PDA

View Full Version : Is there something wrong with having setting specific guidelines?



MonkeySage
2016-09-16, 01:29 PM
There are certain classes that are in the rulebook, but don't exist in my friend's setting.

Likewise, there are classes that don't exist in my setting.

A lot of this comes down to personal preference and the cultures present in setting.

One example: Monks are banned from his setting. There is a monk class, but it's basically a white mage, based heavily on medieval european monks. He's a TKD student, so he doesn't like the idea of the monk as presented in pathfinder.

OldTrees1
2016-09-16, 01:30 PM
No. There is nothing wrong with having setting specific guidelines.

themaque
2016-09-16, 01:33 PM
So long as such things are clearly described and explained at the outset of a campaign, I don't see any problems. Especially with classes like monk.

I once had someone ban all Clerics and divine casters. We felt that after a while but we knew it going in and the GM didn't have the bad guys suddenly have them as well.

BWR
2016-09-16, 01:34 PM
What is a setting other than a set of rules about how the world works and what is and isn't available?
Frankly, restrictions can be at least as interesting as permissions in games.
So, no there is nothing wrong and everything right with guidelines or (as your post was really about) limiting the availability of specific mechanics to better fit your world.

Why do you ask?

MonkeySage
2016-09-16, 01:40 PM
Another friend of mine and I have been debating whether or not ninjas should exist(as a separate class) in my setting.

And while I have my reasons for them not existing(as a separate class), trying to explain these reasons to him, it was impossible to get him to understand why I banned them.

So eventually, I ended up having to say "Yeah, ok, I don't like them as a class."

My reasoning comes down to them feeling too much like ninja gaiden or naruto; which was incompatible with my setting.

LudicSavant
2016-09-16, 01:44 PM
Is there something wrong with having setting specific guidelines?

No. Apparently that wasn't long enough. Nooooooooooooooo.

Knaight
2016-09-16, 02:35 PM
There isn't. Much of the point of classes is that you can swap them in and out to customize a setting..........................................

Flickerdart
2016-09-16, 02:41 PM
No.

Having said that, such bans have consequences, and it is important to understand those consequences. For example, banning divine magic makes it more difficult to heal magically. What is the impact of this on the world? Are there fewer wars? Are there fewer high-level adventurers, because they frequently die without healing? Will your party need to go back from the dungeon more frequently to recuperate?

If you make bans without thinking about the consequences, you're going to run into problems.

Geddy2112
2016-09-16, 03:01 PM
Absolutely not. It is these guidelines that establish one setting/system from another. If it was anything goes, you would have things like Warhammer 40k space marines running around in Forgotten Realms, Drizzet in roaring 20's call of Cthulu, and D&D style clerics in Star Trek.

Some are obvious based on system- you generally don't have space ships in D&D 3.5. Within a system, whoever is running the game is free to ban/restrict/modify the normally available magic/races/classes/technology as they see fit.

Echoing the above, this is 100% fine so long as you tell players up front, maintain consistency throughout the game, have a reason, and understand the consequences of deleting X race/class/magic/tech/whatever.

Knaight
2016-09-16, 03:34 PM
No.

Having said that, such bans have consequences, and it is important to understand those consequences. For example, banning divine magic makes it more difficult to heal magically. What is the impact of this on the world? Are there fewer wars? Are there fewer high-level adventurers, because they frequently die without healing? Will your party need to go back from the dungeon more frequently to recuperate?

If you make bans without thinking about the consequences, you're going to run into problems.

The same thing applies to not thinking through setting implications with the non-banned list, particularly in the context of D&D. It's not like that tends to be well thought out to begin with.

bulbaquil
2016-09-16, 05:48 PM
Is there something wrong with having setting-specific guidelines?

Absolutely not. Just be sure to tell your players up front what is and is not allowed: "no, you can't play a sarrukh because they don't exist"; "well, technically you could be a drow, but regardless of alignment you'd have a bounty on your head just for existing, because this part of the world is openly genocidal towards them."

Pugwampy
2016-09-16, 06:05 PM
This is a Co op game between DM and players .

What if some Shlubb wants to play a divine caster ?

It sucks I was once told i could not play an Ewok or Hutt in a D20 starwars .
Hutt i can sort of understand but an Ewok is a core rule species .I told him to drop dead .

I was offered a wookie . I offered my middle finger .

Kelb_Panthera
2016-09-16, 06:48 PM
No.

Having said that, such bans have consequences, and it is important to understand those consequences. For example, banning divine magic makes it more difficult to heal magically. What is the impact of this on the world? Are there fewer wars? Are there fewer high-level adventurers, because they frequently die without healing? Will your party need to go back from the dungeon more frequently to recuperate?

If you make bans without thinking about the consequences, you're going to run into problems.

Couldn't have said it better.

2D8HP
2016-09-16, 07:03 PM
Combine and eliminate all but three classes:
1) Arcane Spell-casters (call them "Magic Users"),
2) Divine Miracle Workers (call them "Clerics"),
3) Non Spell-casters (since without Magic it will be a struggle to survive, call them "Fighters").
I think that would work!
:biggrin:

Psikerlord
2016-09-16, 07:08 PM
I think removing class, race and magic options is standard practice for many games - it all depends on the vibe of the setting you are playing in. Removing monks, removing dragon born or tieflings, removing certain spells (eg raise dead, or teleport). Using everything in PHB would only really be feasible in a high magic, very cosmopolitan fantasy setting.

digiman619
2016-09-16, 11:21 PM
Yes, you are perfectly justified in saying that you don't want X, Y or Z. Be made aware that your player might have had their heart set on Y, so having new options to replace the old might be in order.

Mastikator
2016-09-16, 11:31 PM
Setting specific guidelines are good. If X does not exist in a setting then a player shouldn't be able to play as it. Unless the PCs are extradimensional visitors they should be the kind of characters that are likely to be found in the setting, they should come from places in the setting.

Quarian Rex
2016-09-17, 03:13 AM
As with most things, it depends on your group, your restrictions, and the reasons for those restrictions.

When considering the group, do you have one guy who just really likes playing Monk? If so, banning the class may nix 90% of his enjoyment in the game. What is the nature of the restriction? If your bans are like 'no Clerics' or 'no magic users' you may be under-cutting some of the reasons that your players showed up for the game. If you do have drastic restrictions then it is important to make sure that those restrictions are properly reflected in the game world. If the players cannot make magic users, yet every second encounter sees them dodging fireballs from NPCs, they might get resentful since it just looks like you don't want them to have nice things.

Also, what are the reasons for the restrictions? Are they based on crunch or fluff? Do you find something unbalanced or just don't want to deal with a given subsystem? Or are you just experimenting (seeing how a game would go without party healing)?

If you are just placing restrictions due to not liking the fluff of a class, are you open to compromise if the fluff is changed? If you ban Monks and Ninjas because you don't want the game to feel like Naruto, could a player use the Ninja chassis to play as a mystically empowered member of an assassin guild that was excommunicated from the local death religion for heresy? Could a player use a Monk to play an empowered scion of the god of strength (think spell-less Favored Soul)? Fluff is mutable and sometimes a player just really wants to use a certain set of mechanics for a character/game. Some flexibility may go a long way.

Just remember that if you are going to be using restrictions on character design, or any major houserules for that matter, to be up front with the players about what they are and why they are there. No one likes showing up at the table and finding out that they can't do their favorite things. Clear communication about this sort of thing can prevent a lot of frustration.

Kiero
2016-09-17, 05:23 AM
No. There is nothing wrong with having setting specific guidelines.

This. The GM is within their rights to restrict anything they please. It being about maintaining a certain level of versimilitude in the setting is one of the best reasons of all.

Quertus
2016-09-17, 09:10 AM
No. As has been said, you need to think through the implications of any change.

And you also need to think through the reasons for the change, and take them to their logical conclusion.

No X because it doesn't fit the setting? That's fine, my character's not from around here anyway.

No Y because it's too powerful, and you want a balanced party? Then what are you going to do to boost someone who brings a particularly weak build?

LibraryOgre
2016-09-17, 09:57 AM
Just to pile on, no, there is nothing wrong with setting, or even campaign, specific guidelines.

While most folks have been talking variations on D&D, I'll mention a game that really cries out for them... Rifts. Power levels vary widely, and it can be difficult to make a coherent and fun campaign for a Rifts group that consists of a Vagabond (essentially, a D&D commoner), a Glitter Boy (someone who pilots a very powerful power armor), a demon, an alien barmaid, and a Coalition Soldier (i.e. human supremacist nazi who hates magic, demons, mutants, aliens, etc.) Getting them all on the same page... even kinda falling in the same direction... is practically impossible without a lot of player collusion. If you sit down as set out some guidelines ("Ok, everyone needs to be a vampire hunter" or "We're all Coalition Allies" or "This game is set in Australia, so only Australian OCCs will be allowed"), you can have a great game, even if someone doesn't get to play the awesome character concept they had for a Japanese Samurai.

Cluedrew
2016-09-17, 06:15 PM
OK, this is an odd question, but what would be wrong with having setting specific guidelines?

There have been a few hints of things, but they strike me as minor points. Well I suppose "think it through" isn't really a minor point, but it isn't a strike against setting specific guidelines, just badly thought out ones.

Knaight
2016-09-17, 07:59 PM
OK, this is an odd question, but what would be wrong with having setting specific guidelines?

There have been a few hints of things, but they strike me as minor points. Well I suppose "think it through" isn't really a minor point, but it isn't a strike against setting specific guidelines, just badly thought out ones.

The extent to which settings are GM made and which they are collaborative can be a bit contentious, and if the group standard is to collaboratively build a setting blanket bans don't work so well. They work fine in the cases of pitching a setting, permanent GMs who have setting making as part of their group role, and a bunch of other cases.

LibraryOgre
2016-09-17, 09:31 PM
OK, this is an odd question, but what would be wrong with having setting specific guidelines?

There have been a few hints of things, but they strike me as minor points. Well I suppose "think it through" isn't really a minor point, but it isn't a strike against setting specific guidelines, just badly thought out ones.

It usually boils down to "I want to play a specific type of character, regardless of what the GM has determined is appropriate for the setting she's prepared."

Kiero
2016-09-18, 04:55 AM
It usually boils down to "I want to play a specific type of character, regardless of what the GM has determined is appropriate for the setting she's prepared."

Player entitlement, in a nutshell.

Quertus
2016-09-18, 07:26 AM
OK, this is an odd question, but what would be wrong with having setting specific guidelines?

There have been a few hints of things, but they strike me as minor points. Well I suppose "think it through" isn't really a minor point, but it isn't a strike against setting specific guidelines, just badly thought out ones.

Suppose, like in Dragonlance, the gods are being jerks, and not supporting divine casters. This means...

Being a cleric really bites (unless you're that one special snowflake).

Ur-Priests are even more awesome than usual.

Spelljamming clerics from other crystal spheres, using Contact Home Power to get their spells, are incredibly powerful and influential (and, realistically, ought to have converted the world's populous to better gods).

The Arcane Spellcaster class, taking normally divine spells, is even more awesome than usual.

Oh, and alternate healing classes, like my former dragon Red Avenger, become more useful, but meh.

EDIT: terribly sorry, left off an important one: barring things like the above, games played at the same "level" / in the same style will, by virtue of having less healing, be more fatal. Further, in the absence of divine magic or the above exceptions, resurrection isn't really a thing. Thus, such a setting is well designed as a meat grinder training exercise, and poorly designed for character retention and "telling stories". Which is funny, given that the Dragonlance setting supposedly introduced this whole "ongoing campaign" idea to D&D, that it should be so horrible at it.

The Insanity
2016-09-18, 09:00 AM
There's nothing wrong with setting specific guidelines, but only when they make sense. For example I wouldn't myself ban or accept the ban of a class based on its fluff, because fluff is mutable.

Kiero
2016-09-18, 09:49 AM
There's nothing wrong with setting specific guidelines, but only when they make sense. For example I wouldn't myself ban or accept the ban of a class based on its fluff, because fluff is mutable.

You're sitting down to someone else's game, you don't have the right not to "accept the ban", bar walking. Which you're always entitled to do.

Jay R
2016-09-18, 09:53 AM
I start with a several page document detailing what all characters already know about the world they live in, and what special rules exist.

If there are two moons in the sky, players don't have to make a Knowledge (What the Sky Looks Like) check to discover it. If they all grew up in a tiny village deep in the heart of a cursed forest, then they should know that before they invent their PC's connection to a big-city Thieves' Guild.

Similarly, if there are no druids, then players spending time considering playing a druid are just wasting their time.

Quertus
2016-09-18, 10:00 AM
You're sitting down to someone else's game, you don't have the right not to "accept the ban", bar walking. Which you're always entitled to do.

You always have the right to question other people's logic and sanity - the DM is certainly no exception.

Now, if the DM doesn't like the fluff of something, and doesn't like refluffing, then it's a legitimate ban. Just not liking the fluff of something is not.

Jay R
2016-09-18, 10:29 AM
You always have the right to question other people's logic and sanity - the DM is certainly no exception.

Now, if the DM doesn't like the fluff of something, and doesn't like refluffing, then it's a legitimate ban. Just not liking the fluff of something is not.

Yes, you have the right to question it. Polite conversation is always in order.

But the DM is the final authority. I have had bans in games in which I could not tell the players why the ban was there. In one game, they had to play humans, primarily because

the dwarves are believed to be all killed, but are in fact currently the slaves of the frost giants
there are no elves in the world. When they return, they will be the elves from Terry Pratchett, not like anything in D&D.


Telling them the reasons would have destroyed two major adventures being planned.

The only player who objected talked to me and we found a work-around.

Telonius
2016-09-18, 11:52 AM
An authoritarian jerk of a DM is as unpleasant to play with as an entitled snot of a player. I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to play with either one. Leaving those edge cases aside, most people have some reason for banning things or wanting to play things. It's best to talk all that out before the game, and figure out what everyone's expecting. Compromise is a good thing.

Cluedrew
2016-09-18, 02:14 PM
The extent to which settings are GM made and which they are collaborative can be a bit contentious, and if the group standard is to collaboratively build a setting blanket bans don't work so well. They work fine in the cases of pitching a setting, permanent GMs who have setting making as part of their group role, and a bunch of other cases.
It usually boils down to "I want to play a specific type of character, regardless of what the GM has determined is appropriate for the setting she's prepared."I always worked under an assumption that you create a character for the setting, so having guidelines seems like a universal upgrade than just guessing what will fit.

But I always get clearance from the GM and I have rejected characters as the GM myself. Usually accompanied by the list of problems with the character, and maybe some suggestions about the smallest changes you can make to create a working character. That was just how all the groups did it in my early days and I guess it was always happening in an informal way in my head.

Vitruviansquid
2016-09-18, 02:29 PM
The vast majority of disagreements around a tabletop game can and should be worked out by compromise.

The number of times people on this forum declare they'd walk out on a game or ban a player for this or that reason is utterly unlike what I've seen in real life.

Quertus
2016-09-18, 03:04 PM
I always worked under an assumption that you create a character for the setting, so having guidelines seems like a universal upgrade than just guessing what will fit.

Old-school drop-in game logic: my character's not from around here. He was created for genetic Toril-like world #28394, played on 17 different worlds (and assorted planes), and now, for reasons unknown and likely never discussed, he's visiting your world for a spell.

Heck, my signature character has ticked off at least 5 distinct copies of the lord of the 9 hells in the course of his adventures.

I will never understand a setting as well as its creator. Rather than fight over what does and does not make sense in the setting (not just classes, but outlooks, prejudices, experiences - everything that makes a person), I'd rather just play a character from elsewhere that I understand, and enjoy viewing the world as an outsider.

icefractal
2016-09-18, 03:16 PM
No, there's nothing wrong with it.

However, there is also nothing wrong with players having preferences of their own. The DM can make whatever kind of setting they want - Orc Commoners only? Totally acceptable. But they shouldn't get ****ty with players who decide that's not their cup of tea.

Sometimes I see things like:
DM: This is going to be core-only, no casters, magic is something rare NPCs do, very LotR.
Player: I think I'll pass on this one, but have fun.
DM: You filthy entitled munchkin!
And that's BS.

And as Vitruviansquid mentions, often the dynamic is not "DM declares a game, players are in or out", but rather "DM pitches some game ideas, the group discusses them". And in that case it's totally reasonable for people to make a case for allowing X, or say that they don't find the current set of restrictions appealing.

Cluedrew
2016-09-18, 05:44 PM
To Quertus: I don't doubt that the rules for a pick-up game (or any game were characters are not supposed to come from the setting) are different. If necessary I ask about a general concept, start with that and work out the details as the game progresses and they come up.

To icefractal: I have had almost that exact story play out before, except the GM has never gotten angry at me for it.

Knaight
2016-09-18, 11:59 PM
I will never understand a setting as well as its creator. Rather than fight over what does and does not make sense in the setting (not just classes, but outlooks, prejudices, experiences - everything that makes a person), I'd rather just play a character from elsewhere that I understand, and enjoy viewing the world as an outsider.

This only really works for a narrow range of settings though. Old school drop in play works in old school D&D, but old school D&D has a narrow range of settings. None of those characters are going to fit at all in something like a hard science fiction campaign about a far peak oil dystopia that never managed to get other energy sources working to any real level.

Kiero
2016-09-19, 03:20 AM
This only really works for a narrow range of settings though. Old school drop in play works in old school D&D, but old school D&D has a narrow range of settings. None of those characters are going to fit at all in something like a hard science fiction campaign about a far peak oil dystopia that never managed to get other energy sources working to any real level.

Precisely; for example, one of my usual sorts of pitches which when it's not straight historical, takes an existing setting and reduces the magic level drastically. That isn't an invitation to then try to shoehorn in a character that would only fit in a magic-rich setting under the aegis of "compromise".

Fri
2016-09-19, 05:45 AM
I once had a supernatural investigation game with a ban on any sort of divinitory powers like remote seeing, where it usually expected to exist. People would expect that it's to keep the game from being too easy, and that might be part of it. But the main reason is that it's supposed to be the plot twist of the game, after the first random case (they're just down on their luck investigators with no actual link to big investigations or underworld contact), they'd find out that everyone with the smallest scrying ability is actually missing, and that's the big case they're supposed to work on.

Lorsa
2016-09-19, 07:51 AM
If we twist this question around to ask if there is anything right with having setting specific restrictions then it is easy to see that it is obviously so.

If the setting has no elves in it, then it is right to restrict the game to "no elves".

One might then proceed to ask "is it right to have a setting", but I am not going to answer that one for you.

Psyren
2016-09-19, 09:10 AM
D&D has plenty of these baked in already. For example, Forgotten Realms prohibits Clerics that serve an ideal or philosophy from getting powers - if you want spells, you must worship a patron deity. Eberron meanwhile throws out the one-step rule. Ravenloft lets clerics function, but prevents you from directly contacting your patron or them from contacting you. Dark Sun and Rokugan have all kinds of ancillary rules around arcane magic in order to limit the prevalence of that type of spellcaster. And so on.

Knaight
2016-09-19, 09:12 AM
One might then proceed to ask "is it right to have a setting", but I am not going to answer that one for you.

That sort of question presumes that not having a setting is an option, and that doesn't really work for the vast majority of RPGs*. An existing setting can be used, but you still have a setting there.

*There are exceptions, but they tend to be setting building type things where you still have a setting at the end.

Flickerdart
2016-09-19, 09:48 AM
The same thing applies to not thinking through setting implications with the non-banned list, particularly in the context of D&D. It's not like that tends to be well thought out to begin with.

Naturally. The salient point is that the consequences of the existing rules are accounted for, more or less, by the existing rules. Fighters get chewed up in combat - but heals are plentiful, so a balanced group can recover from a near-TPK relatively quickly and continue their dungeon delve. A DM tweaking what's allowed, and then expecting the pace of the game to remain the same, will quickly be driven to madness. "Why do my players run back to the town after every fight?" he might wonder. Similarly, the players, coming to expect a kick-in-the-door type game, will be disappointed that their characters aren't tough enough to play the game in the way they enjoy.

Of course, one might expect people to realize this before the game starts, but not everybody has the gaming experience to sit down and think about it, never mind actually come to the right conclusion. So it's important to make not only the setting bans, but their effects, clear from the very beginning, even if the only effect is realizing that the game changes in a way you don't want.

The Insanity
2016-09-19, 10:25 AM
You're sitting down to someone else's game
Maybe you do. I'm sitting down to our game.

Frozen_Feet
2016-09-19, 10:34 AM
Answer: Only if there's something wrong with the setting itself, which is a different kind of problem.

If you only have experience of few big-name generic systems like D&D, you might forget that most RPG rulesets are actually purpose built for the game's setting. Most of the less-universal things and assumptions of modern D&D are leftovers of the implicit setting of earlier edition which was eventually given explicit form as Greyhawk. D&D, for most of its existence, has acknowledged and applied in practice the idea that the rules should adapt to the setting, and this principle was spelled out at least as far back as 1st edition DMG.

The idea that all the rules are free game despite the setting is, frankly, a historical anomaly restricted to few game system and gaming communities.

obryn
2016-09-19, 10:44 AM
Player entitlement, in a nutshell.
God, I hate this phrase so, so very much. My players should feel entitled to have a fun time when they come over every week, sit down, and play. And I'd be a terrible DM if I didn't think so.


As to the OP - Nothing wrong with restrictions; just make sure everyone's on the same page. If you're pitching a really cool idea and there's good reasons for any restrictions, they'll get on board. And if they really want to try something out that you weren't going to allow, see if you can reconcile the flavor and see if there's some way to work it in. If the problem is a flavor one, reskinning works grand. If the problem is a balance/mechanical one.... don't play busted games. :smallwink:

LibraryOgre
2016-09-19, 11:03 AM
D&D has plenty of these baked in already. For example, Forgotten Realms prohibits Clerics that serve an ideal or philosophy from getting powers - if you want spells, you must worship a patron deity. Eberron meanwhile throws out the one-step rule. Ravenloft lets clerics function, but prevents you from directly contacting your patron or them from contacting you. Dark Sun and Rokugan have all kinds of ancillary rules around arcane magic in order to limit the prevalence of that type of spellcaster. And so on.

Even further... "I want to play a goblin." "Sorry, there aren't any rules for playing monsters."*
"My druid wears chainmail." "Druids aren't allowed chainmail."
"I want my thief to use a short bow." "Sorry, not on the allowed weapons list."
"My wizard casts Cure Light Wounds..." "Wizards can't heal."

D&D was originally designed to play a relatively narrow field of largely humanocentric fantasy. While it's expanded over time, there's still a lot of assumptions built into the game.

*Yes, later there would be, but the assumption that goblins aren't a PC race is built into the core books of every edition I know. They're an optional race, starting about 2nd edition. Likewise, there's options to allow all of these later, but they're not a core assumption of D&D.

Flickerdart
2016-09-19, 11:04 AM
God, I hate this phrase so, so very much. My players should feel entitled to have a fun time when they come over every week, sit down, and play. And I'd be a terrible DM if I didn't think so.
I couldn't agree more. I have no idea where this weird revanchism of "supreme leader DM" is coming from; I thought the hobby left that behind.

If you don't value the experience of your friends, who have taken the time out of their lives to come and play games with you, then you're not just a bad dungeon master but a bad friend.

Quertus
2016-09-19, 11:19 AM
This only really works for a narrow range of settings though. Old school drop in play works in old school D&D, but old school D&D has a narrow range of settings. None of those characters are going to fit at all in something like a hard science fiction campaign about a far peak oil dystopia that never managed to get other energy sources working to any real level.


Precisely; for example, one of my usual sorts of pitches which when it's not straight historical, takes an existing setting and reduces the magic level drastically. That isn't an invitation to then try to shoehorn in a character that would only fit in a magic-rich setting under the aegis of "compromise".

Ok, true, I was only talking about playing a D&D character in a D&D setting. It usually doesn't work to play a character in a completely different system.

However

D&D has rules & items for traveling to other game systems. So, for D&D, at least, it makes perfect sense for a D&D character to show up in a hard science fiction setting. That the character will be confused and probably pretty worthless is another issue.


If we twist this question around to ask if there is anything right with having setting specific restrictions then it is easy to see that it is obviously so.

If the setting has no elves in it, then it is right to restrict the game to "no elves".

One might then proceed to ask "is it right to have a setting", but I am not going to answer that one for you.

If the setting has no elves, it makes no sense to play an elf from that setting. But what exists in that world has no bearing on what exists outside that world, that could travel to that world.

Vitruviansquid
2016-09-19, 11:32 AM
On the topic of player entitlement: yes, you should GM with an eye toward allowing your players to have fun, but no, that does not mean giving the players what they want all the time.

In matters of authorship, like the crafting of your setting, always be aware that too many cooks will spoil a broth. It can happen that a player wants something only to realize later that he/she would've had more fun had that thing been denied.

LibraryOgre
2016-09-19, 11:34 AM
I couldn't agree more. I have no idea where this weird revanchism of "supreme leader DM" is coming from; I thought the hobby left that behind.

If you don't value the experience of your friends, who have taken the time out of their lives to come and play games with you, then you're not just a bad dungeon master but a bad friend.

For me, it's a backlash against the philosophy of "the player is always right." Player entitlement is not "players get to help shape the game and the game world", but "players get to dictate the game world to the GM." A humorous example would be 'The Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising.'

"I want to play an elven monk!"
"Well, there are neither elves nor monks in this setting, so no."
"It's a core race and a core class! You have to allow it!"
"Nope."
"I'm just going to start playing one, and make you have to deal with it."

kyoryu
2016-09-19, 11:46 AM
There's nothing wrong with setting guidelines.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to play in a game with setting guidelines.

Talk to the GM, tell him "I'd really like to play <xyz> because <reasons>". If he's willing to budge, great! If not, decide if you are willing to accept the restrictions and can in good faith play the game. If you can, great! If not, politely bow out.

Kiero
2016-09-19, 12:13 PM
God, I hate this phrase so, so very much. My players should feel entitled to have a fun time when they come over every week, sit down, and play. And I'd be a terrible DM if I didn't think so.

That's not the source of the entitlement. Having fun isn't even at issue.

The entitlement comes from the sentiment that "I should be able to play whatever concept I like, because I'm the player". Or equally bad "this option exists in the rules, therefore it's my right to play it if I want to".

Jay R
2016-09-19, 12:15 PM
If we twist this question around to ask if there is anything right with having setting specific restrictions then it is easy to see that it is obviously so.

If the setting has no elves in it, then it is right to restrict the game to "no elves".

One might then proceed to ask "is it right to have a setting", but I am not going to answer that one for you.

Oh, well done. Clear, straightforward logic. If the DM can have a setting, that that means that she can have setting-specific guidelines.


That sort of question presumes that not having a setting is an option, and that doesn't really work for the vast majority of RPGs*. An existing setting can be used, but you still have a setting there.

*There are exceptions, but they tend to be setting building type things where you still have a setting at the end.

Correct. What you missed is her logic that having setting-specific guidelines is implicit in having a specific setting at all.



Player entitlement, in a nutshell.God, I hate this phrase so, so very much.

These kinds of discussions generally run more smoothly if we try to show why we disagree with somebody's words, without "hating" them.


My players should feel entitled to have a fun time when they come over every week, sit down, and play. And I'd be a terrible DM if I didn't think so.

Agreed. But this statement has nothing to do with the idea of "player entitlement" in the current context, which is about a world in which not all D&D options are available, like disallowing elven characters in worlds with no elves. The OP referred to a DM who doesn't allow monks in his game. That cannot be fairly or accurately portrayed as the players not being entitled to have a fun time.

Psyren
2016-09-19, 12:17 PM
For me, it's a backlash against the philosophy of "the player is always right." Player entitlement is not "players get to help shape the game and the game world", but "players get to dictate the game world to the GM." A humorous example would be 'The Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising.'

"I want to play an elven monk!"
"Well, there are neither elves nor monks in this setting, so no."
"It's a core race and a core class! You have to allow it!"
"Nope."
"I'm just going to start playing one, and make you have to deal with it."

Indeed, there needs to be a balance. And one of the main issues I see on messageboards is that the conversation completely stops at "no" and immediately leaps to "vote with your feet," "what a terrible GM" etc.

For example, if the setting doesn't include monks, I'd probe a bit further - maybe the problem isn't the concept of an effective unarmed fighter, but rather that there isn't really a Mystic Far East analogue that could justify that specific form of my character's training (or there is one, but the GM wants to leave it out.) At that point, I'd try to isolate the essential parts of my character and decide what I could live without. Maybe I wanted to play a monk solely because I want to be able to kick fiends in the jaw and/or wrestle ogres.

Depending on the system, I can still do this without the monk class. Say I'm playing Pathfinder, so I ask the GM "can I be a Brawler instead?" And bam, I get all the martial arts without the mystical eastern fluff - now I'm a Greco-Roman wrestler from Jistka, or a Savate kickboxer from Galt (France), or an island youth who grew up in the Shackles (Caribbean) and learned capoeira, or a Sambo practitioner from Brevoy (Russia), etc - all without concepts like "ki" and "perfect self." I just have a mean right hook.

Kiero
2016-09-19, 12:19 PM
If the setting has no elves, it makes no sense to play an elf from that setting. But what exists in that world has no bearing on what exists outside that world, that could travel to that world.

You're assuming there is any means for that character to travel there. Which may not be possible in the setting.

My historical game was ACKS, which is D&D-compatible. It has magic in the rules, being B/X-derived. I excised all that out (except for one divination power relating to dreams), along with all the monster-related stuff. There are no elves in the game world, nor any means for them to get to it, so anyone turning up with a concept for an elf is not engaging with the game's premise.

icefractal
2016-09-19, 01:37 PM
D&D has rules & items for traveling to other game systems. So, for D&D, at least, it makes perfect sense for a D&D character to show up in a hard science fiction setting. That the character will be confused and probably pretty worthless is another issue.If you're cool with centering the campaign around that character, then sure. Because something like an Elf Wizard showing up in a near-future hard SF setting? Forget whatever was originally going on, this is the discovery of the century! Almost every group out there is going to be trying to recruit/kidnap/study/kill/worship this astounding being.

I'm fine with campaigns being character-centric, but I don't know about something of this magnitude, it seems to overshadow the other PCs right from the start.

obryn
2016-09-19, 01:56 PM
Even further... "I want to play a goblin." "Sorry, there aren't any rules for playing monsters."*
"My druid wears chainmail." "Druids aren't allowed chainmail."
"I want my thief to use a short bow." "Sorry, not on the allowed weapons list."
"My wizard casts Cure Light Wounds..." "Wizards can't heal."

D&D was originally designed to play a relatively narrow field of largely humanocentric fantasy. While it's expanded over time, there's still a lot of assumptions built into the game.
Dude, Gygax's table featured both Balrog and Vampire PCs at various times, at a minimum. :smallsmile: The Cleric class was invented specifically to counter Sir Fang.


Agreed. But this statement has nothing to do with the idea of "player entitlement" in the current context, which is about a world in which not all D&D options are available, like disallowing elven characters in worlds with no elves. The OP referred to a DM who doesn't allow monks in his game. That cannot be fairly or accurately portrayed as the players not being entitled to have a fun time.

That's not the source of the entitlement. Having fun isn't even at issue.

The entitlement comes from the sentiment that "I should be able to play whatever concept I like, because I'm the player". Or equally bad "this option exists in the rules, therefore it's my right to play it if I want to".
For real, I have simply never encountered something like this in my 30 years of DMing. The closest was the dude who wanted a luchadore in a Call of Cthulhu d20 game; I let him give it a shot, it worked out great, and then a Deep One tore him apart. We had a conversation about tone, setting, etc., and he played it pretty darn straight.

It's about figuring out what the player wants, being flexible with flavor, and hashing it out like reasonable human beings. Not about throwing my viking hat on and crushing the impudent player who dares bring elves into my perfect fantasy playground.

LibraryOgre
2016-09-19, 03:08 PM
Dude, Gygax's table featured both Balrog and Vampire PCs at various times, at a minimum. :smallsmile: The Cleric class was invented specifically to counter Sir Fang.

Yeah, and the first official rules I know of for playing really out there PCs are the 2nd Edition DMG. While the game can be hacked to include those sorts of things, it doesn't do them well... to the point where a class had to be created simply to deal with a vampire PC run amok.

LudicSavant
2016-09-19, 03:27 PM
D&D was originally designed to play a relatively narrow field of largely humanocentric fantasy.Dude, Gygax's table featured both Balrog and Vampire PCs at various times, at a minimum. :smallsmile: The Cleric class was invented specifically to counter Sir Fang.Yeah, and the first official rules I know of for playing really out there PCs are the 2nd Edition DMG. While the game can be hacked to include those sorts of things, it doesn't do them well... to the point where a class had to be created simply to deal with a vampire PC run amok.

I suppose Obryn's point is that the rules doing a poor job of adjudicating vampires is a bug, not an intended design feature.

kyoryu
2016-09-19, 03:53 PM
For real, I have simply never encountered something like this in my 30 years of DMing.

I have. On this very forum.

Tried to set up a PbP Burning Wheel game. One player insisted that elves be what he wanted to be. He insisted that he be able to be a dark elf (even though they're kinda disruptive). Didn't want to use his resources to buy shoes (though that's part of the game). Insisted that the game be about what he wanted. Insisted that it was cool for his character to hate all humans and want them dead, though most of the people were playing humans. He wanted to be the lost prince of the elves or some such (I forget exactly), and basically have the entire game revolve around the pre-existing idea he had for a story in his head.

He wanted *his* game. I was just the facilitator. Anything that didn't mesh with what he wanted was unacceptable. Zero compromise, zero collaboration. Every time I changed everything to make his ideas fit in, he'd come back with more demands.

Jay R
2016-09-19, 09:24 PM
It's about figuring out what the player wants, being flexible with flavor, and hashing it out like reasonable human beings. Not about throwing my viking hat on and crushing the impudent player who dares bring elves into my perfect fantasy playground.

Insult received.

I recently set up a 2e game that would have no elves at the start. When they appear they will be nothing like D&D elves, being the version from Terry Pratchett's Lord and Ladies. I gave the players an introduction that explained that they could not be elves or dwarves.

Not one of my players called it "throwing my viking hat on and crushing the impudent player who dares bring elves into my perfect fantasy playground". They are all happy with the game - including the player who played an elf in his last two games. Using your deliberately insulting phrase is not conducive to a civil discussion.

Your accusation is false.

RazorChain
2016-09-20, 04:37 AM
There are certain classes that are in the rulebook, but don't exist in my friend's setting.

Likewise, there are classes that don't exist in my setting.

A lot of this comes down to personal preference and the cultures present in setting.

One example: Monks are banned from his setting. There is a monk class, but it's basically a white mage, based heavily on medieval european monks. He's a TKD student, so he doesn't like the idea of the monk as presented in pathfinder.

It makes sense, I'm a rogue and I don't like how they are presented either so I banned them. A friend of mine is a priest and he thinks they are blasphemous as presented so he banned them from his game. Then another friend who is a Ranger he just changed that class and now they all have parachutes.

Kiero
2016-09-20, 06:51 AM
Insult received.

I recently set up a 2e game that would have no elves at the start. When they appear they will be nothing like D&D elves, being the version from Terry Pratchett's Lord and Ladies. I gave the players an introduction that explained that they could not be elves or dwarves.

Not one of my players called it "throwing my viking hat on and crushing the impudent player who dares bring elves into my perfect fantasy playground". They are all happy with the game - including the player who played an elf in his last two games. Using your deliberately insulting phrase is not conducive to a civil discussion.

Your accusation is false.

Quite. It's not all down to mere "flexibility" because any properly-defined premise has boundaries to it. In a historical game, for example, there's a big difference between trying to find a way to fit someone from outside the primary region/culture the game takes place in, and someone wanting to play an elf or time-traveller.

vasilidor
2016-09-20, 06:58 AM
oh, absolutely not. my favorite setting is a home-brew where the apocalypse/Armageddon was caused by the return of magic to earth (using pathfinder rules). the race class combonations allowed are entirely dependant on how far down the timeline we play. in the early days there are no human wizards (or learned human spell casters for that matter) and all non human sentients are either a) just transformed into existance (did this to the alligators in florida, they were suddenly bipedal with opposable thumbs and a perfect understanding of the english language) or b) warped in from other realities (had a group of elves, and a kitsune and a kobold get warped in for the first game) and had never seen humans before. non-humans did not know what guns were at the start, but there were guns aplenty.

the first words to be spoken by the any of the alligators was "what just happened?" second after receiving the "gift" of language.

Lorsa
2016-09-20, 07:24 AM
The obvious next question to ask since we've cleared the setting specific guidelines would be "is there anything wrong with having campaign specific guidelines?". So, even if the setting has elves, in this campaign it's not allowed.

Since that question is even more narrow than the setting specific one, if you think there's nothing wrong with that, I don't see how setting specific guidelines could be a problem.



If the setting has no elves, it makes no sense to play an elf from that setting. But what exists in that world has no bearing on what exists outside that world, that could travel to that world.

The setting must obviously be all interconnected worlds. Don't mix the campaign location with the setting. If a campaign takes place in a specific city in a specific country, the setting is obviously larger than that, and incorporates all possible locations one could travel to.

Therefore, if the setting has "no elves", there exist no planes, no worlds, that contains elves which could possible reach the location the campaign takes place in.

Even if inter-planar travel is possible, the setting must incorporate those planes you could travel to or else it's impossible to travel there. I honestly don't understand how you could reach the conclusion that all settings must also include all possible imaginable settings and allow for travel between them.

I mean, just contain it to one planet.

Player: "I buy a ship and go to explore the unexplored continent to the west."
DM: "There is no unexplored continent to the west, all continents are known already."
Player: "The game has rules for sea travel, exploration and whatnot, SO I GO AND EXPLORE THE UNEXPLORED CONTINENT."
DM: "..."

Or if we do one more reductio ad absurdum...

Player: "I walk to the village a days journey to the west."
DM: "You stand by the edge of the ocean, there's only water to the west and certainly no villages."
Player: "The game has rules for walking, SO I GO TO THE VILLAGE A DAYS JOURNEY TO THE WEST."
DM: "..." "..." "It has become obvious to me that you do not fully comprehend the basic foundation of player-to-DM interaction in a typical role-playing game."

This is getting rather fun, but I think I should stop there.



There's nothing wrong with setting guidelines.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to play in a game with setting guidelines.

Talk to the GM, tell him "I'd really like to play <xyz> because <reasons>". If he's willing to budge, great! If not, decide if you are willing to accept the restrictions and can in good faith play the game. If you can, great! If not, politely bow out.

This sounds like the conversations I often have with my players.

Lorsa & Friends: "We want to play an RPG!" <everybody looks at me>
Lorsa: "I'm a bit tired of running fantasy games, I want to try this sci-fi game for once!"
Friends: "Ok, sure, let's do it!"
<One or two sessions>
Friends: "We don't really like this sci-fi thingy, we want to play fantasy!"
Lorsa: "I don't really feel like running fantasy, so... we do something else?"
<Lorsa & Friends go to the movies>
Lorsa: "You know... any RPG is better than [any other conceivable activity], so I guess I'll DM your fantasy game..."
Friends: "Yay!"

Quertus
2016-09-20, 10:14 AM
"this option exists in the rules, therefore it's my right to play it if I want to".

Personally, I like, "this option exists in the rules, so the DM or other players can use it, unless there is a stated and explained reason not to". It makes the game much more accessible to new (to the group) players.


For example, if the setting doesn't include monks, I'd probe a bit further - maybe the problem isn't the concept of an effective unarmed fighter, but rather that there isn't really a Mystic Far East analogue that could justify that specific form of my character's training (or there is one, but the GM wants to leave it out.)

The bolded part is a much more interesting state. Why they want something can make for some great discussions, and help everyone get on the same page. That, or try to write some new pages based on what everyone wants out of a game.


Depending on the system, I can still do this without the monk class. Say I'm playing Pathfinder, so I ask the GM "can I be a Brawler instead?" And bam, I get all the martial arts without the mystical eastern fluff - now I'm a Greco-Roman wrestler from Jistka, or a Savate kickboxer from Galt (France), or an island youth who grew up in the Shackles (Caribbean) and learned capoeira, or a Sambo practitioner from Brevoy (Russia), etc - all without concepts like "ki" and "perfect self." I just have a mean right hook.

This is awesome, and shows great ability to adapt - something we should all aim for. Kudos.

However, for old-school drop in logic, when my existing character is an elven monk, I'm (probably) not interested in reengineering it with all those other cool marital arts.

Your world doesn't have elves or monks? No problem, I'm not from your world.

You don't want elves or monks? That's different. Ok, I'll bring someone else - but why don't you want them? That way, I can try to better understand your prejudices and playstyle to bring someone we'll both / all enjoy.

Of course, I'm more flexable that way. Other players could just as well say, "you don't want monks? But I do. Why should your wants matter more than mine?".


You're assuming there is any means for that character to travel there. Which may not be possible in the setting.

My historical game was ACKS, which is D&D-compatible. It has magic in the rules, being B/X-derived. I excised all that out (except for one divination power relating to dreams), along with all the monster-related stuff. There are no elves in the game world, nor any means for them to get to it, so anyone turning up with a concept for an elf is not engaging with the game's premise.

Well, your system might not have a way built in for others to get there, but other systems do have ways built in for them to get there. :smalltongue:

But playing a character from a completely different system is generally pretty horrible, and not what I was trying to discuss in the first place.

Sorry, misread your premise. In such a world, I would likely ask you lots of questions about how certain things work... then play a mage based on studying and exploiting the part(s) of the change* I found most interesting.

And, sadly, we'd both probably be upset at how whatever personality I create for the character clashes with the culture and history of your world, both overly and in difficult to pin down subtle ways. Which is why I usually run characters that are "not from around here" in the first place.

* not that it would be a "change" from the mages PoV, of course.


If you're cool with centering the campaign around that character, then sure. Because something like an Elf Wizard showing up in a near-future hard SF setting? Forget whatever was originally going on, this is the discovery of the century! Almost every group out there is going to be trying to recruit/kidnap/study/kill/worship this astounding being.

I'm fine with campaigns being character-centric, but I don't know about something of this magnitude, it seems to overshadow the other PCs right from the start.

Yes and no.

The game should be about the PCs.

Being from another world is a "good" hook for why the game is about your PC. Or, at least, it is so long as... Hmmm, this is difficult to word correctly... a) other PCs have something of this magnitude, or b) such differences in magnitude are not an issue in this group.

But how "big" this is also depends largely on how you play it. Heck, about half of my characters are actually one of my characters that ascended to godhood (or equivalent) coming down and pretending to be mortal, just so I'm playing an existing character I enjoy rather than some new, faceless schlub. But that has 0 impact on how much the game is about my characters.

Besides, the poor elf wizard will a) have no idea what is going on, b) almost certainly be without spells, and c) if he comes from D&D, will likely get sick and die from lack of magic.

It seems like a terrible way to gimp yourself just to try to make the game's focus be where it should be in the first place.


The obvious next question to ask since we've cleared the setting specific guidelines would be "is there anything wrong with having campaign specific guidelines?". So, even if the setting has elves, in this campaign it's not allowed.

Since that question is even more narrow than the setting specific one, if you think there's nothing wrong with that, I don't see how setting specific guidelines could be a problem.

As I said above, this is a much more interesting question. I strongly encourage the idea of campaign guidelines (where, mind you, "kitchen sink" is also a perfectly valid guideline).


The setting must obviously be all interconnected worlds. Don't mix the campaign location with the setting. If a campaign takes place in a specific city in a specific country, the setting is obviously larger than that, and incorporates all possible locations one could travel to.

Therefore, if the setting has "no elves", there exist no planes, no worlds, that contains elves which could possible reach the location the campaign takes place in.

Even if inter-planar travel is possible, the setting must incorporate those planes you could travel to or else it's impossible to travel there. I honestly don't understand how you could reach the conclusion that all settings must also include all possible imaginable settings and allow for travel between them.

Well, in D&D, that's just silly. Because then the "setting" includes every D&D game ever played, since they are all, by default, interconnected worlds.

Mage has the umbra, through which one can travel to alternate worlds. Warhammer certainly embraces this idea more than is healthy. Most (all?) super hero games have plane shift and reality travel. Wormholes and reality travel are staples of sci fi.

I'm actually having a hard time coming up with a system I'd play in which traveling to other worlds one could create in the system wouldn't, by this definition, be part of the setting.

In which case, no, it makes no sense whatsoever to have setting specific rules.

Lorsa
2016-09-20, 10:52 AM
Well, in D&D, that's just silly. Because then the "setting" includes every D&D game ever played, since they are all, by default, interconnected worlds.

I am not sure why this is the default, and even IF it is the default, it is hardly the way I run my games. I've ran D&D games in my own made up setting, and I've ran games in what is almost a FR setting. There was no way for the characters to travel from one of these settings to another.

kyoryu
2016-09-20, 10:53 AM
The funny thing is that this is really a D&D-specific question.

D&D is semi-unique in that it's an incredibly eclectic system in terms of what it offers, yet barely coherent enough that a single setting with everything available is at least semi-feasible.

Setting guidelines are common and *utterly necessary* in truly generic systems - you don't run a GURPS or HERO or Fate game without telling players what is and is not allowed. Otherwise you get a medieval warrior on one hand and a modern special forces guy on the other, and on the third you end up with a space opera warrior with future tech. Somebody's gonna feel out of place.

On the other hand, other systems are usually designed around their setting, and so the exclusion of options is inherent in the system. You can't bring a space vampire into Monster of the Week (modulo homebrew) because the option just isn't there.

Kiero
2016-09-20, 11:57 AM
Well, your system might not have a way built in for others to get there, but other systems do have ways built in for them to get there. :smalltongue:

But playing a character from a completely different system is generally pretty horrible, and not what I was trying to discuss in the first place.

Sorry, misread your premise. In such a world, I would likely ask you lots of questions about how certain things work... then play a mage based on studying and exploiting the part(s) of the change* I found most interesting.

And, sadly, we'd both probably be upset at how whatever personality I create for the character clashes with the culture and history of your world, both overly and in difficult to pin down subtle ways. Which is why I usually run characters that are "not from around here" in the first place.

* not that it would be a "change" from the mages PoV, of course.


You misunderstand, this was a straight historical game, set in southern France 300BC. There are no mages, because there is no magic, nor had it "disappeared", it was never there in the first place.

If you wanted to play a "mage" then your character would either be a charlatan who convinces other people they have real "magic" or a lunatic who really believes they do. As before, the only "magic" that exists is divination, and even that is limited.

Knaight
2016-09-20, 12:23 PM
The obvious next question to ask since we've cleared the setting specific guidelines would be "is there anything wrong with having campaign specific guidelines?". So, even if the setting has elves, in this campaign it's not allowed.

Since that question is even more narrow than the setting specific one, if you think there's nothing wrong with that, I don't see how setting specific guidelines could be a problem.




The setting must obviously be all interconnected worlds. Don't mix the campaign location with the setting. If a campaign takes place in a specific city in a specific country, the setting is obviously larger than that, and incorporates all possible locations one could travel to.

Therefore, if the setting has "no elves", there exist no planes, no worlds, that contains elves which could possible reach the location the campaign takes place in.
I'm all for campaign specific guidelines - "you're all members of the Port Alhabri Alchemist's Guild" was the actual starting restriction for one of my more recent and more successful games. With that said this seems like an overly broad definition of setting here. Is the setting of Hamlet the entire universe, or is it a castle in Denmark? I'm inclined to go with the latter.



Well, in D&D, that's just silly. Because then the "setting" includes every D&D game ever played, since they are all, by default, interconnected worlds.

Mage has the umbra, through which one can travel to alternate worlds. Warhammer certainly embraces this idea more than is healthy. Most (all?) super hero games have plane shift and reality travel. Wormholes and reality travel are staples of sci fi.

I'm actually having a hard time coming up with a system I'd play in which traveling to other worlds one could create in the system wouldn't, by this definition, be part of the setting.

In which case, no, it makes no sense whatsoever to have setting specific rules.
Even in the context of D&D that's a bizarre assumption left over from the earliest editions which just about everyone ignores. Even sci-fi which has wormholes and reality travel will have restrictions on what is reasonable to have go through them - Star Trek might have lots of worm holes, but Darth Vader is never coming through them. As for finding a system where every setting isn't assumed to be somehow linked to every other setting, pick just about any system.

awa
2016-09-20, 12:33 PM
even back in the day when the settings were assumed to be linked, some of them made it nearly impossible to actually travel there. Not to mention that even if they don't go out of their way to make travel impossible some had a distinct tone that would be badly disrupted by an outsider.

Could you imagine trying to run a traditional Gothic horror ravenloft game with a tri-kreen in the party? He'd be more monstrous then half the monsters. And that's a setting where planner travelers are common.

kyoryu
2016-09-20, 01:40 PM
The thing that kind of annoys me about subjects like this (and there's a lot of them) is that they often boil down to:

Person A: "Person B likes <thing>. Tell me that they're wrong so that I can use that as evidence that they shouldn't like <thing> and must do the thing I like instead!"

It's BS. People like different things. Players don't owe anything to each other, or the GM. You're there because you've all agreed that whatever you're doing is fun. If you don't want to do that, then either see if people will compromise, or just don't play with them.

If you think every option should be available to you, great! That's a perfectly cromulent opinion. It's also a perfectly cromulent opinion that a given game only has a subset of options available to it.

I don't like railroad games. I really, really don't. Some people do, on both sides of the table. If someone is running a railroad game, I don't think I should "prove" that they're wrong and that they "should" do something else instead. I'll either join their game and accept what it is, see if I can talk them into running something more open, or just not play with them.

It's really that easy.

icefractal
2016-09-20, 02:51 PM
But how "big" this is also depends largely on how you play it. Heck, about half of my characters are actually one of my characters that ascended to godhood (or equivalent) coming down and pretending to be mortal, just so I'm playing an existing character I enjoy rather than some new, faceless schlub. But that has 0 impact on how much the game is about my characters.I guess this is a YMMV thing. Personally, I think that would bug me (as another player). Even if the god is restraining themselves to what a mortal could do, it does mean that:
A) Anything really high stakes is kind of pointless. If things get really bad, the deity can step in.
B) Other characters can't have goals they care hugely about (and don't care about doing personally). Because if, say, freeing your homeland from the tyrant is that important, why wouldn't you ask the god to do it? And if the god refuses, beg? And if the god still refuses, depart from him in anger, for he had the power to end that much suffering with a wave of his hand and chose not to?

Unless you mean the character is a god but you don't tell anyone or ever reveal it. Which is fine, but not something that'd be subject to setting guidelines anyway - no GM has the power to enforce head-canon. :smallwink:

MintyNinja
2016-09-20, 04:22 PM
To answer the OP, no, there's nothing wrong with it if you're up front about it and aren't surprising your players during play.

As an example, my own setting is set in the earliest dawns of the Age of Man and thus there's only two playable races: Human and Halfling. There's also no deific pantheon or known magic to their world, and so the only classes (D&D 5e) are Fighter, Barbarian, and Rogue. Even then, a few of them have subclasses that are banned because they're too magical. Now that the players are about to explore the greater, wider world, they might come across some things they just can't explain. Like steel weaponry. Or foreign languages. And maybe, just maybe, some magic.

The point of my restrictions is to reintroduce the players to this sense of wonder at exploring and discovering a brand new world. With modern D&D and similar systems, there's so little left to discover. This way I can introduce core mechanics and classes and have it feel like a wondrous discovery.

vasilidor
2016-09-20, 04:27 PM
You misunderstand, this was a straight historical game, set in southern France 300BC. There are no mages, because there is no magic, nor had it "disappeared", it was never there in the first place.

If you wanted to play a "mage" then your character would either be a charlatan who convinces other people they have real "magic" or a lunatic who really believes they do. As before, the only "magic" that exists is divination, and even that is limited.

actually, not necessarily, he could be an educated person with a bit of science lore in him. there were points in history where the lines between mysticism and actual science blurred. he could have a character that knows that x + y = a sleeping agent or b + c + e = highly flamable. people who knew these things would sometimes experiment with trying to do things like contact spirits (sometimes using hallucinogens to do so). this is the sort of thing i would have jumped over to myself in a heart beat.

Kiero
2016-09-20, 04:45 PM
actually, not necessarily, he could be an educated person with a bit of science lore in him. there were points in history where the lines between mysticism and actual science blurred. he could have a character that knows that x + y = a sleeping agent or b + c + e = highly flamable. people who knew these things would sometimes experiment with trying to do things like contact spirits (sometimes using hallucinogens to do so). this is the sort of thing i would have jumped over to myself in a heart beat.

It's still not D&D-style "magic" and it would have to be within reason for the materials and tools that were available at the time, or could be made with what was available.

Also what you're describing still falls with in the "trickster or madman" options I already suggested.

vasilidor
2016-09-20, 05:09 PM
It's still not D&D-style "magic" and it would have to be within reason for the materials and tools that were available at the time, or could be made with what was available.

Also what you're describing still falls with in the "trickster or madman" options I already suggested.

eh, rogue with max ranks in herbalism and alchemy would be the trickster, barbarian with the same the madman, fighter as the warrior/scholar who wonders at the truth of such things and lacks any real means of testing whether or not there are things such as spirits or gods. given your time frame and local most people would have considered you nuts if you did not believe in such things. if i remember correctly this is when druids held political sway. actual druids, not the dnd "druids".

Quertus
2016-09-20, 07:52 PM
I guess this is a YMMV thing. Personally, I think that would bug me (as another player). Even if the god is restraining themselves to what a mortal could do, it does mean that:
A) Anything really high stakes is kind of pointless. If things get really bad, the deity can step in.
B) Other characters can't have goals they care hugely about (and don't care about doing personally). Because if, say, freeing your homeland from the tyrant is that important, why wouldn't you ask the god to do it? And if the god refuses, beg? And if the god still refuses, depart from him in anger, for he had the power to end that much suffering with a wave of his hand and chose not to?

Unless you mean the character is a god but you don't tell anyone or ever reveal it. Which is fine, but not something that'd be subject to setting guidelines anyway - no GM has the power to enforce head-canon. :smallwink:

Closer to the second. The deity certainly never reveals it, and no one should ever know it in character.

Many of my "avatars" get "killed".

Sometimes my replacement character is just another avatar; other times, it's actually a "real" character.

In the game, there is no way to tell the difference my "real " characters and my avatars (barring me being good enough at role-playing the preferences of my deities in picking avatars, and in their flaws in role-playing mortals).

That having been said, I've played in games where other players had overt but restrained deities. There was usually some, "but if I use my powers, then it's fair for my enemy to use theirs, too" for them to keep it to mortal levels. Heck, come to think of it, AFAIK, some of them might have actually been mortals, just faking the whole divinity thing.

Kiero
2016-09-21, 03:40 AM
eh, rogue with max ranks in herbalism and alchemy would be the trickster, barbarian with the same the madman, fighter as the warrior/scholar who wonders at the truth of such things and lacks any real means of testing whether or not there are things such as spirits or gods. given your time frame and local most people would have considered you nuts if you did not believe in such things. if i remember correctly this is when druids held political sway. actual druids, not the dnd "druids".

Depended where in the Celtic world you were. Out at the fringes, in Britain and so on, this was the case, but on the southern French coast they were moving towards elected magistrates holding the balance of power. And increasingly resisting the power of kings or other sole rulers.

Earthwalker
2016-09-21, 08:05 AM
If you think every option should be available to you, great! That's a perfectly cromulent opinion. It's also a perfectly cromulent opinion that a given game only has a subset of options available to it.


Thank you, as always your words embiggen us all.

vasilidor
2016-09-21, 03:16 PM
Depended where in the Celtic world you were. Out at the fringes, in Britain and so on, this was the case, but on the southern French coast they were moving towards elected magistrates holding the balance of power. And increasingly resisting the power of kings or other sole rulers.
I thought they did not get pushed out till 500 years later, in the 200 AD to 300 AD, you did say 300 BC correct?
.
.
.
gonna double check this... i think i got my years screwed up here.

Kiero
2016-09-21, 04:11 PM
I thought they did not get pushed out till 500 years later, in the 200 AD to 300 AD, you did say 300 BC correct?
.
.
.
gonna double check this... i think i got my years screwed up here.

Southern France was very different to Britain, even in 300BC. I don't know that they had completely abolished kings by then, but they certainly had by the time the Romans were coming into regular contact with them from 100BC or so.

draken50
2016-09-21, 05:47 PM
I think as a GM it comes down to trust.

If I've said that a character class or race or whatever is not a fit for my game, I need players to trust that I have good reasons for doing so. I elucidate to the best of my ability but sometimes it's nothing more than: It's not a good fit for this game.

And a player can either trust me on that. Or if they don't have that trust, they can find another game.

As a GM I feel responsible to try deliver an experience worth having every session, and if I feel a race or class or build would interfere with that I will prevent it from occurring and I need trust from my players that that's what's happening. My players need to know that if situations can lead to their character's dying it's because I feel that element of risk adds to the game rather than because I want to make someone roll a new character.

vasilidor
2016-09-21, 06:42 PM
I think as a GM it comes down to trust.

If I've said that a character class or race or whatever is not a fit for my game, I need players to trust that I have good reasons for doing so. I elucidate to the best of my ability but sometimes it's nothing more than: It's not a good fit for this game.

And a player can either trust me on that. Or if they don't have that trust, they can find another game.

As a GM I feel responsible to try deliver an experience worth having every session, and if I feel a race or class or build would interfere with that I will prevent it from occurring and I need trust from my players that that's what's happening. My players need to know that if situations can lead to their character's dying it's because I feel that element of risk adds to the game rather than because I want to make someone roll a new character.

sounds resonable, but you should still be up for discussion on these things.

Kiero
2016-09-22, 03:43 AM
sounds resonable, but you should still be up for discussion on these things.

Discussion doesn't mean simply bowing to the wishes of the guy who always plays elves, even when it's been expressly stated that the setting does not have any.

Nor does it mean compromising the fundamental tenets of the premise you pitched. Again, if I pitch a straight historical game, and everyone else is cool with that, I'm not about to allow magic just because one player like to play wizards best.

Lorsa
2016-09-22, 07:58 AM
He wanted *his* game. I was just the facilitator. Anything that didn't mesh with what he wanted was unacceptable. Zero compromise, zero collaboration. Every time I changed everything to make his ideas fit in, he'd come back with more demands.

Being home and sick makes me want to reply to things I didn't before so...

I really do wonder how these sort of people can find games. I mean, the number of people who merely want to facilitate someone elses game must be pretty slim, all in all. Do you know anyone who is at the other end of that preference?



The thing that kind of annoys me about subjects like this (and there's a lot of them) is that they often boil down to:

Person A: "Person B likes <thing>. Tell me that they're wrong so that I can use that as evidence that they shouldn't like <thing> and must do the thing I like instead!"

It's BS. People like different things. Players don't owe anything to each other, or the GM. You're there because you've all agreed that whatever you're doing is fun. If you don't want to do that, then either see if people will compromise, or just don't play with them.

If you think every option should be available to you, great! That's a perfectly cromulent opinion. It's also a perfectly cromulent opinion that a given game only has a subset of options available to it.

I don't like railroad games. I really, really don't. Some people do, on both sides of the table. If someone is running a railroad game, I don't think I should "prove" that they're wrong and that they "should" do something else instead. I'll either join their game and accept what it is, see if I can talk them into running something more open, or just not play with them.

It's really that easy.

But then you'd remove half the discussion on this forum! What will we do with our time?



I'm all for campaign specific guidelines - "you're all members of the Port Alhabri Alchemist's Guild" was the actual starting restriction for one of my more recent and more successful games. With that said this seems like an overly broad definition of setting here. Is the setting of Hamlet the entire universe, or is it a castle in Denmark? I'm inclined to go with the latter.

Again, I should have overlooked it, but today I feel like defending myself.

The setting of a play and the setting of a RPG is a bit different. There's also different connotations in the word "setting" as it refers to RPGs. We really aren't very good with vocabulary in our hobby, probably because it's not a 300 year old academic discipline with strict definitions.

In any case, the way I talk about setting and their restrictions can be reduced to:

RPG:
GM: "In my setting, there are no elves."
Player: "That's fine, I'll just play an elf coming from ANOTHER setting."

Theater:
Director: "We're going to play Hamlet."
Actor: "That's fine, I'm going to play Romeo."

My point is that setting restrictions by their very nature, sets the boundary, the restrictions for what is possible to play. That is a logical consequence of having a setting, and you can't play an RPG without a setting, so they'll always be there. If you can play an elf from another setting, then obviously elves now exist in the setting and it really wasn't a restriction to begin with.

You can say "this WORLD doesn't have elves, but you can play one from a DIFFERENT world", in which case the setting is "a world with only one elf who is a planar traveler" and not "world without elves".

In short, setting restrictions are inherent by the very nature of having a setting. In fact, the setting is more or less defined by its restrictions. Therefore, it is impossible to go outside of them without changing the setting itself. It's logical no?

Garimeth
2016-09-22, 08:06 AM
Discussion doesn't mean simply bowing to the wishes of the guy who always plays elves, even when it's been expressly stated that the setting does not have any.

Nor does it mean compromising the fundamental tenets of the premise you pitched. Again, if I pitch a straight historical game, and everyone else is cool with that, I'm not about to allow magic just because one player like to play wizards best.

Entirely agreed. As the DM I am taking on the most time consuming commitment of the group by far, and I am also ALWAYS the DM for my group. I'll give a couple of ideas for games I'm interested in running, but I'm not making any major changes. I'll work with my friends to help them play the character they want to play, but it has to fit the setting. If they don't like it I'm more than happy to be a PC in their game.

I.E. (From a recent conversation) Hey guys for the next game I'm thinking either a celtic/norse game, an Arabian Nights styled game, and/or a Witcher/monster hunter game. What sounds the most interesting to you all?

AMFV
2016-09-22, 08:22 AM
Discussion doesn't mean simply bowing to the wishes of the guy who always plays elves, even when it's been expressly stated that the setting does not have any.

Nor does it mean compromising the fundamental tenets of the premise you pitched. Again, if I pitch a straight historical game, and everyone else is cool with that, I'm not about to allow magic just because one player like to play wizards best.

Although to be fair, discussion does allow for people to realize that the majority aren't interested in the original game concept and that it might need to be modified. So if you pitched a straight historical game and there are a quite a few people wanting ahistoric or anachronistic concepts, then you might consider loosening up on that restriction and requirement (provided that's something you're interested in). Which is also one of the great virtues of discussion.

Kiero
2016-09-22, 11:53 AM
Although to be fair, discussion does allow for people to realize that the majority aren't interested in the original game concept and that it might need to be modified. So if you pitched a straight historical game and there are a quite a few people wanting ahistoric or anachronistic concepts, then you might consider loosening up on that restriction and requirement (provided that's something you're interested in). Which is also one of the great virtues of discussion.

I'm with Garimeth; if people don't want to engage with the pitch as presented, it's not worth the effort trying to adapt it to things that blatantly don't fit. Better to drop it and find something else.

All this comes out when discussing the premise in the first place, which saves on a lot of wasted preparation.

Knaight
2016-09-22, 01:16 PM
RPG:
GM: "In my setting, there are no elves."
Player: "That's fine, I'll just play an elf coming from ANOTHER setting."

Theater:
Director: "We're going to play Hamlet."
Actor: "That's fine, I'm going to play Romeo."
These are roughly comparable, yes. My point is that this still applies even if "setting" is defined as the area of relevance for a campaign and not the entire universe the campaign is set in. To use a hypothetical setting, lets say that there's a network of planets colonized by different D&D races, all of whom later lost the capacity for space travel in some catastrophe. The entire universe any given setting is in will have elves, dwarves, thrikeen, etc. That doesn't somehow open them up as valid character options if the campaign is set on a planet exclusively colonized by humans and halflings. They're in the universe, they're not in the setting.

I'm not arguing that all settings are linked or anything like that. I'm arguing that the setting for a campaign is generally a narrower thing that the entire world the campaign takes place in, and that there are characters who are totally appropriate for the world who are nonetheless inappropriate for the setting - or even inappropriate as PC options. The multiple planets that can't send people between them is a particularly obvious example, but there are others. Here's a few examples from games I've actually run.

Port Alhabri: The setting here is (or was initially) one city. The setting alone imposes restrictions on characters - there aren't going to be any full time professional farmers, as those people aren't going to be in the city for an extended period. That's an option for a background for a PC who is now something else, but it's a closed option.

Galactic Fruit: The setting is a poor farming community. There are spaceship captains in the world, but in the setting that whole role is reserved for a scant handful of NPCs and not really a PC option.

Homeguard: The setting is a small and technologically primitive island, in a world with a lot of places that are more sophisticated. At the beginning of the campaign the island had never had outside contact. There are tons of concepts that fit in the outside world that don't fit in the setting, starting with members of any trade too technologically advanced (e.g. smiths).


My point is that setting restrictions by their very nature, sets the boundary, the restrictions for what is possible to play. That is a logical consequence of having a setting, and you can't play an RPG without a setting, so they'll always be there. If you can play an elf from another setting, then obviously elves now exist in the setting and it really wasn't a restriction to begin with.

You can say "this WORLD doesn't have elves, but you can play one from a DIFFERENT world", in which case the setting is "a world with only one elf who is a planar traveler" and not "world without elves".

In short, setting restrictions are inherent by the very nature of having a setting. In fact, the setting is more or less defined by its restrictions. Therefore, it is impossible to go outside of them without changing the setting itself. It's logical no?

Said setting restrictions can do that even if the setting is only part of a broader world, and as for the whole "this WORLD doesn't have elves, but you can play one from a DIFFERENT world" you can take that argument up with its proponents. My position is more along the lines of "I don't care if the world has Romans, the setting is a Mayan culture circa 300 CE and there's no contact".

Garimeth
2016-09-22, 01:33 PM
All this comes out when discussing the premise in the first place, which saves on a lot of wasted preparation.

Nail on the head.

If I'm running a game, in general, I'm CREATING the setting which is a lot of work - as I am very thorough. If I'm using a historical setting then I am doing a crap load of research - which is also a ton of work.

If I pitch something my group doesn't find appealing, and remember I'll give them a few options, then they are welcome to run a game that I'll play in. Alternatively, they are welcome to pitch an idea to me and see if I buy off on it - but at the end of the day I will be doing the lion's share of the labor, so I get more say on the setting. After all, once the dice start rolling I give them more of a say in the game than myself. I think that's pretty fair.

2D8HP
2016-09-22, 02:49 PM
I couldn't agree more. I have no idea where this weird revanchism of "supreme leader DM" is coming from; I thought the hobby left that behind. Given how many more desperate players compared to willing DM's there seems to be (Is there a DM shortage? What can or should be done? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500951-Is-there-a-DM-shortage-What-can-or-should-be-done)), in my case beggers can't be choosers and if a DM wants to be "supreme", I don't have a problem with that (though I may start to respond with "it is as you say fearless leader".
:wink:
In fact, while I have often seen variants of the phrase "no D&D is better than bad D&D", in this Forum, I have to ask, "Just how bad do you mean?", because it has to be really, really bad for me to quit (that has happened though, but not because of in game stuff. I was attacked by the DM's Ferret, and the DM's girlfriend went behind me and put a "bedroom toy" on my shoulder). I have however quit other RPG's, because I found the settings too dull and/or depressing.
Dude, Gygax's table featured both Balrog and Vampire PCs at various times, at a minimum. :smallsmile: The Cleric class was invented specifically to counter Sir Fang.Please give credit where credit is due, while the Balrog was indeed in Gygax's "Greyhawk" campaign, Sir Fang (http://blackmoormystara.blogspot.com/2011/01/vampires-of-north.html?m=1) was in Arneson's "Blackmoor" campaign.
It's about figuring out what the player wants, being flexible with flavor, and hashing it out like reasonable human beings. Not about throwing my viking hat on and crushing the impudent player who dares bring elves into my perfect fantasy playground.First off, I want that Viking hat, with "Bow to the DM" printed on it! Second, I'm too old and tired to do as much of that compromise stuff anymore, I've been down that road and I know where it leads, boring modern dayish settings that have machine-guns! No way! When I RPG I want Dragons, Knights, and/or Swashbuckling, I will not partake of any setting with Cyberpunk, and no settings with modern day Secret Agents, Superheroes or Vampires ever again! I will walk away from any RPG that has a wiff of cell phones or assault rifles. No compromise!

I have had bans in games in which I could not tell the players why the ban was there. In one game, they had to play humans, primarily because

the dwarves are believed to be all killed, but are in fact currently the slaves of the frost giants
there are no elves in the world. When they return, they will be the elves from Terry Pratchett, not like anything in D&D.
.
I recently set up a 2e game that would have no elves at the start. When they appear they will be nothing like D&D elves, being the version from Terry Pratchett's Lord and Ladies. I gave the players an introduction that explained that they could not be elves or dwarves.I loved "Lord's and Ladies", and "The Wee Free Men", and while I'm currently having fun playing an Elf PC, a "taking out the faerie trash" campaign sounds awesome! I wish finding games like that were easier.
On topic, after a DunDraCon in which the only open tables were for Cyberpunk and Vampire (this would be in the late 1980's or early 1990's), a D&D pickup game was organized at someone's house. I remember in particular one guy who complained that when he told the his PC places his sword so that the Dragons inner mouth is pierced by it when it closes it's jaws, the DM's reaction was "roll to hit", later he insisted that he play a "Melnibonean" (from the Eric series), since I was the only other person are the table who had read Moorcock, I suggested that a Drow or Grey Elf would be similar, and he replied, "but I want to play a Melnibonean".
Sheesh!
:furious:
I want to play a Knight in "Pendragon", a Hussar in "Castle Falkenstein", or a Musketeer in "Flashing Blades", but they are no open tables for those games, and I'm grateful to get to play a Fighter in Dungeons & Dragons!
I just don't understand having any reaction to an opportunity to play D&D as it was or as it is with anything other than gratitude (except of course for the Superfriends-like "Factions" in the Forgotten Realms, because those are just lame, give me Guilds, Orders of Knighthood and manorial villages instead, because those are awesome)!
Now characters that don't fit the setting have been with the hobby since the beginning ("Murlynd" in Greyhawk, the "Techno's" in Arduin), and sometimes they can be accommodated, but in general in the game is "Knights of the Round Table", don't insist on playing a Ninja, and if you insist on playing a Cyber-commando in a "Brethren of the Coast" campaign, ugh, just no! In fact while a Gatling gun in a Steampunk settimg may be acceptable, if any PC or NPC at all has an AK-47 or Uzi, I'm gone. I heard too much gunfire as a youth in the '80's to ever want them in my RPG's!
In short if "having setting specific guidelines" leads to adventures like those in Jason and the Argonauts, The Mabinogoin, The Seahawk, Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, or Swords of Lankhmar, yes, yes, yes, yes, AWESOME!, that gets the 2D8HP seal of approval.
:biggrin:
But if the guidelines (or an evil player) tries to make the game into something like The Avengers, James Bond, Neuromancer, The X-Men, or (even though I loved the movie) Double Indemnity, Lame, Lame, Lame, Lame, and no thank you!
:yuk:

Rockphed
2016-09-22, 03:33 PM
I can see a bard going around humming the Bond theme, seducing his way into the castle, and being told he is expected to die in the deathtrap. I could even see him wearing dapper clothing at all times and asking for distilled alcohol that has been shaken, not stirred.

Okay, I just sold myself on playing a Bard Bond.

2D8HP
2016-09-22, 07:22 PM
I can see a bard going around humming the Bond theme, seducing his way into the castle, and being told he is expected to die in the deathtrap. I could even see him wearing dapper clothing at all times and asking for distilled alcohol that has been shaken, not stirred.

Okay, I just sold myself on playing a Bard Bond.Well.....
Since I don't want to admit to being wrong and backtracking a previous post/rant, I'm still calling it "evil" because what would the rest of the party do?
But as a solo adventure?
That actually sounds hilarious and a lot of fun!
:biggrin:

Rockphed
2016-09-24, 12:06 AM
Well.....
Since I don't want to admit to being wrong and backtracking a previous post/rant, I'm still calling it "evil" because what would the rest of the party do?
But as a solo adventure?
That actually sounds hilarious and a lot of fun!
:biggrin:

I think the point I was trying to make was that characters can pull archetypes from disparate sources and still fit in the world. Nobody would blink twice if I brought a level 15 fighter who had a magic hammer that allowed him to fly and shoot lightning. Well, if we were playing a low magic world, or if I insisted on being allowed to be a demigod and heir to the king of the gods, however, there would be problems. If I brought a Queen of the Girl-scouts fighter who fought with a shield and his fists, people would look at me funny, but he could probably fit in. If I play things right, I might even be able to get through several sessions before anybody caught on that I had brought in Thor or Captain America.

On the other hand, I do see your point that trying to shoehorn in characters often just breaks the game. My aforementioned bond-bard would get ganked by his own party after about 10 minutes of humming the bond theme. Once people figured out my Thorsatz and Fauxtain America, people would probably start trying to judge my characters off their own interpretations of those characters, rather than off of the character I was playing. Also, while I like both Thor and Captain America, neither really fits me. I would much rather play as "Stoic, the Vast!"

GrayDeath
2016-09-24, 05:48 PM
Manx things have already been said, so as the "mostly goTo GM" over here, and an avid Settingbuilder, let me say: No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Settings and their fluff are after al what makes non - üureDungeonCrawler Games fun!

Now nobody says your players have to LIKE the Setting (even I, quite good at building them and vetting my groups for their tastes beforehand had one REALLY bad crash with one), mind!


If however their reasoning boils down to "but I want to X, let me play X OR!" just kick them.
;)