D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[pemerton]

Traveller had a built in world.

So does 4e D&D.

And a lot of D&D players seem to use prebuild campaign worlds of one form or another - the Forgotten Realms in particular.

What infuriates me more than nearly anything as a DM, is a player showing up with a big backstory without even once consulting with the DM. I'm for players designing characters that fit the world well. But players that ignore the world aren't worth my time. The game is about adventuring IN the campaign world.

<snip>

A player that learns about the world, discusses the idea with his DM, and then comes up with a backstory is doing the right thing. The DM though always has final say on social status etc

This is very much a play style thing.

100% what Hussar said. I'm not that interested in exploring a GM's world which has no room for my conception of the PC I want to play.

I think you've articulated it right there. The group agrees to a system that posits players who control one character and adopt that character's perspective, and a DM who controls everything else.

Which system are you talking about here? No edition of D&D, for example, states a proposition of the sort that you state here. 4e actively denies it (in both its DMG and DMG2), and classic D&D seems to assume that players might come up with ideas for their PC backstories that have consequences for the gameworld (eg thieves' guilds, wizardly mentors, etc).

Whenever a game mechanic blurs that line by giving the player control of something outside of his character, the potential for confusion and conflict between players and DM is high.

I just don't agree with this. I've never felt any confusion or conflict in letting players set up their PCs' backstories, including families, mentors, secrets, etc.

That's not to say that it might not cause confusion or conflict for others. But that is particular to them. It is not inherent in the situation.

The notion of paladins imposing playstyle considerations on other players or on DMs has been a big problem for a long time.

Quite. But that is not some objective given. In my view, it's because some GMs try to exercise more force than the game can tolerate, given the range of choices that it has offered to the players.

Most of the time, D&D makes the DM/player role distinction very clear

Who gets to narrate what a hit to a PC looks like? Or to an NPC? Or what colour a PC's eyes are? Or a PC's cloak? There is a lot of fluidity in play styles here, and the rules are silent.

you have a few places in the mechanics where the distinctions blur. Those points (the rules that take players outside of their character) tend to be where problems arise (far more so than, say, from imbalance in combat capability between PC classes or excessive workloads for DMs).

This tells me something about your playstyle, I think. For me, those parts of the rules don't cause problems, because as a GM I'm happy most of the time to follow my players' leads. Whereas imbalances of mechanical effectiveness do cause problems, precisely because I'm happy most of the time to follow my players' leads!

 

[Ahnehnois]

This tells me something about your playstyle, I think. For me, those parts of the rules don't cause problems, because as a GM I'm happy most of the time to follow my players' leads. Whereas imbalances of mechanical effectiveness do cause problems, precisely because I'm happy most of the time to follow my players' leads!

Given that I am primarily improvisational and tend to build stories off of my PCs' backstories and choices, it would be hard to say that I don't react to them. Given that the story is designed for each individual character, balance between characters is kind of hard for them to screw up. Balance between their characters and mine however is rather important.

 

[slobo777]

Given that I am primarily improvisational and tend to build stories off of my PCs' backstories and choices, it would be hard to say that I don't react to them. Given that the story is designed for each individual character, balance between characters is kind of hard for them to screw up. Balance between their characters and mine however is rather important.

"React" is not quite same as "led by"

Although I tend to see the whole thing as a negotiation, which starts before you decide the system, and is ongoing into the game.

My take on this is that pemerton is quite happy to see rules such as "Spend 3 points on social standing, equals you are a minor noble." which empower players up-front to bring characters with backstory+mechanics combined. And the starting point of negotiation is simply "well, it's in the rules, so it should be good". That's "led by"

Whereas you would seem to prefer items such as social standing and special equipment are negotiated in a more open-ended and personal DM/player discussion? So the starting point of similar negotiation for the player in your game might be "I'd like my paladin to be a minor noble" or even that you would supply part of the backstory "Your cousin, the duke, has been having trouble with trolls recently . . ." in reaction to something a player has done or said. That's "react"

(Don't want to put words in your mouth BTW, just trying to get a feel for where this interesting discussion is in terms I understand - so feel free to naysay any of the above!)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Whereas you would seem to prefer items such as social standing and special equipment are negotiated in a more open-ended and personal DM/player discussion?

Yes. Prepping for one of my games is usually characterized by a lot of brainstorming and negotiation. These sorts of things could be suggested or developed by anyone; I just have "final cut" essentially. I try to just make character creation a heart to heart between DM and player, and the rules end up being very flexible to accommodate that.

 

[Emerikol]

So does 4e D&D.

And a lot of D&D players seem to use prebuild campaign worlds of one form or another - the Forgotten Realms in particular.

Yes D&D has worlds. Traveller had one. Kind of like Glorantha was Runequests one world. I'm not saying you couldn't play either without their worlds but the world was intrinsic to the design. Whereas with D&D it was not.

100% what Hussar said. I'm not that interested in exploring a GM's world which has no room for my conception of the PC I want to play.

I call players with your attitude troublemakers. Whenever a world is created there is a lot of room for innovation. But someone who insists on breaking the ground rules of a campaign is being selfish. Perhaps you don't understand what I mean. Here are some examples.

1. Wanting to play race X when it doesn't exist in a particular world.
2. Wanting to play a class but not in the way it fits the world. For example, wanting to play a paladin but not wanting to be an outlaw in a world dominated by an evil empire where they are hunted.
3. Trying to make up some background detail that doesn't fit anything in the world and then complaining when the DM suggests the closest fit.

My campaigns are not always vanilla. I admit to recruiting my groups each time and not always having the same people. Thats on purpose. I usually have more wanting in than I have slots for them. I give them a lot of the flavor and world concept and then they decide if they want in. If the campaign is about pirates on the high seas, it's perfect fine to say your not interested. It's not fine though to want to play a desert nomad when in fact there are only islands in a world made mostly of water.

Which system are you talking about here? No edition of D&D, for example, states a proposition of the sort that you state here. 4e actively denies it (in both its DMG and DMG2), and classic D&D seems to assume that players might come up with ideas for their PC backstories that have consequences for the gameworld (eg thieves' guilds, wizardly mentors, etc).

The final decision is the DMs. No one is arguing players can't contribute ideas to the back story. I'm not even against the player conceiving an idea based on what he knows of the world that fits and the DM going with it. But if it doesn't fit the DM has the right to say no and then work with the player to try and find alternatives. He doesn't have to just say yes and then bend his world all out of wack to accomodate it.

I just don't agree with this. I've never felt any confusion or conflict in letting players set up their PCs' backstories, including families, mentors, secrets, etc.

I agree it's a joint process. But any DM that lets a player take over the campaign and change it's essential flavor isn't much of a DM. If the DM has really put in effort to make a fun exciting campaign concept then that should be defended. Of course if the DM does no prep work then he can accept anything but thats not a DM I have much interest playing with.

 

[Manbearcat]

It seems to me that this is just a manifestation of ye ole The Chicken and the Egg. There are multiple ways to skin a cat/set up a game:


- Consult players on what genre expectations they wish to play within and specifically what types of character archetypes they wish to play. Create gameworld (or use an existing setting) to support genre expectations and player archetypes.

- Contrive a gameworld with rigid genre expectations that constrain character archetypes. Constrain player base to subset of gamers that enjoy these genre expectations and the constrained archetypes that lie within.

- Co-author everything. Negotiate the archetypes, the genre expectations, and the gameworld beforehand with the players. Solicit the players' ideas/expectations of their background, the implications of that background (and relevant NPCs that should pop up in the game relative to that background), and collectively set forth a skeletal framework of PC progression. Flesh out the concrete gameworld specifics based on that solicited, negotiated information.


Some may have honed a particular style and wish not to deviate from it. Some may be a bit more malleable and drift back and forth. Its basically all about finding the right players. It doesn't seem to me that any of the rulesets of any of the specific editions endorse any of these campaign genesis procedures exclusively. The editions all "behave" a little more functionally or are a little more user-friendly "out of the box" toward certain genre expectations and playstyle modes...but it seems to me that they're mostly campaign genesis-neutral.

 

[Hussar]

I agree with Manbearcat. It's bottom up vs top down campaign design. I used to be a top-down campaign designer similar to what Emerikol talks about. But, I find now that I'm not interested in that as much. Setting exploration bores me to be honest, so, when a player comes to me with a concept that is outside the parameters I original set down, I'll likely change the parameters if I can. I'd much rather have happy players than cater to this notion of the "sanctity" of my campaign setting.

As far as good vs bad DM's, with this quote:

I agree it's a joint process. But any DM that lets a player take over the campaign and change it's essential flavor isn't much of a DM. If the DM has really put in effort to make a fun exciting campaign concept then that should be defended. Of course if the DM does no prep work then he can accept anything but thats not a DM I have much interest playing with.

I'd simply respond with, any DM so inflexible that he dictates to his players what they can play and will eject players, or consider them bad players, if they deviate from this, is a DM I no longer have any interest in playing with.

But, then, I accept that this is simply a preference style and try to avoid saying that other DM's are bad because they don't share my preferences. For me, given the choice between the player taking something he really wants to play or me holding to some preconceived notion of how my game world "should" look, I'll side with the player every single time.

 

[haakon1]

There are multiple ways to skin a cat/set up a game:


- Consult players on what genre expectations they wish to play within and specifically what types of character archetypes they wish to play. Create gameworld (or use an existing setting) to support genre expectations and player archetypes.

- Contrive a gameworld with rigid genre expectations that constrain character archetypes. Constrain player base to subset of gamers that enjoy these genre expectations and the constrained archetypes that lie within.

- Co-author everything. Negotiate the archetypes, the genre expectations, and the gameworld beforehand with the players. Solicit the players' ideas/expectations of their background, the implications of that background (and relevant NPCs that should pop up in the game relative to that background), and collectively set forth a skeletal framework of PC progression. Flesh out the concrete gameworld specifics based on that solicited, negotiated information.

Two additional approaches, mine and the approach my friend Ron takes:

- I run traditional D&D. Greyhawk, 3.5e core rulebooks, 1st edition feel adventures. Everyone I game with is a friend OUTSIDE the game -- and they all either played AD&D back in the decade and were reintroduced to the game by me, or they never played D&D until I asked them to give it a shot -- I grow my own players. I get a campaign I like (no gonzo), and they get a campaign they can understand and that feels right, Tolkienesque old school "classic rock" D&D. There's a lot of "setting" to my game, but it's nothing that constrains the tropes of the game or prevents anything in the PHB or DMG from being played. We keep from getting bored by the simple expedient of being too busy to play very often.

- Ron runs adventures he finds interesting, and traditionally doesn't worry much about the setting. He's currently doing 4e in the Nentir Vale. He eliminates gonzo by the simple expedient of having players who aren't interested in it and mostly don't own books beyond the PHB. We keep from getting bored by the simple expedient of, again, not playing more than a few times a year because it's so hard to meet up, and in Ron's case, being heavily focused on combat. That my character is Tiberius with the goal of restoring the fallen empire (and acting Roman) and Sean's character is Erik the Viking with the goal of acting like a Viking doesn't prevent us from being in the same setting and cooperating in the main business of killing things and taking their stuff.

Done and done -- and I'm guessing pretty common approaches to the game.

What I mean by Gonzo is Over the Top, bizarre for the sake of being bizarre characters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzo_the_Great

"Unlike most of the central Muppets characters, Gonzo is not a puppet version of a human or a recognizable animal. He sports a bizarre, non-human appearance, which includes blue fur, purple feathers on his head, bug-eyes, and a long, hooked nose. ... dedicated to performing for its own sake, regardless of audience reaction. ... "I shall now eat a rubber tire to the music of The Flight of the Bumblebee...music, maestro!""

 

[pemerton]

Yes D&D has worlds. Traveller had one. Kind of like Glorantha was Runequests one world. I'm not saying you couldn't play either without their worlds but the world was intrinsic to the design.

This isn't true of Traveller. The system predates the imperium setting, which is not part of the original 3-book Black Box.

I used to be a top-down campaign designer similar to what Emerikol talks about. But, I find now that I'm not interested in that as much. Setting exploration bores me to be honest, so, when a player comes to me with a concept that is outside the parameters I original set down, I'll likely change the parameters if I can.

<snip>

any DM so inflexible that he dictates to his players what they can play and will eject players, or consider them bad players, if they deviate from this, is a DM I no longer have any interest in playing with.

More agreement from me.

 

[Manbearcat]

I agree with Manbearcat. It's bottom up vs top down campaign design. I used to be a top-down campaign designer similar to what Emerikol talks about. But, I find now that I'm not interested in that as much. Setting exploration bores me to be honest, so, when a player comes to me with a concept that is outside the parameters I original set down, I'll likely change the parameters if I can. I'd much rather have happy players than cater to this notion of the "sanctity" of my campaign setting.

This evolution that Hussar speaks of mirrors my own. This isn't the first time I've seen this evolutionary congruency (that matched up ultimately with current system preference as well).

I've seen quite a few folks who seem to have very similar testimony regarding their evolution of playstyle preferences and system preferences (that are in relative accord with my own experience). It would be interesting to have a thread whereby people posted the evolution of their tastes (genres most emulated, table feel, etc), playstyle (sandbox vs episodic, mechanical resolution tools, DM empowerment vs game co-authorship or shared power, etc) preferences, the systems that they journeyed with and their ultimate, current system preferences. I suspect we would find some interesting symmetry. We may learn something.