Is there something wrong with having setting specific guidelines?

[Kiero]

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

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

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

[Knaight]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Garimeth]

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

Nail on the head.

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

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

[2D8HP]

I couldn't agree more. I have no idea where this weird revanchism of "supreme leader DM" is coming from; I thought the hobby left that behind.

Given how many more desperate players compared to willing DM's there seems to be (Is there a DM shortage? What can or should be done?), in my case beggers can't be choosers and if a DM wants to be "supreme", I don't have a problem with that (though I may start to respond with "it is as you say fearless leader".

In fact, while I have often seen variants of the phrase "no D&D is better than bad D&D", in this Forum, I have to ask, "Just how bad do you mean?", because it has to be really, really bad for me to quit (that has happened though, but not because of in game stuff. I was attacked by the DM's Ferret, and the DM's girlfriend went behind me and put a "bedroom toy" on my shoulder). I have however quit other RPG's, because I found the settings too dull and/or depressing.

Dude, Gygax's table featured both Balrog and Vampire PCs at various times, at a minimum. The Cleric class was invented specifically to counter Sir Fang.

Please give credit where credit is due, while the Balrog was indeed in Gygax's "Greyhawk" campaign, Sir Fang was in Arneson's "Blackmoor" campaign.

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

First off, I want that Viking hat, with "Bow to the DM" printed on it! Second, I'm too old and tired to do as much of that compromise stuff anymore, I've been down that road and I know where it leads, boring modern dayish settings that have machine-guns! No way! When I RPG I want Dragons, Knights, and/or Swashbuckling, I will not partake of any setting with Cyberpunk, and no settings with modern day Secret Agents, Superheroes or Vampires ever again! I will walk away from any RPG that has a wiff of cell phones or assault rifles. No compromise!

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

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

.

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

I loved "Lord's and Ladies", and "The Wee Free Men", and while I'm currently having fun playing an Elf PC, a "taking out the faerie trash" campaign sounds awesome! I wish finding games like that were easier.
On topic, after a DunDraCon in which the only open tables were for Cyberpunk and Vampire (this would be in the late 1980's or early 1990's), a D&D pickup game was organized at someone's house. I remember in particular one guy who complained that when he told the his PC places his sword so that the Dragons inner mouth is pierced by it when it closes it's jaws, the DM's reaction was "roll to hit", later he insisted that he play a "Melnibonean" (from the Eric series), since I was the only other person are the table who had read Moorcock, I suggested that a Drow or Grey Elf would be similar, and he replied, "but I want to play a Melnibonean".
Sheesh!

I want to play a Knight in "Pendragon", a Hussar in "Castle Falkenstein", or a Musketeer in "Flashing Blades", but they are no open tables for those games, and I'm grateful to get to play a Fighter in Dungeons & Dragons!
I just don't understand having any reaction to an opportunity to play D&D as it was or as it is with anything other than gratitude (except of course for the Superfriends-like "Factions" in the Forgotten Realms, because those are just lame, give me Guilds, Orders of Knighthood and manorial villages instead, because those are awesome)!
Now characters that don't fit the setting have been with the hobby since the beginning ("Murlynd" in Greyhawk, the "Techno's" in Arduin), and sometimes they can be accommodated, but in general in the game is "Knights of the Round Table", don't insist on playing a Ninja, and if you insist on playing a Cyber-commando in a "Brethren of the Coast" campaign, ugh, just no! In fact while a Gatling gun in a Steampunk settimg may be acceptable, if any PC or NPC at all has an AK-47 or Uzi, I'm gone. I heard too much gunfire as a youth in the '80's to ever want them in my RPG's!
In short if "having setting specific guidelines" leads to adventures like those in Jason and the Argonauts, The Mabinogoin, The Seahawk, Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, or Swords of Lankhmar, yes, yes, yes, yes, AWESOME!, that gets the 2D8HP seal of approval.

But if the guidelines (or an evil player) tries to make the game into something like The Avengers, James Bond, Neuromancer, The X-Men, or (even though I loved the movie) Double Indemnity, Lame, Lame, Lame, Lame, and no thank you!

[Rockphed]

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

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

[2D8HP]

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

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

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

[Rockphed]

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

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

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

[GrayDeath]

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

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

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


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