Saying No To Players

[Amechra]

OK, is that title too inflamatory? Eh, it's fine.

Alright, I'm one of those DMs who never does in-depth prep for games. Players get to play whatever they want, and I sub in an explanation for why that works in-setting afterwards. If a player wants to know who their Cleric worships, I workshop a deity with them on the spot. And it all mostly works and produces fun games, but the games tend to die quickly when I hit my complexity limit. And on top of that, they start feeling kinda... generic? Since I don't really give my players guidelines beyond the broad-strokes setting concept (which tends to be something like "you're in a sheltered valley shrouded in eternal night, 30 years after the world ended" or "you are headed to Tigei, a city built next to a mile-high wall of water" - an evocative image, not an actual setting)... yeah, everyone just brings their Ye Olde D&D Characters.

So next time around, I'm planning on doing some actual world-prep. And part of the issue that I'm running into is limiting player options. Part of me wants to sit down and make a list of allowed races/classes/subclasses/etc, with an eye towards presenting a distinct experience. I basically want to run a game where people have to make their character fit the setting, and not vice-versa... and I get stuck. How do I sell that to people? How do I make the argument that playing in my particular magical realm could be fun?

[Lunali]

Session zero.

Create a lot of the world cooperatively, this guarantees that the options that the players want to play not only exist, but likely are core to the world.

[OldTrees1]

Sounds like your selling points are:

1) You want to provide a distinct experience
2) Have the characters fit the world

That is rather general, although it does not have universal appeal. Then the question is whether those players want that specific world.

[EggKookoo]

Related to what Lunali said, make sure your players are on board with you having limits in the first place. Remember, most players play to run the characters they're excited by. Few players are excited by your worldbuilding or you putting limits on what they can choose. Some players are good with that. But it's important to know this going in.

Another thing is to embrace separation of crunch and fluff. If a player wants a certain concept that's outside your parameters, see if you can refluff something that satisfies that player's vision.

On a side note, I've discovered keeping a world timeline is huge for easing complexity-anxiety. Every time something "new" happens in a session that might have broad implications, go layer into your timeline (I mean after the session is done). After a while it generates a kind of cross-thread alchemy where your isolated historical events start feeding off each other.

[KorvinStarmast]

OK, is that title too inflamatory?
No. :smallbiggrin:

Players get to play whatever they want, and I sub in an explanation for why that works in-setting afterwards. If the player concept doesn't fit the world/setting, I feel obligated to tell that player "we need to adjust that to fit or you need to try something else." Both approaches work. The key is "work together."
If a player wants to know who their Cleric worships, I workshop a deity with them on the spot. This one's something I've done for a long time. I think it's a good technique. It also helpe you with world building. :smallsmile:

And it all mostly works and produces fun games, but the games tend to die quickly when I hit my complexity limit. You and every other DM out there. :smallcool:

So next time around, I'm planning on doing some actual world-prep. And part of the issue that I'm running into is limiting player options. Part of me wants to sit down and make a list of allowed races/classes/subclasses/etc, with an eye towards presenting a distinct experience.
Good idea.

How do I sell that to people? How do I make the argument that playing in my particular magical realm could be fun? You don't need to make an argument.
If they don't want to play, have one of them DM. :smallyuk:

How do you sell it?
First: describe the world. Make a one pager, at most, that describes the world and the setting.
Second: ask the players this - Where in the world do you want to be from?
Once they are from there, ask them to pick their Background First.
(Yeah, heresy, but I saw it work in one game and slapped my forehead: Why didn't I think of that?)

Once they have chosen, or are working with you crafting a custom background that fits, and has a feature that sits well with you both, have them pick a race and a class. Make sure they have the list of "these races and these classes exist in the world" in front of them when they do so.

I'll repeat that.

Your second handout has on it "these races, theses classes, exist in this world. (and if need be, 'these sub races do not' if there are some you find problematic).

It needs to be known up front.

The player who says "I want to play a svirfneblin" when you have listed that sub race as not existing is told "they dont' exist, pick another one."
If they kvetch about it, they have just self selected themselves for someone else's campaign.
For example:
Kenku, Yuan ti, and Tieflings do not exist as PCs in any game world that I run.
They simply do not. (And I am tempted to ban halflings, even though I played many over the years in older editions)
Yuan ti exist as monsters sometimes, and occasionally (very rarely) an NPC tiefling will be encountered.

Prospective Player: But I want to play a yuan ti bard!
Me/DM: Do it in someone else's game world. There's the list, pick something that exists.

[Unoriginal]

OK, is that title too inflamatory? Eh, it's fine.

Alright, I'm one of those DMs who never does in-depth prep for games. Players get to play whatever they want, and I sub in an explanation for why that works in-setting afterwards. If a player wants to know who their Cleric worships, I workshop a deity with them on the spot. And it all mostly works and produces fun games, but the games tend to die quickly when I hit my complexity limit. And on top of that, they start feeling kinda... generic? Since I don't really give my players guidelines beyond the broad-strokes setting concept (which tends to be something like "you're in a sheltered valley shrouded in eternal night, 30 years after the world ended" or "you are headed to Tigei, a city built next to a mile-high wall of water" - an evocative image, not an actual setting)... yeah, everyone just brings their Ye Olde D&D Characters.

So next time around, I'm planning on doing some actual world-prep. And part of the issue that I'm running into is limiting player options. Part of me wants to sit down and make a list of allowed races/classes/subclasses/etc, with an eye towards presenting a distinct experience. I basically want to run a game where people have to make their character fit the setting, and not vice-versa... and I get stuck. How do I sell that to people? How do I make the argument that playing in my particular magical realm could be fun?

The first person you need to convince is yourself.

Once you sold something to yourself, it becomes much easier to find other people who are also interested in the concept.

Given your typical working method, here what I suggest: starts with one evocative image as you always do, and build on it like one of your players would in your usual sessions. Keep asking questions and finding answers until you're satisfied.

Don't envision this as saying "no" to the players, yet. Think of it as saying "yes, and..." to yourself. Saying "no" to the players happen way later, if they desire something that doesn't work in the setting.

[Amnestic]

How do I sell that to people? How do I make the argument that playing in my particular magical realm could be fun?

I think you need to work out what makes your particular magical realm 'different' first. Does it have a particular theming or aesthetic that's not so explored compared to your previous games? Are you excising some races entirely?

When I made a campaign setting (which is in a constant state of 'not being good enough/I need to change this/I don't like that' - designer life) I cut out elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings entirely. They just don't exist. There was a plot reason for this in the setting that's not really important. Humans are still around, but I wanted to play up the differences that could arise even on a single continent so there's no Common language, and each of the nations has a distinct political bent/theming such that regardless of where the campaign ended up being set it'd have a different feel. The mageocracy nation that breeds genasi slaves and wants to control the world would be totally different to the east-asian themed theocratic empire, which likewise is different from the occupied vassal mining nation that recently had its mines run dry.

I think you should be flexible on classes/subclasses. Don't fall into the "low magic" trap for the entire setting, but do consider low magic groups or countries. Maybe they hate magic for religious or cultural reasons. Maybe they're just afraid of it. Maybe encourage but not *mandate* some (sub)classes to be explicitly tied into some countries. Antiva (in the dragon age setting) essentially sells assassination services to other nations. So while assassins can come from elsewhere, players will see that and go "well I want to be an assassin, so maybe I want to make them Antivan?"

The core to selling it to other people though is recognising why you would want to play in it, and conveying that. I know exactly why I would want to play in my setting despite my endless tweaks and changes. The smaller scale of a single continent and the interlocking political ties-and-aggression between the different nations means that there's loads of intrigue to be had for a campaign focused in that sort of area, and the big 'setting defining event' (a godswar 800 years past) leaves plenty of opportunity for dungeon delving. The different countries I had come with different feels, and I seeded enough mysteries across the world+setting that a player could see them and want to solve one or more as their own, chosen campaign.

[MoiMagnus]

How my DM proceeds:

"For the next campaign, I have few ideas. The first is an exploration-based game where you would play disowned nobles desperately searching for a legendary treasure, think about a universe kind of like Pirates of the Caribbean. The second takes place in a magical "Roman Empire" where you are high ranking officials dealing with politics and investigating treasons in the name of the emperor. Lastly, the third is [...]. Do you have a preference? Is there one you don't want to play?"

Once the players willingly chose a setting, they are much more likely to accept to abide by it and restrict themselves to character concepts (and classes/subclasses) compatible with the setting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So next time around, I'm planning on doing some actual world-prep. And part of the issue that I'm running into is limiting player options. Part of me wants to sit down and make a list of allowed races/classes/subclasses/etc, with an eye towards presenting a distinct experience. I basically want to run a game where people have to make their character fit the setting, and not vice-versa... and I get stuck. How do I sell that to people? How do I make the argument that playing in my particular magical realm could be fun?

Honestly, I think that having a coherent world is easier to sell than anything goes. I've got a long-running setting going. And last time I opened up recruitment, I had way more people interested within an hour than I could every play with. And many said that having an in-depth world with firm constraints was a strong attractor, because it meant that the DM was already invested in the success.

I mean, my restrictions aren't that tough, but they're there. No gnomes, no drow, no goblins. All main-line book class options available. But almost all the races have very different lore than stock. And the gods are set in stone--if you want to be a cleric, you have to worship one of those 16. And you'll have to work with me to figure out where in the world you came from (including culture)--fitting characters into the world is paramount for me.

But then again, I've got something like 6 years and 300 articles written about the setting, with a backlog of 400+. And that's just one continent mostly. And 12 or so groups of legacy--each group influences the setting for future groups (living world-style).

[KorvinStarmast]

But then again, I've got something like 6 years and 300 articles written about the setting, with a backlog of 400+. And that's just one continent mostly. And 12 or so groups of legacy--each group influences the setting for future groups (living world-style). Sigh. And here I sit in Texas, with you in Oregon, :smallfrown:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sigh. And here I sit in Texas, with you in Oregon, :smallfrown:

My current group is (sadly) entirely online. Got a player in the midwest (dunno where exactly) and the rest (I think) in EST. I much prefer local, but this whole virus mess.

I'm finally spooling up to one group after a few months off. I can normally do 2 a week, but the learning curve at my new job has been brutal, especially with my current full-burn project.

So what I'm saying is that physical location might not be a barrier for much longer.

[KorvinStarmast]

My current group is (sadly) entirely online. Got a player in the midwest (dunno where exactly) and the rest (I think) in EST. I much prefer local, but this whole virus mess. If you lose someone from that group, know that I'd love to join in. :smallsmile:

[cutlery]

The last time I did this I had a regular group, and I was stepping up to DM. The group was regular, so there was buy-in, and the former DM was thrilled to play, so that helped.

I basically capped spellcasting at 5th level spells (or 6th? It was 3e, and bards while liked by some tended not to get played at least as pure bards) - they could multiclass a full caster 50/50, or use one of the slower progression casters. Further, magic was outlawed with severe penalties for use or suspected use.

It worked ok, and I built around less healing capability (I basically went with something like 5e's long rest healing). For the span of an adventuring day, hitpoints became a critical resource everyone had to manage.

I think folks had fun, but there was enough trust (fools!) for them to agree to the limits.

It was a time for Rangers, Paladins, and Psychic Warriors to shine, for sure.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Being able to say No in certain contexts is a super important "skill" to learn as a DM, as is learning not to pressure your DM to the point of impacting their fun as a player.
I also don't find "session 0" super helpful in this context since i don't and never have had a list of "house rules". I just like to make rulings over rules as i go, like the 5e books say i should.


That said, especially when it comes to worldbuilding, it helps to be a bit elastic. My baseline is generally that unless you already have explicit buy-in, you shouldn't set things up so that it's completely unrecognizable as DND.

[Waterdeep Merch]

An easy way to get players onboard is to be open and honest with your reasoning.

If you don't want to allow players to play tieflings because demons are something different in the setting you're envisioning, explain this instead of just telling them no. If you really want to focus on a handful of cultures and species instead of exhaustively curating every single race in the game, say this and lay out the ones you're focusing on.

You can allay a lot of fears or grievances by just explaining why you're doing it.

[False God]

Session zero.

Create a lot of the world cooperatively, this guarantees that the options that the players want to play not only exist, but likely are core to the world.

Got it on post 1.

Don't tell them "no" after they've already made their characters. Tell them the limits within which they may make their characters, and then if people go outside of that, reprimand them not for making the wrong sort of characters, but for blatantly defying your rules.

[MaxWilson]

OK, is that title too inflamatory? Eh, it's fine.

Alright, I'm one of those DMs who never does in-depth prep for games. Players get to play whatever they want, and I sub in an explanation for why that works in-setting afterwards. If a player wants to know who their Cleric worships, I workshop a deity with them on the spot. And it all mostly works and produces fun games, but the games tend to die quickly when I hit my complexity limit. And on top of that, they start feeling kinda... generic? Since I don't really give my players guidelines beyond the broad-strokes setting concept (which tends to be something like "you're in a sheltered valley shrouded in eternal night, 30 years after the world ended" or "you are headed to Tigei, a city built next to a mile-high wall of water" - an evocative image, not an actual setting)... yeah, everyone just brings their Ye Olde D&D Characters.

So next time around, I'm planning on doing some actual world-prep. And part of the issue that I'm running into is limiting player options. Part of me wants to sit down and make a list of allowed races/classes/subclasses/etc, with an eye towards presenting a distinct experience. I basically want to run a game where people have to make their character fit the setting, and not vice-versa... and I get stuck. How do I sell that to people? How do I make the argument that playing in my particular magical realm could be fun?

Make it a collaborative exercise instead of a DM-only exercise. Steal Microscope's procedures: https://gnomestew.com/steal-this-mechanic-microscopes-yesno-list/

Quote: Technically it’s not called a yes/no list; it’s called a Palette. The basic idea is that before you play everyone gets a chance to insert things into the game world or ban things from it. You can do either (add or ban, say yes or say no) when it’s your “turn,” and if everyone contributes you do another round, then another, until someone doesn’t want to add/ban. When that happens the other players get one final chance to put something on the list and you’re done.

Discussion is encouraged. No one should be unhappy with what goes onto or is removed from the list. There’s some other advice in the book around the Palette, but that’s the concept in a nutshell.

And it just plain works. It’s especially fun to add surprising things or ban expected things, guiding the game — subtly or not — in surprising directions. In our Microscope game we added planet-busting battleships, a menagerie of species (think Star Wars), wormholes that use fixed jump points, and Hollywood science; we banned replicators (think Star Trek), old dead empires, a unified “one world” government on Earth, and AI. Just reading that list tells you a lot about the world and the game, which is the beauty of the list.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Make it a collaborative exercise instead of a DM-only exercise. Steal Microscope's procedures: https://gnomestew.com/steal-this-mechanic-microscopes-yesno-list/

Quote: Technically it’s not called a yes/no list; it’s called a Palette. The basic idea is that before you play everyone gets a chance to insert things into the game world or ban things from it. You can do either (add or ban, say yes or say no) when it’s your “turn,” and if everyone contributes you do another round, then another, until someone doesn’t want to add/ban. When that happens the other players get one final chance to put something on the list and you’re done.

Discussion is encouraged. No one should be unhappy with what goes onto or is removed from the list. There’s some other advice in the book around the Palette, but that’s the concept in a nutshell.

And it just plain works. It’s especially fun to add surprising things or ban expected things, guiding the game — subtly or not — in surprising directions. In our Microscope game we added planet-busting battleships, a menagerie of species (think Star Wars), wormholes that use fixed jump points, and Hollywood science; we banned replicators (think Star Trek), old dead empires, a unified “one world” government on Earth, and AI. Just reading that list tells you a lot about the world and the game, which is the beauty of the list.

My difficulty with this is that it requires doing the setting building at session 0. Which rules out long-running worlds that span multiple groups and basically makes coherence impossible. It's got all the problems of a shared fiction setting, while lumping all the work of actually building the setting and keeping it stable on one person (the poor DM). It's fine for oneshots or short campaigns, but....

It's also a recipe for burnout--getting enough of a world built in the time between session 0 and session 1 is a pain as it is. Which further puts a damper on coherence. And unless the DM is excited to run with all those suggested pieces, it's a recipe for DM burnout. Nothing is worse than having to build sessions in a world you don't care for and aren't excited about.

If you can't tell, fictional/setting coherence and structure is one of my very top important things. And I find it's something that people respond to very favorably.

[J-H]

Figure out your world beforehand. "This world has X, Y, and Z races. The Dragons all got a prophecy 2000 years ago and left, so there are no Dragonborn or dragon-themed sorcerers. The surface elves were wiped out by the Chestnut Blight, so if you want to play an elf, it has to be a drow. Also, the gnomes are evil rulers of a magitech empire."

Actually that last bit sounds really fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, the gnomes are evil rulers of a magitech empire."

Actually that last bit sounds really fun. It also makes gnome hunting more palatable. :smallbiggrin:

[Waterdeep Merch]

My difficulty with this is that it requires doing the setting building at session 0. Which rules out long-running worlds that span multiple groups and basically makes coherence impossible. It's got all the problems of a shared fiction setting, while lumping all the work of actually building the setting and keeping it stable on one person (the poor DM). It's fine for oneshots or short campaigns, but....

It's also a recipe for burnout--getting enough of a world built in the time between session 0 and session 1 is a pain as it is. Which further puts a damper on coherence. And unless the DM is excited to run with all those suggested pieces, it's a recipe for DM burnout. Nothing is worse than having to build sessions in a world you don't care for and aren't excited about.

If you can't tell, fictional/setting coherence and structure is one of my very top important things. And I find it's something that people respond to very favorably.
Something that's not often discussed about Session Zero is how ready the DM has to be with their boot. If all the other players are onboard with the DM's plans with only minor tweaks while one player demands to play something entirely different, they should be given an ultimatum; find a way to have fun here or be removed from the game.

Conversely, if the DM starts talking and most or all of their players really don't like their plans and want major tweaks, the game should probably not happen at all. The DM should go back to the drawing board, laden with their players' opinions with which to try and craft a more palatable game next time.

Either way, try to have a Session Zero at least a full month in advance, if not further out, in order to reconcile whatever needs reconciling before you do the heavy lifting of crafting your world. It would really suck to find out you've labored to make a campaign you have no players for.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Something that's not often discussed about Session Zero is how ready the DM has to be with their boot. If all the other players are onboard with the DM's plans with only minor tweaks while one player demands to play something entirely different, they should be given an ultimatum; find a way to have fun here or be removed from the game.

Conversely, if the DM starts talking and most or all of their players really don't like their plans and want major tweaks, the game should probably not happen at all. The DM should go back to the drawing board, laden with their players' opinions with which to try and craft a more palpable game next time.

Either way, try to have a Session Zero at least a full month in advance, if not further out, in order to reconcile whatever needs reconciling before you do the heavy lifting of crafting your world. It would really suck to find out you've labored to make a campaign you have no players for.

I've...never had this problem. Mainly because I recruit with the knowledge the world itself is a fixed thing. But also present a set of "quest seeds" for the actual events of the campaign, with the understanding that I can generate more of those if none of them fit. So anyone who gets to session 0 has already accepted the basic nature of the world and we're just deciding which part of it to adventure in. I've been working on this same world (and playing in it) for 6+ years now over a dozen groups. And no, I'm not going to build a different world--I'll find different players first. Because for me, building a world is a heavy commitment. I won't build one on the fly--I need things to make sense and that takes time and refinement.

My most recent session 0 had exactly...10 minutes (at most) of discussion about things like play style and such. But we'd been talking for most of a week via discord, dealing with lore, characters, etc. It was mostly given to the characters meeting up and getting introduced to the quest giver (totally narratively).

[Samayu]

Just make sure your players know as much as possible of what to expect before they start thinking about what they want to play.

My group has been playing for so long, and is grateful of anyone who wants to run something, that we don't question their vision. We know that if we had an idea that's not allowed this time around, we can use it next time. Or maybe the time after that. We just have to be patient.

For me, personally, I'm a world builder. My worlds are highly detailed, at least in my head. So when players have different ideas, it bugs me. That doesn't fit in my world! But as long as it's minor, I let it go. It's just a matter of convincing myself that things are minor. For the things that you decide are still major? You just have to be firm. And work with them to find a compromise. And get as many details worked out at the outset, so there are no surprises after play starts.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I've...never had this problem. Mainly because I recruit with the knowledge the world itself is a fixed thing. But also present a set of "quest seeds" for the actual events of the campaign, with the understanding that I can generate more of those if none of them fit. So anyone who gets to session 0 has already accepted the basic nature of the world and we're just deciding which part of it to adventure in. I've been working on this same world (and playing in it) for 6+ years now over a dozen groups. And no, I'm not going to build a different world--I'll find different players first. Because for me, building a world is a heavy commitment. I won't build one on the fly--I need things to make sense and that takes time and refinement.

My most recent session 0 had exactly...10 minutes (at most) of discussion about things like play style and such. But we'd been talking for most of a week via discord, dealing with lore, characters, etc. It was mostly given to the characters meeting up and getting introduced to the quest giver (totally narratively).
Not to be smug, but I've really only seen it in other DM's games, usually inexperienced DM's that ended up with a total mess that imploded in a single session or didn't even get any players to agree to give them a try. Experienced DM's probably have this problem a lot less. Experienced DM's that play with friends might not even be aware problems like this even exist.

[Petrocorus]

To the OP, do you want to build a world just to avoid Ye Olde D&D Classics or do you have ideas about the world you want to make?



And I am tempted to ban halflings,
I'm curious about why?




But then again, I've got something like 6 years and 300 articles written about the setting, with a backlog of 400+. And that's just one continent mostly. And 12 or so groups of legacy--each group influences the setting for future groups (living world-style).
Can we read about this?
Would you have a link?


Sigh. And here I sit in Texas, with you in Oregon, :smallfrown:
And here i am near the equator.


If you lose someone from that group, know that I'd love to join in. :smallsmile:
I would be interested too.
Though i'm not sure anyone could understand the pseudo-english words that come out of my mouth.


Also, the gnomes are evil rulers of a magitech empire."

I'm working on a idea of a custom setting where the halfling, after having been enslave for centuries have freed themselves, raise to power and build a very violent and imperialistic empire.
They freed themselves and gained power by making deal with outsider entities. So, Warlock is the most common class among them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Can we read about this?
Would you have a link?
And here i am near the equator.
I would be interested too.
Though i'm not sure anyone could understand the pseudo-english words that come out of my mouth.


Thanks for the interest!

Link's in my signature. Everything on that wiki is something I built/wrote/created myself. Things marked "Adventuring Party" are former groups, now NPCs. I don't have them all up there yet...too much stuff to do. I'll note that everything I make is Creative Commons (meaning you can re-use it) unless it's OGL (WotC license). I've tried to go through and strip out any direct references to anything that would violate the OGL...if anyone notices any, let me know. Or ask questions if things don't make sense.

I'm thinking that once this new group settles down, maybe by the end of November I might have the energy to start a second group. I'll definitely keep GitP folks in mind when/if I do.

[Amechra]

Thank you, everyone - you've given me stuff to think about. Any actual game would be a long way off (grad school isn't leaving me room for any big projects lately), and a session 0 probably wouldn't be in the cards - I mostly end up playing with whoever I can grab at my FLGS, and I sometimes just have to run games without people (or add a new player partway through a game - them's the rules for using the FLGS's space.)


To the OP, do you want to build a world just to avoid Ye Olde D&D Classics or do you have ideas about the world you want to make?

I have a few big ideas that I want to play with:


The setting recently changed elemental systems. Roughly half a century ago, the world shifted from being based around some vaguely eastern elements (Earth, Fire, Metal, Water, Wood) to a vaguely western set (Air, Earth, Fire, Water). This wasn't an unexpected event (it happens every so often), but it did reconfigure how magic works - for example, Metal- and Wood-based magic has drastically diminished in power, while Air-based demonology has flourished.
The part of the setting that we're focusing on is small - it's a smallish coastal kingdom that recently annexed an archipelago neighboring it, so there are all kinds of tensions there, as well as with some older claimed territories.
Playing off #1, I kinda want the races to be rooted in the elements, sometimes literally (I'm going to have to figure out what Wood and Metal Genasi would look like). I'm thinking straight-up Dryads and Undines? As much as I think I can do something interesting with Dwarves and Elves and the like, I feel like they have a bit too much baggage.
I want languages to be a big thing in the setting, to play off the themes of cultural tension. While there is a de-facto common tongue, there are places where people won't know it or will refuse to speak it. Yes, I'm aware that I'm going to have to do some houseruling to make sure that this can't be easily sidestepped by magic.
Speaking of magic - I want to root it within the setting a bit more, rather than going with the D&D standard of "yep, everything in the book works". My current feeling is that I'm definitely going to want more specialized spellcasters - Wizards are basically off the table, because that specific class fantasy (someone who is a scholar of magic with access to a wide variety of niche spells for every situation) doesn't really fit. If this was 3e, I'd brew up a bunch of Beguiler-style fixed list casters, but this is 5e and that sounds like effort.
I want some magic to be awkward or non-functional. I'm thinking that this would mostly be the case for magic items - they were a lot easier to make when Metal was mystically potent, and now a lot of them are... glitch-y.
All cultures are going to be strictly local. None of this silly "all Dwarves are like this" nonsense.
I like fantastical locations, so the "elemental planes" are places you can go if you follow the right map. Walk into the woods in the right way, and eventually you end up in the endless Ocean of Trees (where it's trees all the way down). Some parts of the sea are literally bottomless. That kind of thing.


That's my rough sketch - elemental shenanigans and a cultural boiling pot.

[Sigreid]

Neat. I'm putting thought into a world right now myself. Currently thinking a premise that ritual magic, with enough mastery can wield godlike power...which inevitably ends horribly with people clawing their way out of the wreckage to rebuild. Also thinking no half breeds (half elves, half orcs, etc.) and the races rarely mix at all. Most humans will never have seen an elf or a dwarf, for example, and may not even believe they really exist.

[Zhorn]

In response to the OP's discussion on world building, I agree with using a Microscope-esque collaboration in session zero before players get onto making their characters.
Build a shared understanding of what type of game-world you are wanting to run, what you don't want, and similar for the players in what they are interested in and what they would rather avoid. Establish understood reasons for why some requests would be met with "no" or what areas could be workshopped into "yes, and..." or "yes, but..."

I've always had a preference for using established settings for the purpose of having refences and background information to build from and incorporate into my choices as either a DM or player, and to give my players a thing to point to for their own exploration and background expansion.

I've also played with DM's who I think would be better off running in entirely homebrewed settings and campaign worlds for the. For some, adhering to an established setting cannot work for their style because they want the story to either conform to their plot or how they think a scene should play out (sometimes good, sometimes painfully railroady, varies from DM to DM), or they just don't plan ahead enough to maintain consistency within a pre-established setting. Can make it frustrating for the players when they are trying to play based on given established assumptions, only to be told later the cases are not entirely different. Entirely homebrewed campaign worlds don't set up from types of assumptions, as so such situations can be avoided.

The big takeaway is to have consistent shared understandings between the players and the DM on the world. It doesn't need to start off with a grand unified story spanning multiple countries, waring empires, rises and falls of multiple pantheons, etc etc etc.
Start small (first adventuring hub and nearby region), but hammer home that consistency. Build outwards as needed, and if you want an element that doesn't fit into the current region, push outwards to an area it fits far enough removed from where it doesn't, and include a reason why they are so separated.
example:

"Here in the north most folk have hardly ever heard of airships, let alone seen them, but to the south they are generally common as the warmer climate and stable weather makes them safer to use without the risk of harsh storms and blizzards."
or
"Giants are mostly a myth down south, but are very common to the north. Scholars believe this is due to their size and metabolisms suited to generating enough body heat for colder climates, and they are too prate to getting heat stroke here in the tropics."

Those explanations are a big part of justifying "no" to the players. Give then something they can understand as to why such restrictions are in place in the game.
"Yuan ti exist in this setting, but are not a player option. Their brains are entirely incapable of compassion, and by the common civilised standards would be considered sociopaths without exception. Hence you cannot find a Yuant-bard, and even if attempting to play one, it would bring up too many conflicts while adventuring to be compatible with the intended campaign"

[Petrocorus]

The setting recently changed elemental systems. Roughly half a century ago, the world shifted from being based around some vaguely eastern elements (Earth, Fire, Metal, Water, Wood) to a vaguely western set (Air, Earth, Fire, Water). This wasn't an unexpected event (it happens every so often), but it did reconfigure how magic works - for example, Metal- and Wood-based magic has drastically diminished in power, while Air-based demonology has flourished.

What about Void? :smallamused:



Playing off #1, I kinda want the races to be rooted in the elements, sometimes literally (I'm going to have to figure out what Wood and Metal Genasi would look like). I'm thinking straight-up Dryads and Undines? As much as I think I can do something interesting with Dwarves and Elves and the like, I feel like they have a bit too much baggage.

Undines? Are they not water?



I want languages to be a big thing in the setting, to play off the themes of cultural tension. While there is a de-facto common tongue, there are places where people won't know it or will refuse to speak it. Yes, I'm aware that I'm going to have to do some houseruling to make sure that this can't be easily sidestepped by magic.

Tongues is a 3rd level spells, that's already a cost. Especially if you limit magic classes.



Speaking of magic - I want to root it within the setting a bit more, rather than going with the D&D standard of "yep, everything in the book works". My current feeling is that I'm definitely going to want more specialized spellcasters - Wizards are basically off the table, because that specific class fantasy (someone who is a scholar of magic with access to a wide variety of niche spells for every situation) doesn't really fit. If this was 3e, I'd brew up a bunch of Beguiler-style fixed list casters, but this is 5e and that sounds like effort

Maybe an Int-base sorcerer with a Bard's spells known progression, free Find Familiar, Wizard subclasses and no metamagic.

[JoeJ]

I would start with imagining the campaign, not the world. Do you want to run a campaign about pirates? Noble Knights? Good-hearted bandits hiding in the forest? Tackling crime bosses on the gritty streets of Waterdeep? Come up with an idea that sounds awesome to you, that you can explain to prospective players in a couple of sentences (the so-called "elevator pitch".) Once the players have bought into your campaign concept, it's a lot easier to guide them to create characters that work with that concept.

As an added bonus, you'll most likely find that your players will be more excited about the game if they have a clear idea what it's going to be about.

[Catullus64]

I advise starting with a map. I think players will gravitate towards playing in an environment that they can see, and a good map helps spark the imagination. Plus figuring out the geography always helps answer so many world-building questions; why certain races and cultures have the traits they do so often springs from their geographic situation.

[Petrocorus]

This thread make me want to start working on a setting again.
I was recently thinking about adapting some aspects of Rêve: the Dream Ouroboros (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9243.phtml) with D&D.

Maybe not the whole Dream thing, but the idea of a setting made out of an indefinite number of demi-planes, separated by fog, that are similar but with their specificity and of PC being travellers between them.