New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 273
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    I think it's because in the OP you refer to the idea of a non-Rifts-style multiverse very negatively:
    It doesn't really read is "understand that before you include it", it reads as "don't include it, unless you want Rifts".


    Also, kind of a nitpick, but -
    I have never been in a D&D game that could accurately be described as "classically-medieval". Nor have I seen any first-party D&D material that would support that. There is a (third party) supplement called "Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe" that might do such, but I haven't yet read it.

    And I'm not just talking about magic and monsters - every aspect, from technology to society to religion to culture, is an anachronistic jumble of stuff.
    Note that the OP was by me, not the person you're responding to.

    And while I don't actually play in a "classically medieval" setting and most D&D settings aren't such... That doesn't change that if you were and someone hypothetically did bring in such a thing, it would be incongruous in a breaking way.

    I, personally, find the published settings for D&D to be unusable as incoherent jumble of mismatched ideas. And adding a restricted multiverse doesn't make them better--in fact it just highlights the issue, making it impossible to ignore like you might have been able to otherwise. In my opinion.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    The thing about the restricted multiverse of DnD is that you have to consider the audience.

    DnD is, for a massive selection of TTRPG players, baby’s first TTRPG. I built my first world for it when I was 12ish, and it was awful. For those young players, and for something like a large majority of players who are more interested in playing make believe with their friends, all settings are little more than a backdrop for the next adventure.

    The restricted multiverse is about making “include weird things” as easy as possible for those for whom dealing with realistic/compelling worldbuilding is either or both of the most difficult or least rewarding part of the game for them. It’s goal is to be as easy/fun for new, inexperienced, and/or uninterested GMs.

    One can argue that cohesive, compelling worldbuilding is better (my preferences certainly align with that—for campaigns at least). But I think it’s fair to assume players who want that can largely figure out how to do it. After all, these are the people by definition who deeply invested/passionate about worldbuilding.

    But the thing is, as player who prefers compelling setting to which characters are invested, an easily accessible starting point is in my interest. Easier onboarding for new players means more new players, and more people getting invested in derivative works—from RPGs I enjoy more than DnD, which often do have tighter focus, to fun art, to pick up games I could join, to silly DnD webcomics.

    This might be the opposite of a reason for why any given TTRPG player might want it, but it’s the reason I’m glad it exists.

    Also, I sometimes my group does one shots with wildly different themes (“airship pirates”, “spec ops,” “let’s do an ecoterrorism”), and we all prefer not to worry about a setting we all know we’re only going to use once, and there’s limítate opportunity to express investment in a setting, even if we’d enjoy it.
    I consider myself an author first, a GM second and a player third.

    The three skill-sets are only tangentially related.

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    The restricted multiverse is a something tacked on to the end of D&D. Just like sailing ships or siege combat. If you actually want these types of things in your games you are better off seeking a game where they are part of the core design. However D&D includes them as options for players who want to play D&D but still do some cool interesting stuff not covered in the main rules.

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I am much more concerned over blowing up a game right now when I tell the players "by the way, those characters you lovingly crafted work differently now in arbitrary ways". A game that has been running for 40 years is an extreme outlier, and if those are the guys a decision makes work harder, I am totally comfortable making them do some extra work for the greater good.
    I'm not sure how "lovingly crafted" a character design is though. I guess maybe I have a different perspective, since in most of the games I play, it's the stuff that happens *after* you start playing a character that generates most of the character's personality and history, not the stuff you wrote before introducing it. I'm much more in favor of "give a character very little, very basic background, then play and develop from there" style of play.

    So yeah, I'm more considering the mechanical impact of introducing various "oddball" character races, abilities, whatever into my game, and that has nothing at all to do with how much the player is invested in said character. If anything, the player should be far more invested in characters that already exist in the setting, and how they "fit" into that setting, so anything that causes imbalance can be a problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    Why do you care so much how they have fun? Are they being actively disruptive because they choose to play a Warforged or a Dryad? Do they try to force you to play a Gensai instead of a Human?
    It's an observation. I think many players (often younger players) substitute "unusual backstory/race/class/whatever" in places of "interesting personality". When I play a game and someone plays a Warforged, you know what happens? They're the same generic "I'm a warforged, so I do this, and behave that way" character that the last 20 people I ran into who decided to play Warforged characters were. It's generic. They think by picking a class/race combo, they're defining a character. Most often, they really aren't though.

    My observation was that if you don't focus on the class/race aspects, you can instead focus on actual personality questions. You've removed the crutch and now can create an actual unique character. Dunno. Just an observation I've made over time. Obviously, it's player dependent. Some players are great at creating personalities no matter what/who they play. A heck of a lot of players, unfortunately, just aren't. And they tend to replace that with "different" class/race combos. And yeah, while I don't begrudge them that, I do honestly believe that you should crawl before you walk, and walk before you run. Maybe start with something basic and build on that first.


    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    No it shouldn't! Characters should be the specific cool things players are interested in. Go crack open a fantasy novel sometime. How many of those guys are "just a regular dude with nothing going on who decided to go on an adventure"?
    Uh. Go read fantasy prior to say the early/mid 90s when D&D based novels (FR and DL spring directly to mind) began to appear. This is literally a D&D led phenomenon. Read anything published prior to that and it was almost entirely human characters in various situations, with Tolkien being almost the exception with dwarfs and elves. And yeah, it's an amazingly common trope for the story to be "unassuming farm boy discovers larger destiny". I'm not at all a fan of that trope (Yeah, I'm totally looking at you Belgariad, Magician series, and Wheel of time), but to suggest that this doesn't exist (hello Hobbits!) is somewhat silly. Heck, where did Ged from Wizard of Eathsea come from? Oh yeah. Just a regular guy living peacefully among his village until events propel him into the story. It's a super common story telling technique.

    And frankly, my least favorite trope of all is the variation where said common person turns out to be the long lost heir to <whatever> with a mighty destiny involved. I'm far more interested (for example) in the characters that traveled with Garion in Belgariad (the blacksmith and the thief characters). Just normal folks, who developed skills and became adventurers who are significant to the story. Setting aside Edding's inability to leave them that way, *that's* what I want my players to be. The concept of "normal'" people from "normal" backgrounds, who set out to become great adventurers by just, you know, doing it. I find those to be the most interesting character types, specifically because they aren't depending on a crutch to build the character. They just are.

    I don't have an issue with players choosing to play "unusual" characters. I just find that often that's *all* there is to the character development, and find it amusing just how many players think they are being "special and unique" by doing basically the exact same thing everyone else does.



    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
    Like cooking, I think a lot of people forget that simplicity and the base ingredients themselves can make for an excellent meal, and often resort to overseasoning and overcomplicating the meal in some misguided attempt at "totally super unique".
    Yup. I find that the best characters start out simple and basic, and are built on from there. You might be surprised just how interesting and unexpected a character may develop if you don't start out "trying" to make it a certain way from day one. And yeah, I think a lot of players are robbing themselves of that experience in some cases. Nothing wrong with trying something "weird" from time to time. I've done it myself. But it should be the occasional thing. I've literally run into players who play something "weird" every single time. No exceptions. Eh. Not for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    Ultimately it boils down to D&D being a team game and trying to make it easier for everybody else - including the DM - instead of just bringing your individually dreamed up character and expecting to be catered to.
    And honestly, my personal preferences aside, this is what it boils down to for me. If a player comes to me with an interesting concept for a character and they've spent the time thinking about how this may fit into the game (ie: done the research) odds are I'll allow it. Heck. I'll work the character past/introduction into the game somehow. But IME this is a rare thing, and most often when players want to do this, it's not with an eye towards "how can I fit this interesting idea into the existing game", but "I think this characters unique powers/abilities will give me an edge in the existing game", which often leads to said character causing problems for game/setting balance.

    Maybe I've become a bit cynical over time, but that has been my experience. Sure. Occasionally, there is just the player who has a cool/interesting idea and just hasn't thought through the implications, but as the GM, I have to do so. And unless it's just something that already exists with a new skin, it's often going to require quite a bit of work. And yeah, there is a remarkably high percentage of the "cool/interesting" ideas that just coincidentally happen to involve some special abilities/powers/whatever that will provide a remarkable advantage in the setting itself. Say I've created a spirit world heavy world, and someone wants to introduce a character race that has some innate spirit combat capabilities. What a coincidence! Or the setting has a heavy presence of <whatever> as the main bad guy footsolders, and a player will just happen to ask to introduce a character with a race that has some amazing advantages against those bad guys (maybe the bad guys are vulnerable to sonics, and this race uses powerful echo location or something). I'm sure it's just a coincidence that in addition to being able to move around in the dark better, it'll also allow him to stun the bulk of the bad guys as a natural racial ability.

    Seen lots of stuff like that over time. I've rarely ever seen a player come to me with an "unusual/unique" character idea that actually represents a disadvantage (to the character) in the current setting. Like I don't think it's ever happened. If the main bad guys use a special metal in their weapons, how many times has anyone come to the GM with a new race concept where "vulnerable to that metal" is part of the block? Never, right? You'll get an endless list of variations of races with "skin armor that blocks <special metal>" though. Bad guys have flaming weapons, you'll get character concepts that are resistant/immune to fire damage, not ones that are especially flammable and take extra damage to fire, right?

    Again. Call me a cynic, but IME these things are almost always about trying to gain a mechanical advantage in the game setting and very little about "roleplaying something different".


    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    This is about acknowledging that it takes work to make a character integrate with both a setting and a campaign world, and realizing that it's a big ask to dump all that at the DM's feet. If a player is willing to put forth the effort to integrate their character with the rest of the party, the theme of the campaign, and find a plausible way to integrate them into the setting, I'm more than happy to meet them in the middle.

    Yup. And if they do come up with something that "works", I'm all for it. Adds to the flavor of the setting. Sadly, in many long years of running RPGs I've just so rarely seen that actually happen. Most players are looking at their character and not much beyond making the best character possible (and why blame them for this?). Very few are looking at the overall setting and how they can make that "the best setting possible". It's just a very different mind set and point of view.

  5. - Top - End - #125
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Yup. I find that the best characters start out simple and basic, and are built on from there. You might be surprised just how interesting and unexpected a character may develop if you don't start out "trying" to...
    My experience is it depends on the player and the game. What I see is most players in most current d&d/knockoffs that have simple & basic characters never "grow" or "develop" at all*. They're too busy just keeping their numbers up and trying to stay basically relevant in game to do much of anything other than seeking the next bonus to keep up the Red Queen's Race of cr & level appropriate.

    Its the ones (the players) that have zero worries about the character being a lol-random suck & fail comic relief clown who will do stuff outside of keeping up with surviving the next fight. Sometimes its because they're running a character with skills & powers that let them try a variety of noncombat stuff with a real chance of success, and sometimes they are a lol-random clown character. But often it seems the fear of repeated or inevitable failures without any real control keeps the players locked into only doing what the character is mechanically good at and striving to boost that to a reliably effective level.

    Other times its the game or GM that lets or makes players produce characters that are more than just one or two trick ponies struggling to keep up with the monsters. There I'll more often likely see some character growth or change that isn't just numbers going up. Of course sometimes its the GM rumming an adventure path or module that basically kills any chance for characters to have meaningful development because they're always on the move and the npcs betray, never get seen again, or die like pathetic mooks. Really, can you develop characters when everything is a transient cardboard cut out, sack of hp to kill, or fellow orphan murder hobo addict lusting for the next hit of xploot?

    * Totally not counting the "that npc wasn't a polite floor mat that did everything i wanted so now they must die" crap that tends to happen nearly every game from these sorts of guys. Thats not character development, its just being pissy murder-hobo at an npc. Again. Because they're that sort of player.
    Last edited by Telok; 2022-12-05 at 07:36 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    I haven't really seen a correlation between having a "standard" human character and the character being deep.

    Are there plenty of people whose concept is just "Look at me, I'm half robot and half demon!" Yes. There are also plenty of people whose concept is just "I'm a barbarian, I smash stuff", or "I'm the holy cleric, I hate undead" and those aren't really any deeper.

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    If my character concept is a god-blooded epic hero out of myth and the rest of the group wants to play a gritty E6 game, that's going to be a tonal mismatch.
    Sure, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with the "restricted multiverse" concept. A 20th level Fighter is an inappropriate character for an E6 game, but that's because he is 20th level. Whether he's warforged or a gensai or a merfolk or whatever the hell has nothing to do with it. Imagine you've got a 1st level game set in Lorwyn (a world where there are no humans) starting up, and a player has two character concepts they want to play: a 1st level Human Fighter who arrived in Lorwyn by *mumble mumble* and a 20th level Faerie Wizard with a detailed backstory explaining exactly what they've been doing with a bunch of Lorwyn-specific stuff for the past fifty years. Which of those characters is more likely to be disruptive to your game?

    This is about acknowledging that it takes work to make a character integrate with both a setting and a campaign world, and realizing that it's a big ask to dump all that at the DM's feet.
    And that ask is made smaller when you can just point to the restricted multiverse for why none of the other weird dudes who are weird in whatever way your dude is weird have showed up before.

    Quote Originally Posted by NichG View Post
    And you don't think a game with mixed vampires and werewolves in the player group would feel different than an all-vampire or all-werewolf group? Or for that matter, a game about internal vampire politics as opposed to a vampires vs werewolves game?
    An all-Tremere game looks different from one with a whole mix of vampires. I do not think it is inherently harder to make a game with vampires and werewolfs work than it is to make one with different kinds of vampires work, and to the degree that it is in VtM it is a result of world-building decisions that are bad even for the all-vampire game.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    If anything, the player should be far more invested in characters that already exist in the setting, and how they "fit" into that setting, so anything that causes imbalance can be a problem.
    It seems to me that you are asking players to come to the table with a deep investment in your setting, but are completely uninterested in making a corresponding investment in their characters. This strikes me as unfair, and broadly hypocritical.

    They think by picking a class/race combo, they're defining a character. Most often, they really aren't though.
    And you think forcing them to pick a race/class combo they are less interested in will make them roleplay more? The way to get people to roleplay is to meet them where they are, not to force them to do the thing you think is correct. If someone is a new player and you are an experienced DM, it is incumbent on you to pick up the bulk of the effort of making stuff work, because you're better at this than they are.

    This is literally a D&D led phenomenon. Read anything published prior to that and it was almost entirely human characters in various situations, with Tolkien being almost the exception with dwarfs and elves.
    "This is a D&D led trope with the exception of it showing up in the foundational work of fantasy as a genre".

    So, uh, try again maybe?

    And yeah, it's an amazingly common trope for the story to be "unassuming farm boy discovers larger destiny". I'm not at all a fan of that trope (Yeah, I'm totally looking at you Belgariad, Magician series, and Wheel of time), but to suggest that this doesn't exist (hello Hobbits!) is somewhat silly.
    I'm not claiming it doesn't exist. But the notion that it should be "most characters" simply because it happens to appeal to you personally is the exact same impulse as the guy who wants to play a warforged in your precisely-crafted "no warforged allowed" world. People want different things. Playing a TTRPG means finding a compromise to accommodate them, not demanding that everyone play the way you want. "You can play a warforged, but don't expect them to be common" is exactly that sort of compromise. "Everyone is a human from around here" is not.

    Call me a cynic, but IME these things are almost always about trying to gain a mechanical advantage in the game setting and very little about "roleplaying something different".
    That's just the Stormwind Fallacy. People are allowed to like things for mechanical reasons. We don't put stats for elves in the book solely so that people who enjoy elves entirely for fluffy and non-mechanical reasons won't blow up the game when they ask what their character actually does.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    I, personally, find the published settings for D&D to be unusable as incoherent jumble of mismatched ideas.
    It sounds like you just don't like D&D. Seriously, go read a Monster Manual some time. There is not some deeply coherent through-line there, it's a bunch of random stuff that ranges from "the writers though it would be cool" to "accrued pieces of D&D brand identity" to "random monsters from random mythology".

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fiery Diamond's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Imagination
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    I'm not sure how "lovingly crafted" a character design is though. I guess maybe I have a different perspective, since in most of the games I play, it's the stuff that happens *after* you start playing a character that generates most of the character's personality and history, not the stuff you wrote before introducing it. I'm much more in favor of "give a character very little, very basic background, then play and develop from there" style of play.

    So yeah, I'm more considering the mechanical impact of introducing various "oddball" character races, abilities, whatever into my game, and that has nothing at all to do with how much the player is invested in said character. If anything, the player should be far more invested in characters that already exist in the setting, and how they "fit" into that setting, so anything that causes imbalance can be a problem.




    It's an observation. I think many players (often younger players) substitute "unusual backstory/race/class/whatever" in places of "interesting personality". When I play a game and someone plays a Warforged, you know what happens? They're the same generic "I'm a warforged, so I do this, and behave that way" character that the last 20 people I ran into who decided to play Warforged characters were. It's generic. They think by picking a class/race combo, they're defining a character. Most often, they really aren't though.

    My observation was that if you don't focus on the class/race aspects, you can instead focus on actual personality questions. You've removed the crutch and now can create an actual unique character. Dunno. Just an observation I've made over time. Obviously, it's player dependent. Some players are great at creating personalities no matter what/who they play. A heck of a lot of players, unfortunately, just aren't. And they tend to replace that with "different" class/race combos. And yeah, while I don't begrudge them that, I do honestly believe that you should crawl before you walk, and walk before you run. Maybe start with something basic and build on that first.




    Uh. Go read fantasy prior to say the early/mid 90s when D&D based novels (FR and DL spring directly to mind) began to appear. This is literally a D&D led phenomenon. Read anything published prior to that and it was almost entirely human characters in various situations, with Tolkien being almost the exception with dwarfs and elves. And yeah, it's an amazingly common trope for the story to be "unassuming farm boy discovers larger destiny". I'm not at all a fan of that trope (Yeah, I'm totally looking at you Belgariad, Magician series, and Wheel of time), but to suggest that this doesn't exist (hello Hobbits!) is somewhat silly. Heck, where did Ged from Wizard of Eathsea come from? Oh yeah. Just a regular guy living peacefully among his village until events propel him into the story. It's a super common story telling technique.

    And frankly, my least favorite trope of all is the variation where said common person turns out to be the long lost heir to <whatever> with a mighty destiny involved. I'm far more interested (for example) in the characters that traveled with Garion in Belgariad (the blacksmith and the thief characters). Just normal folks, who developed skills and became adventurers who are significant to the story. Setting aside Edding's inability to leave them that way, *that's* what I want my players to be. The concept of "normal'" people from "normal" backgrounds, who set out to become great adventurers by just, you know, doing it. I find those to be the most interesting character types, specifically because they aren't depending on a crutch to build the character. They just are.

    I don't have an issue with players choosing to play "unusual" characters. I just find that often that's *all* there is to the character development, and find it amusing just how many players think they are being "special and unique" by doing basically the exact same thing everyone else does.





    Yup. I find that the best characters start out simple and basic, and are built on from there. You might be surprised just how interesting and unexpected a character may develop if you don't start out "trying" to make it a certain way from day one. And yeah, I think a lot of players are robbing themselves of that experience in some cases. Nothing wrong with trying something "weird" from time to time. I've done it myself. But it should be the occasional thing. I've literally run into players who play something "weird" every single time. No exceptions. Eh. Not for me.



    And honestly, my personal preferences aside, this is what it boils down to for me. If a player comes to me with an interesting concept for a character and they've spent the time thinking about how this may fit into the game (ie: done the research) odds are I'll allow it. Heck. I'll work the character past/introduction into the game somehow. But IME this is a rare thing, and most often when players want to do this, it's not with an eye towards "how can I fit this interesting idea into the existing game", but "I think this characters unique powers/abilities will give me an edge in the existing game", which often leads to said character causing problems for game/setting balance.

    Maybe I've become a bit cynical over time, but that has been my experience. Sure. Occasionally, there is just the player who has a cool/interesting idea and just hasn't thought through the implications, but as the GM, I have to do so. And unless it's just something that already exists with a new skin, it's often going to require quite a bit of work. And yeah, there is a remarkably high percentage of the "cool/interesting" ideas that just coincidentally happen to involve some special abilities/powers/whatever that will provide a remarkable advantage in the setting itself. Say I've created a spirit world heavy world, and someone wants to introduce a character race that has some innate spirit combat capabilities. What a coincidence! Or the setting has a heavy presence of <whatever> as the main bad guy footsolders, and a player will just happen to ask to introduce a character with a race that has some amazing advantages against those bad guys (maybe the bad guys are vulnerable to sonics, and this race uses powerful echo location or something). I'm sure it's just a coincidence that in addition to being able to move around in the dark better, it'll also allow him to stun the bulk of the bad guys as a natural racial ability.

    Seen lots of stuff like that over time. I've rarely ever seen a player come to me with an "unusual/unique" character idea that actually represents a disadvantage (to the character) in the current setting. Like I don't think it's ever happened. If the main bad guys use a special metal in their weapons, how many times has anyone come to the GM with a new race concept where "vulnerable to that metal" is part of the block? Never, right? You'll get an endless list of variations of races with "skin armor that blocks <special metal>" though. Bad guys have flaming weapons, you'll get character concepts that are resistant/immune to fire damage, not ones that are especially flammable and take extra damage to fire, right?

    Again. Call me a cynic, but IME these things are almost always about trying to gain a mechanical advantage in the game setting and very little about "roleplaying something different".





    Yup. And if they do come up with something that "works", I'm all for it. Adds to the flavor of the setting. Sadly, in many long years of running RPGs I've just so rarely seen that actually happen. Most players are looking at their character and not much beyond making the best character possible (and why blame them for this?). Very few are looking at the overall setting and how they can make that "the best setting possible". It's just a very different mind set and point of view.
    I feel it's worth pointing out that you are coming from a stance where the setting comes first, and then you add the characters to it (and that the characters come in as more or less blank slates that develop during play) and acting as if this is somehow the default way of doing things. You... do know that the exact opposite is also possible, right? That the players can come up with detailed characters with backstory and personality fully formed and the DM takes that and makes the setting to fit? That's totally a thing, and is no less valid. I would venture a guess that most games fit neither extreme but involve a bit of give and take between character and setting when things are created. Literally every game I've ever run or played in has been somewhere in the middle.

  9. - Top - End - #129
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    It's an observation. I think many players (often younger players) substitute "unusual backstory/race/class/whatever" in places of "interesting personality". When I play a game and someone plays a Warforged, you know what happens? They're the same generic "I'm a warforged, so I do this, and behave that way" character that the last 20 people I ran into who decided to play Warforged characters were. It's generic. They think by picking a class/race combo, they're defining a character. Most often, they really aren't though.

    My observation was that if you don't focus on the class/race aspects, you can instead focus on actual personality questions. You've removed the crutch and now can create an actual unique character. Dunno. Just an observation I've made over time. Obviously, it's player dependent. Some players are great at creating personalities no matter what/who they play. A heck of a lot of players, unfortunately, just aren't. And they tend to replace that with "different" class/race combos. And yeah, while I don't begrudge them that, I do honestly believe that you should crawl before you walk, and walk before you run. Maybe start with something basic and build on that first.
    That's a player issue, not a setting/multiverse issue. You can be a "generic/boring Warforged" with no meaningful ideals/bonds/flaws just as easily in Eberron as you could in Faerun. Restricting races for that reason doesn't solve the underlying issue, that the player needs motivation and personality regardless of their origin.

    Also, there's nothing inherently bad about playing into type. Durkon is as standard a dwarf as you can imagine in most respects, but he is still a compelling character largely because of how he reacts to the absurd or atypical scenarios around him. Not every character needs to be an societal black sheep or pariah compared to their racial peers.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiery Diamond View Post
    I feel it's worth pointing out that you are coming from a stance where the setting comes first, and then you add the characters to it (and that the characters come in as more or less blank slates that develop during play) and acting as if this is somehow the default way of doing things. You... do know that the exact opposite is also possible, right? That the players can come up with detailed characters with backstory and personality fully formed and the DM takes that and makes the setting to fit? That's totally a thing, and is no less valid. I would venture a guess that most games fit neither extreme but involve a bit of give and take between character and setting when things are created. Literally every game I've ever run or played in has been somewhere in the middle.
    Except you can't actually do that. If you have 3-5 people generate characters based on whatever fits their fancy what you'll actually have is 3-5 different games proposed. Most games come with a pre-defined setting already (VtM, Star Wars, L5R, etc.) or expectations that the GM will tailor the system and selectively utilize rules to produce a setting for play (GURPs, FATE, etc.). D&D, as usual, is a special case that tries to have it both ways. What it actually has is a tightly bounded implied setting that governs the range of things that can be included in game. This can be easily seen through alternative settings that modify the game rules and thereby no longer accept the presence of characters built using the standard implications, like Dark Sun.

    'Restricting' the multiverse, by the way, can be a method of creating a bounded space. For example, having many worlds but they're all quasi-medieval fantasy worlds in technological stasis, just in some of them the sky is purple and the water is red. This sort of thing is actually reasonably common in Wuxia Cultivation stories, where the protagonist might visit a 'demon realm' or a 'heavenly realm' or an 'undersea realm' but somehow still encounters nothing but vaguely Daoist-derived martial artists no matter what.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  11. - Top - End - #131
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fiery Diamond's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Imagination
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    Except you can't actually do that. If you have 3-5 people generate characters based on whatever fits their fancy what you'll actually have is 3-5 different games proposed. Most games come with a pre-defined setting already (VtM, Star Wars, L5R, etc.) or expectations that the GM will tailor the system and selectively utilize rules to produce a setting for play (GURPs, FATE, etc.). D&D, as usual, is a special case that tries to have it both ways. What it actually has is a tightly bounded implied setting that governs the range of things that can be included in game. This can be easily seen through alternative settings that modify the game rules and thereby no longer accept the presence of characters built using the standard implications, like Dark Sun.

    'Restricting' the multiverse, by the way, can be a method of creating a bounded space. For example, having many worlds but they're all quasi-medieval fantasy worlds in technological stasis, just in some of them the sky is purple and the water is red. This sort of thing is actually reasonably common in Wuxia Cultivation stories, where the protagonist might visit a 'demon realm' or a 'heavenly realm' or an 'undersea realm' but somehow still encounters nothing but vaguely Daoist-derived martial artists no matter what.
    Actually, no. An "implied setting" is not a setting, and it need not be bound by anything other than the ruleset. The DM saying "I'd like to have a game using this ruleset that involves [lists themes they want to include], please come up with characters and backgrounds while consulting one another to ensure they are mutually compatible and I'll build the setting details around that" is 100% possible, and is 100% an example of what I said.

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiery Diamond View Post
    Actually, no. An "implied setting" is not a setting, and it need not be bound by anything other than the ruleset. The DM saying "I'd like to have a game using this ruleset that involves [lists themes they want to include], please come up with characters and backgrounds while consulting one another to ensure they are mutually compatible and I'll build the setting details around that" is 100% possible, and is 100% an example of what I said.
    Well yes, but it is hugely labor intensive and I quite frankly can't think of a single game where I've seen it happen. Sure, I've seen DMs be flexible, I've seen kitchen sink games, I've seen "anything goes" multiverse games, but I can't really say I've ever seen a DM say something like "I want to run something gritty and western, work that out yourselves and I'll build on what you give me."

    Also, I feel like "suggesting some themes" and asking your players to ensure their characters are mutually compatible is no different from having a world built and requesting the players build within it but with extra (and therefore unnecessary) steps.
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    It seems to me that you are asking players to come to the table with a deep investment in your setting, but are completely uninterested in making a corresponding investment in their characters. This strikes me as unfair, and broadly hypocritical.
    If I've made the setting first, then yes, that's a quite reasonable expectation for me to make. And I'm not "uninterested" in making a corresponding investment in their characters. That's a massive false dilemma. There's a huge range in there where players can pick from a list of races that actually exist already in the setting I've created and still manage to create a character that "fits" into the setting, where I will also work with them to build a backstory (if they want) to provide all the rationale, motivation, etc needed to start that character off in the setting.

    What's unreasonable is if I say "We're going to play a game in setting X, with <list of races> available to play, and <list of religions> available, here's your starting area, here's what's there, what's available, what guilds exist, trades, potential backgrounds, etc and a player comes to me and insists on playing none of the above and wants to justify it as "well, he's a <traveler/whatever> from another world/area/whatever, and expect me to wedge this character into the setting. Now, as I've already stated, if it's reasonable I'll absolutely allow a one-off oddball character. But (as I've also already said), I expect the player had better done some homework in terms of how this character will realistically fit into the setting. And yes, as I (also) stated before, my experience is that it's rare for players to actually do this. But yeah, if/when they do, I'll allow it.


    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    And you think forcing them to pick a race/class combo they are less interested in will make them roleplay more? The way to get people to roleplay is to meet them where they are, not to force them to do the thing you think is correct. If someone is a new player and you are an experienced DM, it is incumbent on you to pick up the bulk of the effort of making stuff work, because you're better at this than they are.
    I'm not forcing them to do anything. First off, this is not the D&D only forum section. I play primarily in a game system that does not have classes or levels, so the only real issue here is race (and racial stats/abilities). And yeah, that I'm going to limit based on what's in the area the setting is in. Again, I'll allow other stuff if it makes sense and can be rationally explained. But I'm not restricting the players. They can play anything that could reasonably be in the setting.

    When I do play D&D though, I also tend to think folks should strive to play within the setting. It's really somewhat of a D&D specific problem precisely because D&D has a zillion source books each of which adds some new races and classes, some of which mesh pretty well with a "standard" set, but others are extremely specific to the source they were written in and the setting that source was intended for. So yeah, you do have to be careful allowing such things into a setting that's not designed for them.

    There's plenty to play. Deliberately picking something else really smacks of the player not respecting the game setting or the rest of the table.



    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    "This is a D&D led trope with the exception of it showing up in the foundational work of fantasy as a genre".


    So, uh, try again maybe?
    Uh... I specifically mentioned "normal" humans, elves, and dwarves earlier. Which, after a couple telephone game type responses, gets us here. I'm more broadly speaking in terms of "things that exist in the setting being played", and more specifically pointing out that not every character has to be some weird thing "from a far off land", in order to be played. You can play a character that's literally from "the next village over", and that might just work better for most players. What races that makes available are largely irrelevant to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I'm not claiming it doesn't exist. But the notion that it should be "most characters" simply because it happens to appeal to you personally is the exact same impulse as the guy who wants to play a warforged in your precisely-crafted "no warforged allowed" world. People want different things. Playing a TTRPG means finding a compromise to accommodate them, not demanding that everyone play the way you want. "You can play a warforged, but don't expect them to be common" is exactly that sort of compromise. "Everyone is a human from around here" is not.
    I didn't say that though. I did provide that in my example, but if it makes you feel better, replace "human" with "folks who live in the area". That could be the humans living nearby, or the elves from the nearby forest, or the dwarves from up in the mountains, or the trolls from the other nearby mountains, or <insert whatever other stuff the GM has put on the map in the setting>. And again, my broader point is the tendency to substitute "strange race/class/backstory" for "roleplaying".

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    That's just the Stormwind Fallacy. People are allowed to like things for mechanical reasons. We don't put stats for elves in the book solely so that people who enjoy elves entirely for fluffy and non-mechanical reasons won't blow up the game when they ask what their character actually does.
    First off, there wouldn't be a need for the fallacy if there weren't enough people who do play that way to create the perception/stereotype. It's only fallacious if you assume one cannot exist without the other. I specifically stated that it was player specific and that some players can roleplay excellently no matter what they are playing, and others cannot. My observation is the tendency for the latter group to gravitate to playing "strange unusual character types" as a substitute (or not even bothering to try, and just going for mechanical advantage). That doesn't mean that everyone who plays a strange/unusual character is a bad role player, nor that everyone who plays a "generic in-setting" character is a good role player.

    What I am saying is that players who do have (let's be polite here) "low roleplaying skills" would be better served *not* rushing to the strange/unusual characters, since this tends to become a crutch to developing RP skills. And yes, the same can be said of someone who plays the "grrr smash" barbarian, or the "holy man" cleric, or whatever. But my experience is that when there is less "filler" on the table (by nature of mechanical character descriptions), the player is more likely to develop their own, often much more "natural" personality for the character they are playing. It's honestly one of the reasons I prefer to play in games that don't have character classes. That's one less thing that's actually written on your character sheet that you might decide defines your character and might lead you to RP based solely on that one thing. "Barbarian" should be a culture, not a class. Just saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fiery Diamond View Post
    Actually, no. An "implied setting" is not a setting, and it need not be bound by anything other than the ruleset. The DM saying "I'd like to have a game using this ruleset that involves [lists themes they want to include], please come up with characters and backgrounds while consulting one another to ensure they are mutually compatible and I'll build the setting details around that" is 100% possible, and is 100% an example of what I said.
    It's possible, I suppose. But I suspect that the setting that results (in many cases) will be a mash up as a result. Don't get me wrong, if I'm just playing a one-shot or something, I don't really care what people play. But I'm also probably not doing much more for the "setting" than creating the adventure I'm running. Then I'm done. If I'm going to the trouble to create an actual real setting? I'm creating it. The players play in it.

    Just not sure why this is a problem. If we decide to play a paranoia game, I'm going to expect them to play normal paranoia troubleshooters. If one of them wants to play an alien who's crash landed into Alpha Complex, I'm going to give that one a hard no. Well. Unless I decide to incorporate it into the scenario, of course. But that falls into the "one shot" thing I spoke of earlier. Same deal with a Shadowrun game. You want to play your alchemist from <some other game> in there? Er no.

    Again, having said that, if I've included multiple dimensions/planes in my setting (and I have), that's still a pretty large number of "possible things" that can be played. The player has to come to me and sell me on how the thing he wants to play will fit in though, not the other way around. And yeah, the player has to think through how this character will not just fit in as an introduction, but as a continuing PC in the game. As I stated earlier, one of the things I do in my setting is create different "rules" for different dimensions. Magic works differently depending on where you are. Tech works differently as well. You want to play a wild west gunslinger in the main high-fantasy setting? Sure thing. But due to <insert technobabble about constants of physics> your gunpowder just doesn't light in this world. Maybe you could talk to some dwarves and find a replacement (for a modest fee since their blasting powder is proprietary alchemy in this world)? You want your priest of <whatever> to show up and be playable? Great. Except your deity doesn't actually have a following in this world, and has no power, so your divine magic will be limited use. Maybe, if you spend a few decades, you might be able to convince people to convert and build a temple (assuming the gods that do exist here don't just send hordes of followers to kill you off to prevent just that from happening).

    And yeah, I've allowed "odd" characters. Various shapeshifters, variants of elves/dwarves/dragonkind/whatever. Heck. We once had two sentient chippendale chairs join the game as playable characters (there was more to it than that, obviously). But again, I expect the player to meet me at least halfway on stuff like this, so that I can fit the character idea into the game. I don't think that's an unreasonable ask. And yeah if what the player is asking for is just obviously going to break the setting? I'm going to say no. Because at the end of the day, the enjoyment of the entire table trumps the wants of one player. If you can't figure out how to find a character concept and personality that you can enjoy playing without leaping to the absurd, that's somewhat on you.

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
    Well yes, but it is hugely labor intensive and I quite frankly can't think of a single game where I've seen it happen. Sure, I've seen DMs be flexible, I've seen kitchen sink games, I've seen "anything goes" multiverse games, but I can't really say I've ever seen a DM say something like "I want to run something gritty and western, work that out yourselves and I'll build on what you give me."
    Yup. I've also played "kitchen sink" games (and they can be fun as heck). But those are the "one offs" I play, when I'm not really taking the whole thing at all seriously and we're all just messing around and having fun. I agree that it'll be an exercise in insanity to bother with setting a theme, but then leaving the character options completely open. To me, the "theme" includes within it silly things like "the kind of characters that can be played". I mean, I suspect that most of us assume that the sorts of NPCs that you might encounter will be specific and aligned with the theme of a game setting, so one would assume the kinds of PCs to be played should be as well.

    Otherwise, there is no actual theme.

    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
    Also, I feel like "suggesting some themes" and asking your players to ensure their characters are mutually compatible is no different from having a world built and requesting the players build within it but with extra (and therefore unnecessary) steps.
    Was going to make this point as well. To me, it's far better to just say "these are class/race/level/whatever available to play at startup in this setting" and be up front and open with your players. Pushing the need to work out character details to the players may seem like you're increasing agency, but not really. Now, instead of one GM providing consistent rules to everyone, you're going to have 5 or 6 GMs all trying to tell the others what to do. And, assuming you as the GM do have some sort of ultimate "final call" on the outcome, it can end up being a bit passive aggressive. You can play anything you want, but if I don't agree, I'll deny it? Better to just set expectations up front IMO.

    Again, assuming that "theme" actually means anything at all here. And if not, and anything the players come up with is actually ok, why bother with coming up with a theme? Just wait for the characters to do their thing, let them all play whatever they want, and then cobble something together afterwards. Again. That can be great fun (I've done that many times, in fact), but that's not what I would ever actually call a "setting".

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    If I've made the setting first, then yes, that's a quite reasonable expectation for me to make. And I'm not "uninterested" in making a corresponding investment in their characters. That's a massive false dilemma. There's a huge range in there where players can pick from a list of races that actually exist already in the setting I've created and still manage to create a character that "fits" into the setting, where I will also work with them to build a backstory (if they want) to provide all the rationale, motivation, etc needed to start that character off in the setting.

    What's unreasonable is if I say "We're going to play a game in setting X, with <list of races> available to play, and <list of religions> available, here's your starting area, here's what's there, what's available, what guilds exist, trades, potential backgrounds, etc and a player comes to me and insists on playing none of the above and wants to justify it as "well, he's a <traveler/whatever> from another world/area/whatever, and expect me to wedge this character into the setting. Now, as I've already stated, if it's reasonable I'll absolutely allow a one-off oddball character. But (as I've also already said), I expect the player had better done some homework in terms of how this character will realistically fit into the setting. And yes, as I (also) stated before, my experience is that it's rare for players to actually do this. But yeah, if/when they do, I'll allow it.
    All that is fine, but then surely you start to see how WotC is trying to make both your lives easier by establishing the presence of a multiverse. You've just established that you're in fact open to considering a nonstandard character for your setting/game provided the player can explain how they fit into the world - and for their settings at least, WotC is trying to broadly enable that.

    The new Dragonlance book that came out recently for instance includes the following sidebar:

    PEOPLE FROM BEYOND

    Peoples who aren’t native to the world still might find their way to Krynn. It’s possible to find individual members—or even small enclaves—of folk like dragonborn, halflings, tieflings, or any other race in Ansalon. Perhaps such individuals stepped through a portal and found themselves on Krynn, or traded with one of Krynn’s great empires before the Cataclysm. Use such possibilities to play characters of any race you please in your adventures across Krynn.
    The "stepped through a portal" option is the perhaps-too-obvious avenue, but in the underlined portion WotC also established a much more interesting alternative - one that could have a nonstandard race character actually grow up in Krynn and absorb its recent history, yet still be a relative unknown to most of the inhabitants. Pre-Cataclysm Dragonlance had some extremely powerful magic societies/empires running around, so it's not too farfetched to allow that they were the ones to bring some of the mentioned "enclaves" of nonstandard races through to Krynn, for trade or servitude or other reasons, and some of them surviving through the Cataclysm to have descendants is not unreasonable.


    TL;DR no one is saying you can't restrict your setting, but WotC inserting justifications to relax race restrictions on theirs is reasonable, and can even be narratively engaging.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2022-12-06 at 10:07 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Yup. I've also played "kitchen sink" games (and they can be fun as heck). But those are the "one offs" I play, when I'm not really taking the whole thing at all seriously and we're all just messing around and having fun. I agree that it'll be an exercise in insanity to bother with setting a theme, but then leaving the character options completely open. To me, the "theme" includes within it silly things like "the kind of characters that can be played". I mean, I suspect that most of us assume that the sorts of NPCs that you might encounter will be specific and aligned with the theme of a game setting, so one would assume the kinds of PCs to be played should be as well.

    Otherwise, there is no actual theme.

    Was going to make this point as well. To me, it's far better to just say "these are class/race/level/whatever available to play at startup in this setting" and be up front and open with your players. Pushing the need to work out character details to the players may seem like you're increasing agency, but not really. Now, instead of one GM providing consistent rules to everyone, you're going to have 5 or 6 GMs all trying to tell the others what to do. And, assuming you as the GM do have some sort of ultimate "final call" on the outcome, it can end up being a bit passive aggressive. You can play anything you want, but if I don't agree, I'll deny it? Better to just set expectations up front IMO.

    Again, assuming that "theme" actually means anything at all here. And if not, and anything the players come up with is actually ok, why bother with coming up with a theme? Just wait for the characters to do their thing, let them all play whatever they want, and then cobble something together afterwards. Again. That can be great fun (I've done that many times, in fact), but that's not what I would ever actually call a "setting".
    Overall I generally feel that most of the arguments of "Letting players come to the table with whatever." or "...whatever within a range." are more examples of unpreparedness, or a general disinterest in DMing. Most DMs I've met (for better or worse) have a certain thing they want to run. Be it horror, soap, beer-and-pretzels, their own personal world, a specific established universe. DMs I've encountered who don't tend to really not be much fun (strongly IMO) because they really don't seem very invested in what they're running.
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
    Overall I generally feel that most of the arguments of "Letting players come to the table with whatever." or "...whatever within a range." are more examples of unpreparedness, or a general disinterest in DMing. Most DMs I've met (for better or worse) have a certain thing they want to run. Be it horror, soap, beer-and-pretzels, their own personal world, a specific established universe. DMs I've encountered who don't tend to really not be much fun (strongly IMO) because they really don't seem very invested in what they're running.
    For me, that's completely true. Well, rather the reverse--if I'm not invested in the setting, I'm not really interested in playing or (especially) DMing. And "yeah, figure it out, whatever" doesn't get me interested. It's a sure sign that the setting will be cardboard thin or worse, made to order. I want lived-in settings. Ones that have the fingerprints of other groups, of other minds. And especially I need metaphysics--more than just a "well, whatever's in the books" or worse a "you tell me" explanation for things. Reasons why everything is as it is. And that doesn't come easy or cheap--it requires dedicated thought that can't be whipped up in a couple weeks.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  18. - Top - End - #138
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fiery Diamond's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Imagination
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    "Or worse: Made to Order."

    Oh, the horror!

    You realize that some people like that, right? I certainly hope you realize your preferences aren't universal.

    And to the people saying my example of "character first, setting after" is an extreme... well, duh. I even called it that myself. My point is that "setting first, character after" is just as much an extreme and you need to recognize that and stop acting like it's somehow the default or superior. As I said, all games I've been involved in have been in the middle ground.

    As a DM, I am heavily an Improv DM. I start by creating the setting in its broad strokes: the cosmology, the geography, the nations. Then I decide what sorts of themes I'm interested in. Then the players create the characters. Then I build setting details around the characters and their backgrounds. Then I come up with the starting situation and initial hooks, as well as any important large-scale ongoing events, like political situations and whatnot. And then the remaining details and specific events get made as the game goes along based on the decisions the players make. This is NOT AN UNUSUAL WAY TO DO THINGS. It's not inherently inferior to doing in depth worldbuilding and creating all your settlements and so on before the game starts. And in my experience, it's not less common, either.

    Also, PhoenixPhyre, you realize that it's also not just the things you hate that others may like but also the things you like that others may hate, right? Your desire to have a setting with the touch of other groups? That's something I find abhorrent as a player. If the setting wasn't made for the specific campaign, count me out.


    Edit: For what it's worth, I actually have no dog in the Restricted Multiverse fight. I have no problem with it, but it's not really my cup of tea, either. It just annoys me (probably more than it should) when people act like their experiences and preferences are somehow the default when they run counter to my own.
    Last edited by Fiery Diamond; 2022-12-07 at 12:28 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
    Overall I generally feel that most of the arguments of "Letting players come to the table with whatever." or "...whatever within a range." are more examples of unpreparedness, or a general disinterest in DMing. Most DMs I've met (for better or worse) have a certain thing they want to run. Be it horror, soap, beer-and-pretzels, their own personal world, a specific established universe. DMs I've encountered who don't tend to really not be much fun (strongly IMO) because they really don't seem very invested in what they're running.
    {Scrubbed}
    Last edited by truemane; 2022-12-07 at 11:33 AM. Reason: Scrubbed
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  20. - Top - End - #140
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiery Diamond View Post
    "Or worse: Made to Order."

    Oh, the horror!

    You realize that some people like that, right? I certainly hope you realize your preferences aren't universal.

    And to the people saying my example of "character first, setting after" is an extreme... well, duh. I even called it that myself. My point is that "setting first, character after" is just as much an extreme and you need to recognize that and stop acting like it's somehow the default or superior. As I said, all games I've been involved in have been in the middle ground.

    As a DM, I am heavily an Improv DM. I start by creating the setting in its broad strokes: the cosmology, the geography, the nations. Then I decide what sorts of themes I'm interested in. Then the players create the characters. Then I build setting details around the characters and their backgrounds. Then I come up with the starting situation and initial hooks, as well as any important large-scale ongoing events, like political situations and whatnot. And then the remaining details and specific events get made as the game goes along based on the decisions the players make. This is NOT AN UNUSUAL WAY TO DO THINGS. It's not inherently inferior to doing in depth worldbuilding and creating all your settlements and so on before the game starts. And in my experience, it's not less common, either.

    Also, PhoenixPhyre, you realize that it's also not just the things you hate that others may like but also the things you like that others may hate, right? Your desire to have a setting with the touch of other groups? That's something I find abhorrent as a player. If the setting wasn't made for the specific campaign, count me out.


    Edit: For what it's worth, I actually have no dog in the Restricted Multiverse fight. I have no problem with it, but it's not really my cup of tea, either. It just annoys me (probably more than it should) when people act like their experiences and preferences are somehow the default when they run counter to my own.
    Did I not explicitly say that those were my preferences? All of that is FOR ME. personally. You may do what you like and more power to you.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    So the advantages of a "restricted multiverse" from a DM and storytelling perspective. Which if I understand the meaning, a setting of multiple worlds with a set of unified mechanics that creates some familiarity with root expectations (good, evil, magic, races having some common names or forms, etc.) and a means to travel between them. With the added stipulation that the plot expectation is to be in one world primarily, but an affordance made that travel may become a option at some point.

    My first line of thinking is it allows for a few plot structures, if they are ones want:
    The Incursion - your party is from one setting, and that is the setting the adventure is taking place, but you have an antagonistic force from beyond that scope. This can be useful for a change in mood or tension as this usually is a significant change in scope but also a way for the party to experience a sense of chaos.
    The Strangers - the setting in play, and the setting the party is from are different. For some, this reduces interest in the setting, but I have found that isn't really the case. It does give an outlet for a DM to construct mystery in a way that couldn't normally be put into the game. Some people really like learning a setting as they play, and a plot that the are an arrival of some sort means this will be a much more active process as they try to make even basic interactions. Also it can allow for archetypes of play that would otherwise very difficult, like a lawful good character in Dark Sun, for example.
    The Great Journey - An adventure that is specifically traveling to another setting and back, this is essentially a bit of both, The incursion in reverse, it means allowing to include as a plot some things that the initial setting couldn't support but you don't need to go into the problem of making the whole game from scratch again

    "True Multiverses" as described, worlds with nothing in commonality, can do similar things but comes with problems:
    The False Promise - The settings can be traveled between, but the differences invalidate the reason for interest
    The Floodgate Opened - The setting possibilities become uncontrollable, as players and the DM simply don't have the ability to set and maintain assumptions

    Restrictions on what settings are possible within a multi-verse helps to reign in these problems, Take for example possible incursion plots:
    Warforged imperialism - say you take a faction from Eberron like the worshipers of the Lord of Blades, and toss them at the Forgotten Realms. This will change the tone of an ongoing game and possibly be a means to introduce some new magic items, but won't necessarily shatter the setting
    Compare this to The Sorcerer-King's hoard, the same plot structure but defiler mages from Athas as the invading force, this will mean, defilement magic is now a thing in your setting, and it will be a dessert hellscape after a bit
    Or defilement magic doesn't work that way in FR, and we have defeated the purpose of the exercise in the first place.

    And both of these still feel to me in the realm of 'restricted' multiverse stuff, we haven't actually hit real setting breaking nonsense yet.
    My sig is something witty.

    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
    Two huge flaws right here.

    First, the idea that you paid for the book means that I should let you use what's in it is pure bunk. Maybe the new book is atrociously balanced and I want nothing to do with it. Maybe the new book is thematically at odds with the campaign's setting. Maybe I just don't have the money to buy every new release or the time to read them all to check for mechanical or thematic consistency. You're free to do whatever you like with your shiny new book, but the rest of the table is not obligated to go along with it just because you paid money.

    Second, I've heard lots of people tell me about what a good DM can do/should do. You're free to hold yourself to whatever standards you like when you're behind the screen, and you're also free to decide who you do or do not want to play under. If you want me to DM for you, though, you have to accept that I have my strengths and my weaknesses. If you want to play in PhoenixPhyre's game where narrative and logical consistency are important to him, he's not wrong to ask you to play something that narratively and logically fits. Insisting that people aren't fit to DM unless they meet your arbitrary bars - including things like "has the free time and disposable income to keep up on everything WotC has published" - is a good way to make it harder to play your freshly created character because you've discouraged lots of potential DMs from even trying.
    Last edited by truemane; 2022-12-07 at 11:33 AM. Reason: Scrub the quote

  23. - Top - End - #143
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Thinking about it, when I run I'm usually open to things existing in the world that I didn't specifically plan, but less so to things that change the entire cosmology.

    So for example, being a Warforged in Dark Sun. Could a single Warforged exist? Yes, easily.
    Somebody tried to build a smarter construct and this is what happened, or perhaps it was a natural occurrence, or something else, there are a variety of ways.

    Could an entire city of Warforged exist? Well ... possibly. That's more of an ask than the single instance, IMO. But it's not like it would ruin things either.

    Could Eberron exist in the campaign and sometimes people go to or from it? Probably not, that sounds like a whole different campaign.

    So maybe this is part of the disconnect? I'm thinking of characters like this as fairly easy to integrate unless your setting is so fully mapped out it has no unexplored corners, but other people are thinking of it as forcibly introducing entire other settings as canon for the campaign?
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-12-07 at 05:45 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiery Diamond View Post
    "Or worse: Made to Order."

    Oh, the horror!

    You realize that some people like that, right? I certainly hope you realize your preferences aren't universal.

    And to the people saying my example of "character first, setting after" is an extreme... well, duh. I even called it that myself. My point is that "setting first, character after" is just as much an extreme and you need to recognize that and stop acting like it's somehow the default or superior. As I said, all games I've been involved in have been in the middle ground.

    As a DM, I am heavily an Improv DM. I start by creating the setting in its broad strokes: the cosmology, the geography, the nations. Then I decide what sorts of themes I'm interested in. Then the players create the characters. Then I build setting details around the characters and their backgrounds. Then I come up with the starting situation and initial hooks, as well as any important large-scale ongoing events, like political situations and whatnot. And then the remaining details and specific events get made as the game goes along based on the decisions the players make. This is NOT AN UNUSUAL WAY TO DO THINGS. It's not inherently inferior to doing in depth worldbuilding and creating all your settlements and so on before the game starts. And in my experience, it's not less common, either.

    Also, PhoenixPhyre, you realize that it's also not just the things you hate that others may like but also the things you like that others may hate, right? Your desire to have a setting with the touch of other groups? That's something I find abhorrent as a player. If the setting wasn't made for the specific campaign, count me out.


    Edit: For what it's worth, I actually have no dog in the Restricted Multiverse fight. I have no problem with it, but it's not really my cup of tea, either. It just annoys me (probably more than it should) when people act like their experiences and preferences are somehow the default when they run counter to my own.
    I am a DM too and I also don't run a restricted multiverse, I run Eberron with the rings of Siberys intact, any race outside of Eberron is restricted (though races from the other planes are allowed, for example shadar kai from Mabar or eladrin from Thelanis). I am well aware that many tables run homebrew settings (in fact I play in one).

    I think what OP is getting at (and he'll have to forgive me if I misrepresent him) is that the source books are encouraging a restricted multiverse, whether you or others choose to play in one is kinda irrelevant, the problem is that the source books are encouraging you to play in the same fantasy setting. You and many others are resisting that encouragement, but it's still not good that the DMG don't tell you how to make a cosmology but instead just tell you what the other planes are. The end result is that many tables- even tables that run homebrew, end up running forgotten realms with different geography. You may have different names of towns and different famous NPCs but dwarves still live in mountains, elves live in the forest, halflings are jolly, gnomes are santa's little helpers, orcs and goblins exist only to be killed by players, etc. It's always the same.

    Let me ask you this. How are your standard races different from forgotten realms? Do the elves not live in the forest? Do dwarves live above ground? Are your halflings jolly? Do your orcs do anything interesting beyond serve as cannon fodder?
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  25. - Top - End - #145
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
    {Scrubbed}
    Last edited by truemane; 2022-12-07 at 11:34 AM. Reason: Scrubbed
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    I am a DM too and I also don't run a restricted multiverse, I run Eberron with the rings of Siberys intact, any race outside of Eberron is restricted (though races from the other planes are allowed, for example shadar kai from Mabar or eladrin from Thelanis). I am well aware that many tables run homebrew settings (in fact I play in one).

    I think what OP is getting at (and he'll have to forgive me if I misrepresent him) is that the source books are encouraging a restricted multiverse, whether you or others choose to play in one is kinda irrelevant, the problem is that the source books are encouraging you to play in the same fantasy setting. You and many others are resisting that encouragement, but it's still not good that the DMG don't tell you how to make a cosmology but instead just tell you what the other planes are. The end result is that many tables- even tables that run homebrew, end up running forgotten realms with different geography. You may have different names of towns and different famous NPCs but dwarves still live in mountains, elves live in the forest, halflings are jolly, gnomes are santa's little helpers, orcs and goblins exist only to be killed by players, etc. It's always the same.

    Let me ask you this. How are your standard races different from forgotten realms? Do the elves not live in the forest? Do dwarves live above ground? Are your halflings jolly? Do your orcs do anything interesting beyond serve as cannon fodder?
    That's pretty much my main concern about multiverses, yes. My personal preferences about setting structure are separate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiery Diamond View Post

    As a DM, I am heavily an Improv DM. I start by creating the setting in its broad strokes: the cosmology, the geography, the nations. Then I decide what sorts of themes I'm interested in. Then the players create the characters. Then I build setting details around the characters and their backgrounds. Then I come up with the starting situation and initial hooks, as well as any important large-scale ongoing events, like political situations and whatnot. And then the remaining details and specific events get made as the game goes along based on the decisions the players make. This is NOT AN UNUSUAL WAY TO DO THINGS. It's not inherently inferior to doing in depth worldbuilding and creating all your settlements and so on before the game starts. And in my experience, it's not less common, either.
    Now with a bit more time to respond to details--

    This isn't actually far from what I did, just...in the past. I certainly don't do all the worldbuilding ahead of time. The only difference is that I don't create the macrosetting for each campaign. Generally, each campaign is set in an area (either time or space) that other groups haven't touched. The effects of those other groups are still around--my current group has, in the background, the fall of one of the gods at the start of that in-fiction year (in which a previous party was heavily implicated) and if they go to a certain mountain...wait...ok, there never was a mountain there . And those other characters exist as NPCs, but they never feature more than as cameo appearances.

    But I see a huge difference between the following sequences:

    1. Create a campaign idea and setting to match, including setting invariants.
    2. Solicit characters with those invariants, themes, etc in mind
    3. Play

    And

    1. Solicit characters without any but the vaguest theme (ok folks, we're doing a western)
    2. Create the campaign idea and setting to match, trying to reconcile all the disparate character elements
    3. Play

    The first is something I can (personally) tolerate--it's not my favorite, but at that point it's within the acceptable margins. And I'd say it and "build a setting, use it for multiple campaigns" are kinda tied for commonality. The second, which is something I associate heavily with PbtA-style games[1] as well as more narrative games, is something I strongly dislike because it leads to disposable settings. Which, in my experience, is one major driver for disruptive behavior--I don't have to deal with murder hobos and other "trash the place" players because they're tied in with the world and the persistence of the world is a major draw to my games. In a setting that's designed to be disposable, there's no such binding to the setting. It's designed to get trashed.

    [1] although those do have more system-level thematic binding, so that's mostly "the group builds the setting at session 0". But I still dislike the DM saying "ok, tell me how <major place> is" or "tell me why <big boss> is the big boss." Because it breaks, for me, exploration. I, as a player, know all the mysteries. There's nothing to be revealed. Which means the world doesn't feel like it could be real--it feels like it's a stage backdrop with every piece placed to support the characters and the story. No (or fewer) odd-ball pieces there just because that's how things worked out in times past.

    I do repeat that this is all my personal preference. Not some "objective rule".
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  27. - Top - End - #147
    Archmage in the Playground Moderator
     
    truemane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Grognardia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Metamagic Mod: can everyone in this thread please take a deep breath and dial back the hostility two full notches? If you can't engage in this discussion both in good faith and with the assumption of good faith on all other parties, it's probably best not to engage at all.
    (Avatar by Cuthalion, who is great.)

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    But I see a huge difference between the following sequences:

    1. Create a campaign idea and setting to match, including setting invariants.
    2. Solicit characters with those invariants, themes, etc in mind
    3. Play
    Roughly how it goes for me. the Players need a little info before they head off to Chargen.
    1. Solicit characters without any but the vaguest theme (ok folks, we're doing a western)
    2. Create the campaign idea and setting to match, trying to reconcile all the disparate character elements
    3. Play
    It can be done; but as a player I like to know a little about the setting ahead of time because I want to make my character fit into the world. As you know, I ask DMs a lot of questions, and I am a huge advocate of chargen is a cooperative effort between DM and Player because it benefits both if the character fits the world.
    Not all of my players put that much effort into it, which saddens me, but most of the current crop do.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-12-07 at 03:19 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    I'm down for collaborative world-building, but I wouldn't do it as a by-product of char-gen - rather, I'd suggest a Session 0 where we decide on the setting / campaign style, discuss character concepts, then go and make characters based on that (not a fan of "chargen at the table" personally).

    Although that said, it's not something that should be expected of a GM; more often IME the GM has at least a big chunk of the setting and campaign focus already decided, and that's fine. Saying "I'll bring lasagna to the potluck" doesn't mean you've agreed to cook any and all possible foods.

  30. - Top - End - #150
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Sell me on the "restricted" multiverse idea

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    It can be done; but as a player I like to know a little about the setting ahead of time because I want to make my character fit into the world. As you know, I ask DMs a lot of questions, and I am a huge advocate of chargen is a cooperative effort between DM and Player because it benefits both if the character fits the world.
    Not all of my players put that much effort into it, which saddens me, but most of the current crop do.
    The way I've seen it described is that when the players ask "what about X", the DM answers with "how do you want it to be", throwing most of the responsibility for that initial worldbuilding/scene setting onto the players. And I don't personally enjoy that as a player OR a DM.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •