Every setting has it options and limitations. Thats just the way things are. FR, Krynn, Athas, Greyhawk, etc. all of them have a set of assumptions and it is these assumptions that define a setting. A setting is defined as much by what you subtract as by what you add. On Krynn there are no orcs so therefore if you want a half orc maybe I can work with you to create a half-hobgoblin character or some other half monster to fit the bill. If your heart was set on a helf-orc then I can't help you.
I'm well aware that settings are defined by their limitations (I was once an obsessive worldbuilder myself) and agree with your examples of published settings.
However my question was about
your homebrew. And specifically, why you feel it is superior to detail your setting so much that you are left with the same limitations you would have if you used a published setting - ie. arbitrary restriction of player choices.
I don't play kitchen sink settings because they are all the same and IMO uninteresting.
How are they all the same? The could differ by history, geography, cosmology, current events, etc.
They will most certainly differ by the tales told about the exploits of your PCs once they get to work.
How does including the 'kitchen sink' make them all the same?
There are always reasonable workarounds for someone's character vision. However, if I am willing to create a half-hobgoblin race for your character concept, then you have to meet me and get the half-orc out of your plans...compromise is a 2-way street.
Fair enough.
Every setting has its own banes and boons...or they would all be bland copies of one another. If I am DMing in settings similar to Arthurian Britian, Africa, Arabia, etc. then you can choose amongst a cornicopia of available options. When I play, I fully expect that there are noticable differences between the various settings and I respect my DM's right to allow or disallow that which he decides is appropriate. I do more DMing than playing...but I respect the DMs right to choose what is appropriate for his campaign.
Sure, but where do the players get their say as to what kind of campaign they want to play in?
By starting in your overly detailed homebrew (or in most published settings) you limit the players straight off the bat before they even begin discussion of what they want out of the campaign.
If you start with less concrete detail you can accomodate the players first and
then apply your arbitrary restrictions for flavour.
I am not a DM who believes that just because WoTC (or whoever) creates a splatbook I am obligated to add it to my campaign/setting. If it fits, its allowed, if it doesn't...it isn't.
This is just my point - if you didn't start with such a stockpile of unnecessary detail then you're less likely to have to tell the players that what's fun for them doesn't fit.
Devoted tourists? Arbitrary decisions? Well aren't we just jumping to conclusions?
My conclusion is drawn from the information you've provided - according to you your players seem devoted to touring your homebrew much like the fanboys of any published setting, and as the sole author of your setting how could your decisions be anything
but arbitrary?
My arbitrary decisions are my decisions that as a DM I have every right to make.
We're not talking about your rights here, we're discussing functionality.
I don't play favorites and I don't make descisions arbitrarily despite your assumptions.
Every decision you made in the creation of your homebrew was by definition arbitrary.
Is a DM running a game in the Midnight setting, a setting without gods...except for Izrador...the Lord of Evil, being arbirary for not allowing a cleric of Pelor or any clerics in the party?
Once again you're missing the point - the decision to run Midnight in the first place is arbitrary. From there any decisions made in light of setting cohesion are contingent on the initial arbitrary decision to run Midnight.
Is a Greyhawk DM being cruel for not allowing a PC to be a cleric of Mystra when Mystra is an FR goddess and the DM isn't doing a world mixing campaign?
See my point above re: Midnight.
My PCs aren't tourists, they are heroes in a setting that happens to contain much more than just them. My players feel as though their PCs are part of a broader world with history and flavor.
I have played in (and DMed I'm sure) games where this was ostensibly the intent of the DM. I'm sure that if a DM was having enough fun unveiling his creation he might be able to convince himself that the players were equally as invested in the experience. Who knows.
They are the stars of the campaign which is a smaller subset of the entirety of the whole setting. Their heroics have real impact because it is my setting so I can have whole chains of cause and effect happening because I don't have to be beholden to a game company's authors to come up with canon.
No, instead you're beholden to what you've already written about your own setting.
I meant to say thematic elements such as those found in published settings like Athas, Midnight, Ravenloft, etc. Settings with peronality have thematic feels to them. Some of them are easier to spot than others, but they are there. Thematic elements are like the personality of the setting and set the atmosphere. Strong thematic elements are IME able to dictate the type of game to be had nearly wordlessly. IME only in those settings with weak thematic elements ie. vanilla RAW D&D in a "Known World" kind of thing, tend to create more DM player conflicts because of ambiguous expectations.
I know what theme means. Please try not to be so snarky.
My question to you was why does your homebrew need to ape published campaign settings by including rigid themes that dictate the types of campaigns that can and can't be run? It's your homebrew - why go to such effort filling it with the kind of unnecessary detail that ultimately limits your opportunities and those of your players?
And Snoweel, there is no need to be a wise arse, I didn't say it was my life's work I said it was a personally fulfilling creative outlet.
It's a creative outlet for me too. I'm just trying to illustrate how being 'married' to your setting unnecessarily restricts what you (and your players) can do with it.
If you can't tone down the snarky manner in which you respond to my posts, feel free not to respond.
Don't be so self-righteous princess.
If I am running a game in Conan's Hyboria there are already a set of strong assumptions (low magick, human PCs, lots of cruelty and violence, moral ambiguity, etc.). These assumptions free both the DM and the players to concentrate their energies on what does exist in the setting instead of having to wonder whether or not a Naruto or Drizz't rip off will fit...he wouldn't...question answered and now we are free to worry less about every other potential option that rolls down the track.
For the record, I think such narrow settings as Hyboria, Midnight and Dark Sun are all examples of settings that have atrocious replay value.
I've enjoyed playing in each of them but never want to again. Actually, I might give Dark Sun another crack but I want to feel like I'm able to affect the setting.
There is often freedom in knowing one's boundaries so long as those boundaries aren't destructive. Every setting, whether it is from gaming or literature has boundaries...its just the way things are.
I couldn't agree with you more. But having such emotional investment as you obviously do in your 'precious' (for want of a better term) limits your players' input into deciding those boundaries.
