hawkeyefan
Legend
Okay cool. Why? Just because? And do you mean that across the board or are there certain changes you would make or allow?
D&D 5E World-Building DMs
Okay cool. Why? Just because? And do you mean that across the board or are there certain changes you would make or allow?
Corpsetaker
First Post
I use settings for their particular themes and I don't venture outside that.
For sandbox style I run either homebrew or FR.
That's just my style of gaming.
That's fine, but on its own it doesn't tell us whether or not excluding gnomes is crucial to upholding that vision.
What the vision is, and what it requires of those seeking to uphold it, is a matter of aesthetic interpretation. It's not just a checklist of what's in and what's out.
Sure, but it's very obscure to me how the presence or absence of gnomes (or dragonborn, or . . .) are important to the themes of Dark Sun.
Last edited:
hawkeyefan
Legend
I get that and I agree with it in general.
I just meant do you stick with everything that comes out for a setting? Like the halfling spaceship thing that was brought up that was added in the revised edition?
hawkeyefan
Legend
[MENTION=6788732]cbwjm[/MENTION] I don't think anyone has to allow such things. I think that we've discussed that in a lot of hypothetical aspects. Both sides need to be reasonable and work together.
So what I think people are asking is does one gnome (or orc or goblin) really in any significant way actually compromise the setting of Athas? I would think that if you added all kinds of races that are supposed to be absent and so on, then that would be bad. But one or two representatives of a race?
I think that a good DM could use such an opportunity to open up some story possibilities. Why is there one gnome alive? Are there more? And so on.
Now, this doesn't have to be the case. But I've only been pointing this out because there are so many folks who seem to say no simply because they don't like the race in question. The "creative vision" just seems like an excuse to justify their stance.
So what I think people are asking is does one gnome (or orc or goblin) really in any significant way actually compromise the setting of Athas? I would think that if you added all kinds of races that are supposed to be absent and so on, then that would be bad. But one or two representatives of a race?
I think that a good DM could use such an opportunity to open up some story possibilities. Why is there one gnome alive? Are there more? And so on.
Now, this doesn't have to be the case. But I've only been pointing this out because there are so many folks who seem to say no simply because they don't like the race in question. The "creative vision" just seems like an excuse to justify their stance.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Okay, now that I've given others some time to take a swing at it, I'll give my own answers to the questions that I put forth, and then see if I can contrast some of the answers I was seeing.
Absolutely not. Whether or not I know why they made the rules, it is their party. As a guest, I follow the rules or I do something else. Now, once in a while maybe the rules personally annoy me, but that would be my problem, not theirs.
Same thing if the rules just seemed a bit uptight or whatever. I might find it silly or eccentric, but not selfish or jerkish.
(Listening to music on an iPod or stepping outside to smoke or whatever is different because no one else is being exposed to it, so it would seem really odd to try to ban it. Even then though the host is only being eccentric.)
Again, absolutely not. Going to a specific function hosted at another venue and asking them to change the function--now that is the selfish jerk's move.
In this one, yes, I would consider him to be acting as a jerk. The reason is that he is a) not a host, and b) no specific activity was specified. Everyone came together in a democratic fashion to just have some unspecified fun, one guy ended up voted or volunteered to drive, and then he decided to impose his vision on everyone else. That's not cool.
For me, that is a completely different situation than the previous two.
I see respecting a host as an extremely high priority. As long as you knew ahead of time what the rules were, you have absolutely no right to show up and then try to get them changed. If you're invited to a party and the invitation says that everyone will be expected to refrain from talking, and fire-walking is mandatory--then if you choose to go, shut up and burn your feet! Lol. Crazy example, but the point is that when you voluntarily travel to an optional activity knowing what to expect, you have no right to complain or be disruptive about that activity.
I think most people would agree with that, more or less, but perhaps some people don't agree. I don't really have much interest in debating it though. I just wanted to identify the issue.
I also see upholding a previous specified activity as a high priority. When an activity is previously agreed upon, it is unfair to those who signed up for that activity to change it on a whim. That goes for the host also. The host is out of line if they invite you to a Star Trek party and then turn it into a Super Bowl party (or vice versa) without notice (either before you get there, or after the guests have arrived). The exception is if there is a consensus that everyone wants to change it.
The reason for this is that when I decide to accept an invitation, I'm accepting that invitation, not some generic "whatev', maybe we'll do this, maybe something else." Anyone who was interested, on-board, or looking forward to the specified activity is being treated unfairly if it switched on them without their consent.
There is probably less agreement on this. A lot of it is going to be based on personality type. Some people don't put a lot of value on expectations, and as long as they are enjoying themselves whether they are following the plan or not is irrelevant. For others, accomplishing goals is important to their enjoyment, and a particular pre-planned activity sets up a goal to be anticipated and dived into. If they can't do what they were told they could, they will not have fun no matter what is offered in place of it. And a lot of people fall somewhere in the middle. Again, nothing much to debate there, just identifying an issue. Any group (not D&D specific) with people on both ends of the spectrum is going to have problems unless they can identify the issue and account for it.
It looked like there was broad agreement that the third situation was a jerkish move. (Though I should have specified that the driver was a democratically chosen representative of the group, not a host asking if some friends wanted to ride with him somewhere.) This makes sense because there is neither a specific activity planned, nor a host to respect. In a situation where everyone is coming together to decide what to do to have fun, you decide right there, right then, and everyone's opinions are entitled to be heard.
By contrast, in a situation with a host and specified activity, some people (like myself) feel it is the responsibility of the host to maintain the activity that people were invited to. To change it last minute because someone wants it to is unfair to those who are interested in the agreed upon activity. It bothers me at least as much when I am a guest in such a situation as when I am a host.
Interesting point. So as a DM, you are mostly enjoying being a host, with the specific activity you are hosting being less important. I think there are a lot of DMs coming from that angle.
I definitely enjoy my game more if I can see that the players are particularly enjoying it. I like to send out post adventure surveys even, asking them what their favorite and least favorite parts were, and if they could have added anything to the experience what would they have like it to be.
But, my primary measure of personal enjoyment is having not only an experience that everyone enjoys, but having a specific experience. That specific experience is what defines the campaign. And sometimes it is really darn specific! That said, the specificity that is relative to my enjoyment isn't about plot railroading, but about designing the sandbox, or...World-Building. Once I have that world, the parameters are known, and the players have appropriate characters running around in it, it's delightful to me to see the players go in unusual directions and do different things than what I expected.
I still haven't decided whether reticence to the bounded sandbox style of play is primarily a personality thing or a lack of exposure.
It's probably the lack of hosting and specified activity in scenario 3, as least as I intended to present it, that makes it a completely different dynamic.
I don't think a lot of DMs ban races solely because they dislike the race (well, other than kender). We've been talking about things from a world-building perspective, and it's mostly about what that DM's world includes as a personal creative vision, or what is going to be appropriate for a campaign.
Absolutely not. Whether or not I know why they made the rules, it is their party. As a guest, I follow the rules or I do something else. Now, once in a while maybe the rules personally annoy me, but that would be my problem, not theirs.
Same thing if the rules just seemed a bit uptight or whatever. I might find it silly or eccentric, but not selfish or jerkish.
(Listening to music on an iPod or stepping outside to smoke or whatever is different because no one else is being exposed to it, so it would seem really odd to try to ban it. Even then though the host is only being eccentric.)
Again, absolutely not. Going to a specific function hosted at another venue and asking them to change the function--now that is the selfish jerk's move.
In this one, yes, I would consider him to be acting as a jerk. The reason is that he is a) not a host, and b) no specific activity was specified. Everyone came together in a democratic fashion to just have some unspecified fun, one guy ended up voted or volunteered to drive, and then he decided to impose his vision on everyone else. That's not cool.
For me, that is a completely different situation than the previous two.
I see respecting a host as an extremely high priority. As long as you knew ahead of time what the rules were, you have absolutely no right to show up and then try to get them changed. If you're invited to a party and the invitation says that everyone will be expected to refrain from talking, and fire-walking is mandatory--then if you choose to go, shut up and burn your feet! Lol. Crazy example, but the point is that when you voluntarily travel to an optional activity knowing what to expect, you have no right to complain or be disruptive about that activity.
I think most people would agree with that, more or less, but perhaps some people don't agree. I don't really have much interest in debating it though. I just wanted to identify the issue.
I also see upholding a previous specified activity as a high priority. When an activity is previously agreed upon, it is unfair to those who signed up for that activity to change it on a whim. That goes for the host also. The host is out of line if they invite you to a Star Trek party and then turn it into a Super Bowl party (or vice versa) without notice (either before you get there, or after the guests have arrived). The exception is if there is a consensus that everyone wants to change it.
The reason for this is that when I decide to accept an invitation, I'm accepting that invitation, not some generic "whatev', maybe we'll do this, maybe something else." Anyone who was interested, on-board, or looking forward to the specified activity is being treated unfairly if it switched on them without their consent.
There is probably less agreement on this. A lot of it is going to be based on personality type. Some people don't put a lot of value on expectations, and as long as they are enjoying themselves whether they are following the plan or not is irrelevant. For others, accomplishing goals is important to their enjoyment, and a particular pre-planned activity sets up a goal to be anticipated and dived into. If they can't do what they were told they could, they will not have fun no matter what is offered in place of it. And a lot of people fall somewhere in the middle. Again, nothing much to debate there, just identifying an issue. Any group (not D&D specific) with people on both ends of the spectrum is going to have problems unless they can identify the issue and account for it.
It looked like there was broad agreement that the third situation was a jerkish move. (Though I should have specified that the driver was a democratically chosen representative of the group, not a host asking if some friends wanted to ride with him somewhere.) This makes sense because there is neither a specific activity planned, nor a host to respect. In a situation where everyone is coming together to decide what to do to have fun, you decide right there, right then, and everyone's opinions are entitled to be heard.
By contrast, in a situation with a host and specified activity, some people (like myself) feel it is the responsibility of the host to maintain the activity that people were invited to. To change it last minute because someone wants it to is unfair to those who are interested in the agreed upon activity. It bothers me at least as much when I am a guest in such a situation as when I am a host.
Interesting point. So as a DM, you are mostly enjoying being a host, with the specific activity you are hosting being less important. I think there are a lot of DMs coming from that angle.
I definitely enjoy my game more if I can see that the players are particularly enjoying it. I like to send out post adventure surveys even, asking them what their favorite and least favorite parts were, and if they could have added anything to the experience what would they have like it to be.
But, my primary measure of personal enjoyment is having not only an experience that everyone enjoys, but having a specific experience. That specific experience is what defines the campaign. And sometimes it is really darn specific! That said, the specificity that is relative to my enjoyment isn't about plot railroading, but about designing the sandbox, or...World-Building. Once I have that world, the parameters are known, and the players have appropriate characters running around in it, it's delightful to me to see the players go in unusual directions and do different things than what I expected.
I still haven't decided whether reticence to the bounded sandbox style of play is primarily a personality thing or a lack of exposure.
It's probably the lack of hosting and specified activity in scenario 3, as least as I intended to present it, that makes it a completely different dynamic.
I don't think a lot of DMs ban races solely because they dislike the race (well, other than kender). We've been talking about things from a world-building perspective, and it's mostly about what that DM's world includes as a personal creative vision, or what is going to be appropriate for a campaign.
No dying unless the GM's left without players. I have little interest in Dark Sun, but
maintaining canon re lack of gnomes is exactly the sort of setting maintenance I'd expect
a GM to do.
The process of discussing the new Primeval Thule campaign I'll be playing in January (
possibly [MENTION=6802178]Caliburn101[/MENTION] is my GM, otherwise quite a coincidence
) has been enlightening. It's a very strongly thematic setting and the GM has additional house rules to enforce the
feel. Discussing what's allowed has helped us get a feel for that feel, I think, and get some idea where we're all coming from. I definitely think polite and mutually respectful discussion is good - for the
players, that means respecting the GM's vision. For the GM that means being patient in
explaining that vision, being clear on what's allowed and not (eg - if a Feat or class Power would be
problematic, make changes before play begins - but likewise a player should raise potential
issues proactively), and being willing to entertain player ideas: do they suit the campaign
theme? Will it cause balance issues? Is any reskinning allowed, and if so to what extent?
>>1. You are invited to a party. Your host and some of his/her friends don't <fill in the blank (smoke, drink, eat gluten, listen to rap, whatever)> and request that people not bring such things to the party.
Would you consider the that the host is being a jerk or out of line by not allowing certain things at his party?<<
I'd think the gluten-free host was being a jerk to ban other people from bringing
gluten-ous products. Just don't eat them.
Alcohol ban is a bit iffy, I've been in parts of the US where it's taboo and I guess I'd accept the quaint local customs. It would seem really weird in England, not quite so much in Northern Ireland
where I'm from. If the drinking culture is such that alcohol is likely to lead to people getting wasted & unpleasant, fair enough. Likewise Muslims who think pigs are descended from
polymorphed Jews (so eating pork is like cannibalism), I'll not bring pork to their house.
My brother in law had an orthodox Jewish girlfriend who brought her own food to my house,
presumably to avoid spiritual contamination. Didn't bother me - likewise would not bother me a guest bringing their own food. Would bother me if a guest told me not to eat the food I liked,
though - I'm not going to not serve pork just because I have Muslim or Jewish guests.
Smoking & rap music have obvious direct impact on those around you and the host is
certainly fine to ban them.
>>2. You are invited to a themed-party (costume, birthday, Super Bowl, Star Trek, etc). The host asks you to bring your <fill in blank with appropriate implements of recreation>.
If it were a Star Trek party on Super Bowl Sunday, would you ask people to turn off Star Trek so you could watch the Super Bowl?
If it were a Super Bowl party, would you start DJing your "best of Star Trek" collection in the background? Would you feel the host was being a jerk if he asked you to stop?<<
Host sets the rules here. Guest who breaks the rules is being a jerk.
>>3. You and a bunch of friends meet up "to hang out and have some fun." One of you is driving. The driver insist on going where he wants to go, and tells anyone who doesn't want to do it that he'll drop them off at their home, but it's his car and he's driving it to where he want to go.
Would you consider him to be being a jerk?<<
This is too culturally alien to me to answer - my culture doesn't really do 'casual driving
around'. I'd have to know what the cultural expectations were re 'hang out & have fun' in
a car. I expect there's an expectation of discussion & mutual agreement.
I think a lot of it is cultural expectations - typically one expects the host to set the rules,
guests who seek to impose their own rules are rude, but a car trip is different from hosting at one's home.
Would you consider the that the host is being a jerk or out of line by not allowing certain things at his party?<<
I'd think the gluten-free host was being a jerk to ban other people from bringing
gluten-ous products. Just don't eat them.
Alcohol ban is a bit iffy, I've been in parts of the US where it's taboo and I guess I'd accept the quaint local customs. It would seem really weird in England, not quite so much in Northern Ireland
where I'm from. If the drinking culture is such that alcohol is likely to lead to people getting wasted & unpleasant, fair enough. Likewise Muslims who think pigs are descended from
polymorphed Jews (so eating pork is like cannibalism), I'll not bring pork to their house.
My brother in law had an orthodox Jewish girlfriend who brought her own food to my house,
presumably to avoid spiritual contamination. Didn't bother me - likewise would not bother me a guest bringing their own food. Would bother me if a guest told me not to eat the food I liked,
though - I'm not going to not serve pork just because I have Muslim or Jewish guests.
Smoking & rap music have obvious direct impact on those around you and the host is
certainly fine to ban them.
>>2. You are invited to a themed-party (costume, birthday, Super Bowl, Star Trek, etc). The host asks you to bring your <fill in blank with appropriate implements of recreation>.
If it were a Star Trek party on Super Bowl Sunday, would you ask people to turn off Star Trek so you could watch the Super Bowl?
If it were a Super Bowl party, would you start DJing your "best of Star Trek" collection in the background? Would you feel the host was being a jerk if he asked you to stop?<<
Host sets the rules here. Guest who breaks the rules is being a jerk.
>>3. You and a bunch of friends meet up "to hang out and have some fun." One of you is driving. The driver insist on going where he wants to go, and tells anyone who doesn't want to do it that he'll drop them off at their home, but it's his car and he's driving it to where he want to go.
Would you consider him to be being a jerk?<<
This is too culturally alien to me to answer - my culture doesn't really do 'casual driving
around'. I'd have to know what the cultural expectations were re 'hang out & have fun' in
a car. I expect there's an expectation of discussion & mutual agreement.
I think a lot of it is cultural expectations - typically one expects the host to set the rules,
guests who seek to impose their own rules are rude, but a car trip is different from hosting at one's home.
Conversely my expectation is that the host is the one who decides what music gets played.
I'd be surprised if a guest brought music and asked to play it. Maybe if they asked in
advance of the party. I don't think I've ever seen a guest produce a CD and put it on. Doesn't matter whether it's Skrewdriver or Miley Cyrus.
Caliburn101
Explorer
...
Last edited:
