Biggest tabletop system pet peeves

[Max_Killjoy]

Because, yes, games like this is where I've learned that "from around here" with a GM that actually cares about their setting is a recipe for disaster.

This is an artifact of your experiences only, then.

There's nothing that makes "I care about my setting" and "make a character who isn't an alien to this setting" inherently result in disaster.

And that GMs that create such closed worlds - that think in terms of excluding things that they don't like - also rarely create content that interests me. See also "Railroading".

This has nothing to do with railroading.

A GM asking that you not make an elf or dwarf in a hard-science-fiction near-future game, or not make a robot in a low fantasy alternate history game, is not railroading.

A GM telling you that the setting for this next campaign has no interdimentional travel, no worldhopping, and no "incarnated gods" is not railroading.

A GM telling you that the fantasy setting for their next campaign has no elves, dwarves, or halflings is not railroading.


This notion that all games, all campaigns, all worlds, are connected and share a set of core assumptions and requirement... is a shambling zombie, a thing that only lived when the entire RPG hobby rested on one man's preferences and assumptions... it went on life support the moment they published and others started running their own games using "his" system, and it died instant that other systems and settings were introduced.

I mean, I haven't actually done the math, but I think there's more complaints about SoD effects that just ignore HP and allow you to (maybe) one-shot someone than there are about HP, even on these boards. Thus, my confusion remains, unabated.

SoD gets complaints in part BECAUSE of its bizarro relationship with high-scaling HP.

[CharonsHelper]

IME, I've found that closed minds tend to create closed worlds, and that such closed minds tend to create tight rails, and otherwise create games that aren't worth my time to play of a style that I'll enjoy.

That is broadening the definition of 'railroading' to the point of meaninglessness.

[Quertus]

Then your experiences don't match those of most gamers. There's nothing that makes "I care about my setting" and "make a character who isn't an alien" inherently result in disaster.

So, the root of the problem is, I view the world sideways from the way humans see it. A GM who cares about his setting will always find that my character doesn't seem to fit, because what they explain and what they think they are explaining and what I see don't match. There are parts of human social interaction where most humans struggle, and I just "see the obvious" and think humans are idiots. There are other areas where I struggle, and humans are baffled that I can't "see the obvious" (and, doubtless, often think that I'm an idiot). VERY FEW humans are capable of putting aside their assumptions of what is obvious, and explaining all the little steps from "A" to "B". So my character will always have opinions and attitudes that make them feel alien, no matter how well the setting is explained to me.

IME, GMs who "care about their setting" don't like aliens from their setting. Better, IME, to be an alien from outside their setting. Much less hard feelings that way.

This has nothing to do with railroading.

A GM asking that you not make an elf or dwarf in a hard-science-fiction near-future game, or not make a robot in a low fantasy alternate history game, is not railroading.

A GM telling you that the setting for this next campaign has no interdimentional travel, no worldhopping, and no "incarnated gods" is not railroading.

A GM telling you that the fantasy setting for their next campaign has no elves, dwarves, or halflings is not railroading.


This notion that all games, all campaigns, all worlds, are connected and share a set of core assumptions and requirement... is a shambling zombie, a thing that only lived when the entire RPG hobby rested on one man's preferences and assumptions... it went on life support the moment they published and others started running their own games using "his" system, and it died instant that other systems and settings were introduced.

Ah, no, that's... hmmm... a bit off-target.

I fully accept the concept that a system has constraints. But most systems I play have multiple worlds, multiple distinct campaigns, and otherwise multiple places to be from. A character from one D&D world can, canonically, travel to other D&D worlds, through a variety of mechanisms.

Of course, A D&D character can, also canonically, travel to many non-D&D worlds, many of which are not sword-and-sorcery fantasy, so... TSR blurred the lines much more than I expect them to be blurred. So, long live the undead!

Now, personally, I happen to prefer like RIFTS-like games where "not from around here" can be really alien, but... that's not what I'm talking about. So talk of running elves on space ships or Robots with Quertus wizards is, while fun, not what I mean when I talk about running an existing character elsewhere. That level of exploration is... difficult to roleplay to my standards.

-----

Now, as to railroading... my experience is, GMs who close off otherwise open settings (like, say, D&D) tend to correspond strongly to GMs who close off reasonable options, and GMs who railroad, and many other things that make me say, "big red flag that I won't enjoy this game".

Never mind that, having to learn about the world well enough to make a character from the world cuts down on the Exploration that is my greatest source of enjoyment in a game.

SoD gets complaints in part BECAUSE of its bizarro relationship with high-scaling HP.

Hmmm, I suppose that could make sense.

EDIT:

That is broadening the definition of 'railroading' to the point of meaninglessness.

I assume this is just you misunderstanding me because I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say was, IME, the type of PERSONALITY that would close worlds is the same type of PERSONALITY that would shut down reasonable options, and the same type of PERSONALITY that would Railroad.

I tend to define "RAILROADING" as what DU calls, IIRC, "bad jerk GM" - one who would shoot down something that would reasonably work just because it doesn't match their "One True Path".

If I actually got my message across the first time, and you understood me, and now I've misunderstood you, please, explain how my definition of railroading is broad and meaningless.

[Florian]

No, sorry. I don't play D&D, I play a setting using the D&D rules to do so.

[Max_Killjoy]

D&D is not a setting.

D&D is a system.

The players (GM and otherwise) can choose to do whatever they want setting wise, including disregarding the "many worlds" aspect of the published settings from TSR and WOTC.

This whole thing with players assuming that if it's in a D&D book then it's automatically OK in any campaign at any table anywhere, that "I can bring my character from any table and play them at any other table" is a universal truth, and that the GM is being "a jerk" or "railroading" if they say "this setting has no crossworlds connections and no gnomes or halflings"... is one of the reasons I finally gave up on the entire D&D-like/d20 thing -- games, products, settings, subcommunity of gamers, and all.

[Knaight]

This notion that all games, all campaigns, all worlds, are connected and share a set of core assumptions and requirement... is a shambling zombie, a thing that only lived when the entire RPG hobby rested on one man's preferences and assumptions... it went on life support the moment they published and others started running their own games using "his" system, and it died instant that other systems and settings were introduced.

Preach it. It's also worth observing that this divide neatly segments RPGs into two periods. One of them is maybe six months long, the other about forty years. That six month period shouldn't be dictating what RPGs are.

IME, GMs who "care about their setting" don't like aliens from their setting. Better, IME, to be an alien from outside their setting. Much less hard feelings that way.

You're using a bizarre definition of setting here. If you're playing in their game, then you have a PC in their setting, which means you either have a PC from their setting or you're trying to unilaterally declare that their setting isn't actually their setting, but just part of someone else's much bigger setting who can override their setting design.

That notion can die. I have no problem with opt-in mega settings involving a bunch of GMs, module writers, etc. and various restrictions for those who've opted in. Trying to dictate that every game be like that though? That's just unreasonable.

I fully accept the concept that a system has constraints. But most systems I play have multiple worlds, multiple distinct campaigns, and otherwise multiple places to be from. A character from one D&D world can, canonically, travel to other D&D worlds, through a variety of mechanisms.

That's what WotC's default setting says, sure. I point you to my previous comment about how the great sages of WotC naturally have and deserve the mantle of the only people who deserve to create settings, which they inherited from TSR.

Of course, A D&D character can, also canonically, travel to many non-D&D worlds, many of which are not sword-and-sorcery fantasy, so... TSR blurred the lines much more than I expect them to be blurred. So, long live the undead!

The level of presumptuousness of D&D writers trying to write rules for how to play games other than D&D into their D&D settings is almost impressive. They can say whatever they want, nobody else has to listen to them.

Now, as to railroading... my experience is, GMs who close off otherwise open settings (like, say, D&D) tend to correspond strongly to GMs who close off reasonable options, and GMs who railroad, and many other things that make me say, "big red flag that I won't enjoy this game".

Players trying to dictate my settings to me, in my experience, are universally problem players.

I tend to define "RAILROADING" as what DU calls, IIRC, "bad jerk GM" - one who would shoot down something that would reasonably work just because it doesn't match their "One True Path".

By that definition they still have nothing to do with each other.

[Max_Killjoy]

So, the root of the problem is, I view the world sideways from the way humans see it. A GM who cares about his setting will always find that my character doesn't seem to fit, because what they explain and what they think they are explaining and what I see don't match. There are parts of human social interaction where most humans struggle, and I just "see the obvious" and think humans are idiots. There are other areas where I struggle, and humans are baffled that I can't "see the obvious" (and, doubtless, often think that I'm an idiot). VERY FEW humans are capable of putting aside their assumptions of what is obvious, and explaining all the little steps from "A" to "B". So my character will always have opinions and attitudes that make them feel alien, no matter how well the setting is explained to me.

That doesn't require the character to be from some other world outside the setting -- any more than you are from some other world.

IME, GMs who "care about their setting" don't like aliens from their setting. Better, IME, to be an alien from outside their setting. Much less hard feelings that way.

There is no "outside the setting".

If the setting includes contact with or travel to and from other worlds, dimensions, realities, fictions, or games, then those are by definition part of the setting.

If the players of a campaign (GM or otherwise) decide that the setting for that campaign does not connect in any way with the settings of other campaigns (published or otherwise), that anything happening doesn't exist and doesn't matter for the purposes of that campaign.

[1337 b4k4]

D&D is not a setting.

D&D is a system.

While I am strongly in the “it’s your table and your game, play how you want” camp, D&D is absolutely a setting. Its various rules assume and describe a particular world (which has varied over the years e.g. we no longer really have knights errant and wizards in towers in the middle of nowhere). The existence of various gods, of tangible alignment, of certain races and monsters and even of the relationships between those races. Those are all spelled out in the actual rules and that makes D&D a setting and a system. In fact this is what I allude to when I argue that D&D is not a generic fantasy system but rather a system for playing D&D style fantasy.

[Quertus]

, and that the GM is being "a jerk" or "railroading" if they say "this setting has no crossworlds connections and no gnomes or halflings"

Conflating ideas again. IME, the type of personality likely to create such a setting is the type of personality likely to railroad. They aren't a jerk and railroading because they create closed worlds, they create closed worlds, and they railroad, because they're a jerk. That's the casual direction.

Now, I have encountered a very few closed worlds that were created that way For A Good Reason (TM). Awesome. But that means that I can't bring an existing character that I know I'll enjoy. Instead, now I need to kill a lot of my Exploration joy by pestering the GM for details about the world, customs, etc, get a PHD in their world, only to still build an alien. Or, in average, 20 aliens, until I create a character that I'll enjoy. But, because it still feels alien, it'll grate on the GMs nerves. As if going through 19 failed characters that I didn't enjoy didn't already do so.

No, that just doesn't sound like fun.

There is no "outside the setting".

If the setting includes contact with or travel to and from other worlds, dimensions, realities, fictions, or games, then those are by definition part of the setting.

If the players of a campaign (GM or otherwise) decide that the setting for that campaign does not connect in any way with the settings of other campaigns (published or otherwise), that anything happening doesn't exist and doesn't matter for the purposes of that campaign.

IME, most people consider the Forgotten Realms to be a different setting than Ravenloft or Krynn. Darn overused words.

[Cosi]

A GM asking that you not make an elf or dwarf in a hard-science-fiction near-future game, or not make a robot in a low fantasy alternate history game, is not railroading.

A GM telling you that the setting for this next campaign has no interdimentional travel, no worldhopping, and no "incarnated gods" is not railroading.

A GM telling you that the fantasy setting for their next campaign has no elves, dwarves, or halflings is not railroading.

I agree with the broad sentiment here. Not every game needs to include everything the system it is played with supports. Indeed, most will exclude the vast majority of things the system supports without ever intentionally setting out to do so. When was the last time you encountered a Wayfarer Guide or fought a Loxo? I would hazard that the answer to both of those questions is likely "never", and further that this was probably not even a result of any direct exclusion. The game system is large, and the stories we tell in it dramatically more limited.

But I disagree with the emphasis being put on the DM's decision here. I mean, how is "one guy decides what goes in the game" good just because it happens to be a different guy for different games? While the game should exclude things that fit outside the genre of the story being told, the decision of what that story is (and therefore what to include and what to exclude) is one that should be made by the group.

If you what the right to absolutely control what happens in the story, you should not invite others to contribute to its telling.

[Max_Killjoy]

While I am strongly in the “it’s your table and your game, play how you want” camp, D&D is absolutely a setting. Its various rules assume and describe a particular world (which has varied over the years e.g. we no longer really have knights errant and wizards in towers in the middle of nowhere). The existence of various gods, of tangible alignment, of certain races and monsters and even of the relationships between those races. Those are all spelled out in the actual rules and that makes D&D a setting and a system. In fact this is what I allude to when I argue that D&D is not a generic fantasy system but rather a system for playing D&D style fantasy.

D&D fits certain settings far more aptly than others. Its rules makes a lot of assumptions about the setting that aren't always the assumptions that the "fluff" text would seem to indicate. It is very much better suited to play a specific D&D-style fantasy than any other sort of fantasy, generic or otherwise.

However, it is still a system. No GM is required to use all the races or restrict his world to the published races. No GM is every required to include all the listed magic items, monsters, spells, or classes, either -- or to restrict their campaign to the published races.


In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the published settings for D&D are largely a poor fit for the actual system, and using them together will result in a lot of dissonance. Even the creators of those settings seem to understand this even if they won't say it out loud -- note multiple instances of the "big names" behind Forgotten Realms asking everyone to pretty please play nice and please please not burn down, revolutionize, or Tippify their baby.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I am strongly in the “it’s your table and your game, play how you want” camp, D&D is absolutely a setting. Its various rules assume and describe a particular world (which has varied over the years e.g. we no longer really have knights errant and wizards in towers in the middle of nowhere). The existence of various gods, of tangible alignment, of certain races and monsters and even of the relationships between those races. Those are all spelled out in the actual rules and that makes D&D a setting and a system. In fact this is what I allude to when I argue that D&D is not a generic fantasy system but rather a system for playing D&D style fantasy.

It's more than a system, less than a setting. D&D presumes a few things--

* a broad style of play (heroic people doing heroic things)
* a broad era (roughly medieval-esque technology, but more a cartoon version than a historical one)

But it doesn't presume that all those things in the books are in the setting at hand. Modern editions specifically disclaim that presumption. Everything presented is an option that a setting-designer (or DM) may include or not at his whim. Some pieces go together (if there are no dragons then draconic sorcerers have to change) but nothing in the core assumes the presence of particular gods, races, alignments, etc.

That is, it presumes a restricted range of settings but not a single setting. I play 5e D&D in a distinctly non-stock setting. But it's still D&D--in fact I play with very few house-rules or even variant rules. The only visible one is that I have removed the fixed racial alignments for everyone (gods included).

[PhoenixPhyre]

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the published settings for D&D are largely a poor fit for the actual system, and using them together will result in a lot of dissonance. Even the creators of those settings seem to understand this even if they won't say it out loud -- note multiple instances of the "big names" behind Forgotten Realms asking everyone to pretty please play nice and please please not burn down, revolutionize, or Tippify their baby.

This particular case is one of cross-edition dissonance--the "big name" settings have all gone through multiple editions where the ruleset varied tremendously. Not just mechanically, but in basic assumptions about the nature of the game. Thus, baked-in assumptions from 2e cause dissonance in 3e cause head-scratching in 4e and somewhat (but not really) work in 5e.

Last time they tried to fix this (4e's Spellplague) was an utter, unmitigated sales disaster of tremendous proportions.

I think it would be better (in principle) to treat each edition of D&D as a separate game entirely. What holds for OD&D doesn't hold for AD&D, doesn't hold for 3e, doesn't hold for 4e, and doesn't hold for 5e. They're separate games marketed under the same umbrella with points of similarity but deep philosophical divides.

[Max_Killjoy]

Conflating ideas again. IME, the type of personality likely to create such a setting is the type of personality likely to railroad. They aren't a jerk and railroading because they create closed worlds, they create closed worlds, and they railroad, because they're a jerk. That's the casual direction.

Again, purely your experience.

The vast majority of gamers have not reported running across the problem, with one exception -- the aforementioned assumptions by certain players of universal applicability of all published material to all gaming tables, such that they take offense when a GM tells them that no, they can't bring in their level 12 snowflake with multiple PrCs from wildly divergent incompatible settings who is "half" five different races and blessed by Fate and blah blah blah blah blah.

IME, most people consider the Forgotten Realms to be a different setting than Ravenloft or Krynn. Darn overused words.

If characters and information can travel between them, then they are not isolated settings. Perhaps subsettings, or settings part of an "oversetting".

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree with the broad sentiment here. Not every game needs to include everything the system it is played with supports. Indeed, most will exclude the vast majority of things the system supports without ever intentionally setting out to do so. When was the last time you encountered a Wayfarer Guide or fought a Loxo? I would hazard that the answer to both of those questions is likely "never", and further that this was probably not even a result of any direct exclusion. The game system is large, and the stories we tell in it dramatically more limited.

But I disagree with the emphasis being put on the DM's decision here. I mean, how is "one guy decides what goes in the game" good just because it happens to be a different guy for different games? While the game should exclude things that fit outside the genre of the story being told, the decision of what that story is (and therefore what to include and what to exclude) is one that should be made by the group.

If you what the right to absolutely control what happens in the story, you should not invite others to contribute to its telling.

I would encourage all GMs to work with players, and I have no objection to "shared creation" of settings. I'm using "GM decides" here because it gets old to type out a bunch of qualifiers and details every time.

The point is just as valid if the players all sit down beforehand and contribute to what they'd like to see and not see in the setting, and all but one of them agree that they'd like to do a fantasy setting without the standard EDHG demihumans, and without the "standard model D&D cosmology" and try something else, and that one player demands that he still gets to play the same gnome rogue/mage they always play even if it means dragging it in from another world and breaking the "no other worlds" thing the rest of the players agreed to.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If characters and information can travel between them, then they are not isolated settings. Perhaps subsettings, or settings part of an "oversetting".

At least in modern editions, there is no expectation that one DM's "Forgotten Realms" is the same (or accessible even) as another's.

To quote from the 5e DMG:

Every DM is the creator of his or her own campaign world.

...

Even if you're using an established world such as the Forgotten Realms, your campaign takes place in a sort of mirror universe of the official setting where Forgotten Realms novels, game products, and digital games are assumed to take place. The world is yours to change as you see fit and yours to modify as you explore the consequences of the players' actions.

"Well, canon says" is absolutely not a rule. The only canon in D&D (by official pronouncement) is what the setting-designer decides it to be. Everything else is a guideline or an example that a setting designer can plug in if desired.

[Max_Killjoy]

At least in modern editions, there is no expectation that one DM's "Forgotten Realms" is the same (or accessible even) as another's.

To quote from the 5e DMG:



"Well, canon says" is absolutely not a rule. The only canon in D&D (by official pronouncement) is what the setting-designer decides it to be. Everything else is a guideline or an example that a setting designer can plug in if desired.

So 5e, at least, has abandoned wholesale the idea of a giant shared over-campaign that all campaigns are part of, and the idea of a single shared Forgotten Realms (or whatever published setting) for all tables.

Good for them.

But IMO that doesn't invalidate the broader point that for a particular table (GM's decision, group decision, whatever), their setting is either connected to those other settings as part of a bigger overall "setting", or it's not -- it's an isolated standalone universe.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So 5e, at least, has abandoned wholesale the idea of a giant shared over-campaign that all campaigns are part of, and the idea of a single shared Forgotten Realms (or whatever published setting) for all tables.

Good for them.

But IMO that doesn't invalidate the broader point that for a particular table (GM's decision, group decision, whatever), their setting is either connected to those other settings as part of a bigger overall "setting", or it's not -- it's an isolated standalone universe.

I was supporting your point, not opposing it. There's no expectation that there's interconnections.

[georgie_leech]

If I actually got my message across the first time, and you understood me, and now I've misunderstood you, please, explain how my definition of railroading is broad and meaningless.

Regardless of whether you personally would find such a character interesting, would you accept Mario as a character in your games? Not someone that acts like Mario, but the actual mustachioed quasi-plumber that defeats his enemies by jumping on them and powers up by eating mushrooms? Would this game accept, at the same time, Khorne as a character? And also Thomas the Train Engine? Along with Barack Obama and MYOCDON'TSTEAL the anthropomorphic hedgehog? Again, not if you would enjoy playing these characters, but if your games, where you are the GM, would accept all of them playing at once at the same time.

[Jay R]

One of the many problems with taking a character to a new DM's table is that you don't necessarily know everything about your own equipment. Some curses don't show up immediately.

Back in original D&D, I heard about one player who had moved his character from my world to a new DM's world. Neither the player nor the new DM knew that his sword was cursed, and would refuse to attack any evil priest.

Similarly, a potion of confusion that the player thought was a potion of flight had now become a potion of flight.

[On the other hand, the wish he had but didn't know about disappeared.]

[Rhedyn]

It tends to behoove a GM to say "yes" whenever they can.

You want to play a robot in a fantasy setting? Would a magic golem work?

You want to play an elf in my transhumanism setting? Would an elf-shaped flesh sleeve work?

Like your character has to make sense and I've found that the GMs who make it work are generally both more creative and have more motivated players.

[Florian]

Overall, the notion that "settings are universal" seems to be strongly connected with an aversion against house rules and unknown rulings. I find it funny. Doesn't the DMG section begin with "make it your own"? (I partly blame organized play for this)

[PopeLinus1]

One of my pet peeves is when a player will try to do something horribly impossible-

Wizrd: “I pick up the chariot”

And you sigh, and ask them to role

Wizard: “I roll a natural 20”

And you pull your hair out trying to find a way to shut them down without being a annoying DM

[Knaight]

But I disagree with the emphasis being put on the DM's decision here. I mean, how is "one guy decides what goes in the game" good just because it happens to be a different guy for different games? While the game should exclude things that fit outside the genre of the story being told, the decision of what that story is (and therefore what to include and what to exclude) is one that should be made by the group.

If you what the right to absolutely control what happens in the story, you should not invite others to contribute to its telling.

Again, the contents of the setting and the actions of the PCs are being conflated here - having creative control of one doesn't imply creative control of the other, something that is generally understood well when it comes to DMs encroaching on how PCs are played.

I say this as someone who routinely starts a game by asking what genre my players feel like playing in.

[georgie_leech]

One of my pet peeves is when a player will try to do something horribly impossible-

Wizrd: “I pick up the chariot”

And you sigh, and ask them to role

Wizard: “I roll a natural 20”

And you pull your hair out trying to find a way to shut them down without being a annoying DM

"No, you can't do that. Skill Checks automatically succeeding on a Nat 20 isn't a house rule that I use." If that is a house rule you use, don't let people roll for things like that. If you use that house rule and you called for that roll, deal with the consequences of your choices and let it happen

[awa]

Yeah if he can’t succeed on a nat 20 simply don’t waste his time with a roll.

That said depending on time period and design their totally were chariots an average man could lift.
In this case it might be a problem of misunderstanding what’s in front of him, whenever one of my players tries to do something stupid or impossible I double check that were both picturing the same thing.

[Cluedrew]

But yes - "game master" should probably be lower case. Unless you consider it to be a title?

Title as in "doctor" so a position label, not a personal title (like "the Conqueror"). There are probably some formal rules about that, I don't know what they are but game master seems solidly enough in the first group I have never bothered to check. And yes I do say "gee-em" so it would be written "GM".

[Max_Killjoy]

I was supporting your point, not opposing it. There's no expectation that there's interconnections.

I went back and forth half a dozen times on how I read that and how I thought you were reading my comment you were replying to and...

[CharonsHelper]

Title as in "doctor" so a position label, not a personal title (like "the Conqueror"). There are probably some formal rules about that, I don't know what they are but game master seems solidly enough in the first group I have never bothered to check. And yes I do say "gee-em" so it would be written "GM".

I would think it would also be like "dad" - capitalized when used in place of their name.

So - "My gamemaster lets me transport between worlds" is correct, but so is "Hello Gamemaster, might I transfer my character from another world?" In addition - when used as a title - "Last week Gamemaster Dave let me transfer my mecha pilot to his sword & sorcery style world.".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I went back and forth half a dozen times on how I read that and how I thought you were reading my comment you were replying to and...

My bad. I was writing between classes and with bad allergies so I wasn't all that clear. But yes, we're in agreement here.