense. Fortunately, as I said, even my high school friends wouldn't have tried to pull a stunt like insisting on a gnome cleric on Athas.

 

[Hussar]

That's OK Hussar. I have known for years that I would never want you as a player. This quote says enough
"Personally I generally don't take other player's views into account". You have also stated numerous times over the years that you shouldn't have to buy into the setting- the DM should find a way to allow your character whether as a traveller from other dimensions or whatever. You have also stated at times that you don't trust DMs. Both are not a player that I want.

That's a bit harsh. It's not that I don't trust DM's. It's that you don't automatically get my complete unquestioning faith in your abilities just because you happen to be sitting in the DM chair.

Do you regularly see players asking other players if their concept is acceptable at the table. I've never actually seen that.

As far as bringing in characters goes, again my point has always been that a DM should check his ego at the door. No Timelords in my FR game is fine. No tieflings because I don't like them is not.

So if we're both players at the same table and I tell you I don't like your concept, you'd change it?

 

[Phantarch]

Point of Fact: Clerics in Darksun actually are OK...they just have to have a relationship with the elementals, not deities.

 

[S'mon]

Yep. Not only that, but they got the bright idea of making even focused supplements as un-focused as possible. So whatever your character, the latest supplement might have one feat or spell or item in it that'd be really useful for your build.

4e didn't exactly back off of that insight, indeed, it doubled-down with the 'everything is Core' conceit to re-assure players that they'd actually get to use the cool stuff they bought. 5e has rolled back the clock to classic D&D in this as in so many other ways, so it's all about the DM, again. There aren't as many DMs as players, you don't sell adventure paths to everyone who plays the games, just the DMs who're going to run them. But, DMs are likely more dedicated than players. You might have 6 or 10 players for every DM, but half those players don't buy anything but the PH, and some of the rest get by on the basic pdf and borrowing a book now and then - and the 'buy everything' fraction of the player base is likely still busy buying everything for 3.5/PF. Plus, DMs drive sales by getting games going and bringing people into the game, some of whom eventually become DMs. Making them feel good about the line could drive sales in the long run in a way that flooding the system-mastery-obsessed slice of the fanbase with player-oriented supplements may not.

Yeah, I think the 5e approach is better for creating the evergreen product they apparently want. It's a lot more accessible to new players when they only have to buy a PHB - and IME 5e players will actually buy PHBs; in 4e they often would rely solely on the charbuilder.

 

[S'mon]

Wow. That's dedication. I guess my only response to a person who puts that level of detail into a concept absent a campaign to play it in, is that they should really give DMing a shot.

IME these guys tend to be terrible players because they are completely inward focused,
and if they did GM I suspect would likely be terrible GMs with Mary Sue NPCs, railroad
story-plots, etc.

 

[delericho]

Edit: I should point out that I would absolutely do a quick write up, like maybe 1 or 2 pages, for an introduction to dark sun since I know for a fact that many (perhaps all) of my players have not played it or read about it before.

In my experience, this doesn't help - they might not have read the published setting, but you can be sure they won't read my introduction no matter how short!

 

[delericho]

For myself it would, but I'm a fairly big proponent of not using campaign settings UNLESS there's total buy-in by all the players.

I wouldn't say total buy-in, but I do agree that the players should buy-in to the setting before it's used. Get everyone on the same page before you start, and then hopefully issues like the gnome cleric in Dark Sun simply wouldn't occur - and if they do, it's not the DM who is being unreasonable in saying "no".

All that said, I'm in the fortunate position of not having to deal with this - my current group has some 50 members, meaning that the GM can generally say, "I want to play this" and get players (whatever 'this' happens to be). And if a player doesn't fancy whatever that is, they can bow out - no harm, no foul. It's obviously a bit different if the local group consists of one GM and four players, such that if any one person is unhappy, their alternative may be no gaming at all.

 

[Hussar]

Oh for sure. Getting buy in from the players is crucial. And it does nicely nip in the bud most issues.

I guess my question is, how much wiggle room is there for compromise in order to get that buy in? And that will always vary table to table.

 

[delericho]

I guess my question is, how much wiggle room is there for compromise in order to get that buy in? And that will always vary table to table.

No doubt. Though, even then, it's better to sort out the compromises up-front, rather than later.

That is, say "sure I'll agree to Dark Sun... provided I can still play my gnome", rather than agreeing to Dark Sun and then turning up with a gnome character.

But, basically, people should act like mature adults. And sometimes the mature thing, if one side won't budge on Dark Sun and the other won't budge on a gnome PC, is for them to agree to part ways.