Caliburn101
Explorer
Yeah it's me S'mon - see you tomorrow!
D&D 5E World-Building DMs
Yeah it's me S'mon - see you tomorrow!
Short of a planar incident depositing the character in the setting, there are implications of even one representative, yes. He came from somewhere; he has antecedents. The more normal the expected stranger response the more required the contact with the race. Depending on the player's backstory, there could be a lot of them. If it is an incident depositing said character in the middle of the campaign world, that itself can lead to annoying complications for the DM. How are others expected to react to this strange being unlike any they've seen before? What does the character know and not know about the campaign world? Has the gnome ever seen a thri-keen or half-giant? Does the PC come equipped with 'typical' adventuring gear or coinage made of metal? Does the DM want to bother with the constant stranger in a strange land situation that surrounds a single character?
It may also be an area the DM does not want to bother giving a lot of thought. Indeed, since it will involve exactly one character and thus centre around a single player, the DM may want to give it very little thought. In fact, the DM spending time coming up with a consistent and coherent rationale and modifying the world to account for that rationale whilst leaving the door open for the player to investigate those particular story possibilities may be considered an unwelcome diversion of resources from developing more group-centred possibilities.
ProgBard
First Post
Well, I was painting with some pretty broad strokes up there, to be honest. It really depends on the gathering, the atmosphere, and the people involved. I've certainly been to events where the host makes the playlist. But I've also been to parties where it wasn't weird at all for someone to say, "Hey, I brought some tunes - do you mind?" So there's a lot of variables in play there.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I have to admit, this is a little weird. Intellectually, I agree with you (and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and others) that it's really not a big deal, and I'm generally an advocate for working with players to make the campaign setting a shared one. But I still have an negative emotional reaction to the idea of mucking around with the parameters of an already created setting! It's an interesting discrepancy, I'm definitely going to have to think about this some more to find out the root of the emotional reaction. I love threads like this!
Phantarch
First Post
OK, I finally decided to break down and respond to the specific questions. However, I think that it bears pointing out that social expectations regarding hosts and guests break down pretty quickly when relating them to DM/Player relations, in my opinion. Social convention has a wide variety of factors involved that aren't necessarily contained within the game (for example, many social gatherings have an implied obligation of attendance where it would be rude of the guest to not attend, regardless of desire).
Additionally, I feel it bears stating that the host/guest relationship is, IMO, very much a mutual social contract. A host is equally responsible for making their guests feel comfortable and welcome as the guest is responsible for respecting the host's expectations and wishes. As such, violating that contract on either part (not minor transgressions, but flat out violating it) absolves the other party of their obligations. (This conversation is quickly reminding me of Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose.)
No, I typically wouldn't consider the host to be a jerk in these situations. One aspect off this is that these are reductive requests, not additive requests. Both can be reasonable, but there are different expectations involved. Reductive requests such as these are typically made to ensure that each person at the party is comfortable, welcome, and safe. As a guest, I would ASSUME that the host had good reasons for such a request, and I would respect them, no matter how bizarre I felt they were.
To comment on a few specifics, I, too, am of the camp of "Who brings there own music to a party?" That just strikes me as odd, as music is part of atmosphere, and atmosphere is the responsibility of the host. That being said, I don't think it would be rude or unusual for a guest to suggest listening to something different.
I also find it interesting that so many people seemed to draw the line at gluten free. I know several people that have gluten allergies or celiac disease, so this isn't some bizarre lifestyle choice; it has serious health consequences if they eat gluten. I think it is quite reasonable to attempt to have multiple options for such people, or to at least request that people clearly mark what is and isn't gluten-free (or peanut free, mushroom free, etc.). Again, this is to ensure that all of their guests feel welcome and included, rather than relegating some poor sap to only being able to eat one bland dish in the corner.
Anyway, circling back around, reductive requests like this usually are made because the inclusion of such a thing negatively impacts a guest or guests, and the lack thereof typically won't really negatively impact the other guests (I personally don't know of anybody who gets severely ill by NOT eating gluten, NOT drinking alcohol, or NOT smoking around others).
These tend to be more along the lines of additive requests instead of reductive requests. In general, I think a host making these requests is quite reasonable. However, I would most likely think the host rude to refuse somebody entry for not complying (e.g., "Hey, you're not wearing a costume! Sorry, can't come in."). An additive request should be encouraged of a guest, and possibly even rewarded (e.g., a prize for the best costume), but negative reinforcement is not polite on a hosts part, and a non-compliant guest shouldn't be refused or ostracized.
As to sticking with the theme, this is a more nuanced answer, to me. A host requiring participation would be rude in my estimation; though, again, encouragement, persuasion, and reward is totally acceptable. I think it is personally reasonable for a guest or group of guests at a Superbowl party to go into a separate room and talk about or watch Star Trek. However, it WOULD be rude of the guests to insist that the game be turned off. Not participating and forcing others to not participate are two entirely separate actions. If the stated theme or goal of the party is to do one particular activity, that activity should not be removed as an option.
As a further aspect, however, I think a host needs to be flexible. The purpose of hosting a party is to provide enjoyment for the guests. if nobody is having fun doing the planned activity, the host should probably read the room and try and find a way to get everyone having fun, rather than religiously sticking to an activity.
Yes, I would probably consider him to be a bit of a jerk in this situation. This is not a host/guest situation to me. The host/guest aspect of this would apply to the rules inside the car. The driver, in my opinion, gets to pick the music on the radio (or at least have veto power) and can set rules such as no eating in the car. Heck, I could even see it as acceptable that the driver require some gas money. However, in the situation defined, it sounds like it's setup to be a group consensus of destination with the purpose being the group spending time together. It would be rude to have the implication be, "We should all hang out and find something fun to do", and then dictate only one option after the fact. On the flip side, if the driver said, "I"m going to the movies, would anyone like to come?", then the driver is under no obligation to drive anyone anywhere except the movies. It's all about the expectations given at the outset.
Anyway, social situations have a lot of their own rules that are nuanced and don't necessarily directly apply to an RPG group. Additionally, there are numerous cultural conditions that apply to social situations that make even finding hard and fast rules difficult to ascertain.
As an example, I spent a semester of college in London. As an American, there were numerous situations that required quite an adjustment. One cultural expectation that was very hard for me to adapt to initially was the concept of buying rounds at the pub. In America (or at least my experience in it, it's a big country), it is generally accepted that each person is responsible for their own drinks. If somebody offers too buy a round, it is usually considered a magnanimous and generous offer, but is never expected. In England (again, my experience of it), it was common practice that each person would take turns buying a round for the table. If you refused to do so and only paid for your own drinks, it was considered rude and a bit antisocial. At first, I felt really uncomfortable with this, but then I adapted to it, and it truly did seem to encourage the social camaraderie of the situation. These are two entirely different approaches to the same activity, and are equally valid within their social constructs.
Additional food for thought: often times one person is DMing a game that is being hosted in the house of one of the players. This can bring all sorts of interesting conundrums in the DM/Player responsibilities compared to the host/guest responsibilities.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I agree on your first point. There may be major implications for such a character existing. I think that there is a lot of potential story in those implications.
For your second point, if those implications are not appealing to the DM and what he has in mind for the campaign, then I think he should discuss it with the player. The options at that point would be to see if the player was willing to play a different character, or alternatively, if they wanted to stick with that character, but not have the fact that he's one of a kind be a significant aspect of the campaign. Either option would seem to be fine for the campaign.
I'm absolutely in agreement that sometimes the answer has to be "no you can't play X because it doesn't fit" I absolutely get that.
My point is more that sometimes if the DM just doesn't automatically say now as a reflex, then I've found that a lot of great story options open up.
So throughout the thread, some folks have given examples of why a race might not fit for a specific setting (like gnomes for Athas or let's say Tieflings for a Westeros based campaign). But very often folks have cited races they hate, and therefore disallow, and they claim creative vision as their reason, but it just seems to be a matter of taste. To me, that's when I think a DM should check themself a bit, and examine why they're saying no, and consider maybe changing their stance.
And many of these situations are just as much the players fault or even more their fault, but this thread seemed more about the DM's view.
Me too! And I am probably much more middle of the road on this topic than I may seem at times. I just find this stuff interesting to examine. I used to be a much more stringent DM, with a "my way or no way" kind of view on what a campaign allowed. I've really come around over the years, and I think I'm a better DM for it. That's why I am more questioning of the DM's role in this rather than the players'.
ProgBard
First Post
I think lots of us are at different points on the spectra of player empowerment and setting canonicity, and the way these intersect can create really interesting tensions. FWIW, Younger DM Me would've been much more on the side of WHAT PART OF "NO SWIVING GNOMES" WAS AMBIGUOUS, N00B, but as I slide into irascible middle age, I find myself much more inclined to think along the lines of "A gnome, you say? Well, that opens up some interesting storylines, doesn't it?" Which, neither of those is especially "right" or "wrong," just what works better for me and the type of folks I generally like to game with. The way you find the right balance is really up to collective-you.
(And, full disclosure, I find myself increasingly allergic to the idea of "purity" - and its cooler hipster cousin, "authenticity" - which certainly colors my reaction to a lot of these things. We all bring our own baggage, and sometimes the nature of it isn't obvious until you notice it.)
ProgBard
First Post
Indeed, this. "It's my party" is true, but it has its limits. And hard-and-fast answers are hard to come by. And when a couple of microcultures with differing expectations of these boundaries come up against each other, you have, well, this thread.
So all you can reasonably do is try and figure out what the other side's expectations were, and understand your own, and see if there's a place of compromise where you don't have to go your separate ways. And if that is the only solution that works in the end, then that has to be okay too.
But trying to find one answer, or just one set of guidelines, that's always right? Above my pay grade. As William of Baskerville says, "Adso, if I always had the answers to everything, I'd be teaching theology in Paris."
This is me. So sure, when we sit down at the table, it's my show (within reasonable limits). But you bet I chip in for the pizza, too.
(Also, [MENTION=6801685]Phantarch[/MENTION], this is for you.)
My sister and father are both celiac or otherwise gluten-allergic. They certainly don't ban
me from bringing wheat to their house, indeed they happily provide me with tasty
glutenous provender. But my mother is strongly anti-alcohol and I don't (openly) bring
alcohol to her house.
Gluten allergies are not to my knowledge like peanut allergies, my dad & sister won't swell
up and die from a whiff of gluten. Of course they serve a lot of gluten-free food, and that's
fine.
Yeah, I've found this can be tricky at least for the GM, it needs an easygoing host who won't be too "I'm in charge". Personally I love hosting without GMing (for GMs I like & trust - I'll not offer to host
for them unless I trust them completely). As non-GM host, for once I have time to actually relax
and chill while enjoying good company in my own flat - it's awesome.
