D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Chaosmancer]

I like your analogies! But let's unpack that. What you are really saying is that your personal preference should override the personal preference of others, unless you believe their stated reasons are good enough (thematic, etc.). And that's acceptable, for your preferences. But that's not how I play.

To borrow the analogies, imagine you're a hitchhiker, and someone gives you a ride. That person likes disco. Maybe disco sucks, maybe it doesn't. But they are giving you a ride. You'll probably accept disco. Perhaps you are so principled that you would refuse the ride because of the disco; but I lack those principles.

Same with classic cars. Maybe you think classic cars are stupid. Maybe you prefer motorcycles. Maybe you like hybrids, or the most recent makes and models. But if you are hanging out with a group of people dedicated to, say, '50s t-birds, then perhaps that is not the best place to bring your 2016 Nissan GT-R ... as awesome as that might be.

Building on that, maybe a group is playing 5e but want to play it a certain way. Now, to you, they may have completely arbitrary reasons for not allowing some things. Maybe they are trying to play a grognard-y game under 5e rules. Maybe the group has been together a long time and they've always had a "no elf" policy due to a bad holiday experience with an elf on the shelf. But (IMHO) the right thing to do is to abide by the rules of the group (and the DM) that you are playing with.

Things change over time. Take the classic car example. Maybe you're hanging out with the classic car club. You get to know them. The thing is- they love cars. You love cars. Eventually, as you hang out more and more, you'll talk. And I bet that at some point, they'll probably want to see your Nissan GT-R. So it is with D&D. It's a social game. Which is why (as has been pointed out many times in this thread, most recently by Caliburn101) this is a theoretical problem more than an actual problem. This should be an issue of communication and negotiation in a social game.

Almost all the issues can be worked out reasonably. Over time, more trust develops.

I completely agree with you, with a caveat.

For some DM's, maybe even some groups but mostly some DM's, there is never a time when they allow this thing or that thing. For a singular campaign, any restrictions can be worked with and can be a lot of fun. And I understand entering a homebrew setting brings with it the expectation to follow that setting to a degree, but when there is never a chance over twenty years to try a certain concept because the DM won't allow it... to me as a storyteller and writer it just doesn't make sense and it feels like they are being close-minded. It's baffling to me if I'm completely honest.

I get the calls to just "DM it yourself" or "Find a different table" but that doesn't solve anything at the table of the original DM

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ProgBard]

I get the calls to just "DM it yourself" or "Find a different table" but that doesn't solve anything at the table of the original DM

The trouble is, it's not really a fixable problem. You can't convince someone to like something they don't. There's no magic phrase that will bring a stubborn DM around to your way of thinking. At a certain point, you need to either accept the restrictions and play, or walk away.

I think the attitude of "X race is lame and I hate it and therefore disallowed" is petty and mean. Alas, for good or ill, petty and mean are the prerogatives of the DM. I can sit here on the Internets and bitch about it, but those guys are gonna do what they're gonna do. Our styles are incompatible. I am not the audience for their games. So it goes.

Which does not change that being stuck with a choice of lousy (or at least suboptimal) gaming and no gaming sucks, a lot. I've been there, and you have my sympathies.

(ETA that [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] beat me to this response and may have said it better. So there you go.)

 

[Phantarch]

Maybe the group has been together a long time and they've always had a "no elf" policy due to a bad holiday experience with an elf on the shelf.

Awesome! LOL

 

[Hussar]

Every time this issue comes up (and this is certainly not the first time), I see the same argument put forth - players should trust the DM. Players should trust that the DM has a vision for the campaign and the setting and should trust in that setting and that it will be fun.

And, I 100% agree with that. I do. Honest. No, stop laughing, I really do. It's 100% true. Without a certain level of trust, the game will always fall apart. You, (the generic you here) have to put some faith into the DM that he or she will bring good game. Of course that's true.

My issue is that trust is a two way street. Just as we're supposed to trust the DM to bring good game, why shouldn't I trust the player to do the same? Why shouldn't I, as DM, grant the player(s) the same level of trust that I expect them to grant me? Which means, to me, that sometimes, it's better for the DM to swallow his ego, and let the player take the reins. Sure, the DM can say no to the player. That does not mean that the DM should.

 

[Greg K]

I then included two of the most common reasons I have seen that auto-ban that have led me to think this is a problem. One is "Well, it wasn't in version X of the game, so I don't allow it". Sure, some people like classic cars, but this is more (to me) like someone who refuses to play anything other than disco on the radio during a long car ride. You have a taste, you enjoy what you enjoy, but other people have different tastes and banning everything you don't like doesn't seem right to me.

The second example is "I'll never allow drow, because they are all Driz'zt clones" or "I'll never allow Tieflings because everyone who wants to play a Tiefling just wants to be an emo-goth and I won't stand for it". The assumption that a race can and will only ever be played by one type of person for one type of reason... well, the variety of DnD characters itself tells me this isn't true and therefore seems to be a bad reason, perhaps based on real experience, but a bad reason.

And, needing to prove myself to you before I can play the character I want to play, while I understand the logic behind the idea, is wrong. Even if you think my character is ridiculous that doesn't mean I shouldn't have a chance to play it. After all, just because I can play a human paladin to your satisfaction doesn't mean you'll think I can play a Tiefling Thief.

Now, I understand banning thigs for world building or thematic reasons, even if I don't neccesarily agree with it, but this thought just came to me. How often do you hear about someone banning High Elves, because the low magic setting doesn't have room for a race that has auto-cantrips? Elf, Dwarf, Human, and Halfling are almost never banned like Dragonborn, Tiefling or Genasi are, because people see them as core and the others as "that weird stuff for little kids" (A phrasing I have heard before even if no one here is advocating that)

And your position comes across to me comes across "I like D&D. That guy is DMing. Since we both like D&D, I am entitled to play in his game and have my playstyle/preferences catered to". My opinion is that my job as a DM is not to cater to just anyone that wants to play. I am choosing to run a game that interest me and motivates me to run. So yes, when it comes to themes, elements, etc. I am going to build around those elements that I like and exclude those that I do not. It is the players decision to either a) buy in and play within the limits that I set; or b) not buy in and find another activity/table. If for some reason, I could not find players, it is not an issue. I would run another game we can agree upon or use my time for something else.
This does not mean that I never work with a player. In the campaign before my two to three year super hero campaign, a player asked if his clan leader's daughter could have been kidnapped in an assault on his clan. The assault was already established, but I did not have the daughter kidnapped. I made the little change to allow him to rescue the "princess" as one of his character's goals which would open up larger goals for the character. Another player wanted to play a drow. I do not include drow in my campaigns (if I were to run Greyhawk, they would be evil NPCs, and Forgotten Realms would go back to the original boxed set before a certain drow, so again no Drow PC). However, I did have an island of elves rumored by the humans to be demon worshippers and feared as pirates. I was willing to change their features to look like drow, but they used standard elf mechanics with favored class being changed. The player agreed and so now the island of blue eyed blond elves became an island of elves resembling drow (something that i had, originally considered, but decided against early on) . Had the campaign been in progress when they created their characters, I would not have made the changes.

As for banning high elves, halflings, etc. I did it when I ran an all human campaign that lasted several years. Personally, I would limit all campaigns to humans PCs, but dwarves, elves, halflings, and gnomes go back to the original game and so I don't mind including them and their inclusion is a concession I am willing to make except in certain themed settings. Genasi, Dragonborn, Drow PCs, Tiefling Pcs etc. bring nothing to the game of interest for me. Instead, they introduce elements of fantasy that take the game in a direction that I am not interested in participating.

 

[steenan]

I, both as a player and as a GM, prefer high creative input from players and a lot of player-authored content.

But that does not mean I don't like campaign worlds build by the GM. If the world is well thought out, encouraging exploration instead of blocking it, and presented in a way that gives information without overwhelming. The best campaign I played was run in this way.


It's just that it's easier to run a game with player input on the setting reasonably well.

With a GM who puts a lot of work in their prep and is skilled with giving just the right amount information during play, a GM-authored world is great. But it's hard to do and easily burns the GM out. With the GM who is not skilled enough or is not working hard enough, the world seems empty or inconsistent and the GM is forced to railroad to cover logical holes.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Greg K]

But that's just theory.

It is not theory. It is opinion. A theory is supported by facts and evidence. Opinion is just based on what someone feels to be true (and, yes, this thread is just everyone stating opinions- myself included)