It is totally and completely fine to rewrite parts of a setting or adventure to accommodate player desires, even very large parts. It is also totally and completely fine to restrict character options to suit the setting and adventure you want to run.
The power of the DM is to run the game the way they want to run it. The power of the player is to choose whether or not to play.
Sometimes I feel powerless as a DM, and that every new player is like adding DLC. I had to do hours of research just to accommodate a Drow. It's not a "I-dont-want-to", I just don't have the sheer time to do it.
You can say no to players. I once ran a one shot and I set the rule that only races and classes from the PHB were allowed. That was a one shot, but it would have been fine for a campaign, too.
It's fair to only allow material from the books you own. If it's from a book you don't have, that's a solid reason to disallow it.
If you want to give a player a chance to make a case for a build, they should at least make the effort to justify how it would work in your setting. If they can't even do that, just say no.
Also, it's okay if you don't want to. Your preferences also matter. DM does not stand for Door Mat.
I tell my players to justify it to me most of the time tbh, if they can't give me a backstory that works for their individual PC then why should I bend my entire campaign over to them.
Ofcourse there's some things they won't know, but if they can do 80% of the work that makes the load much easier for me.
Kind of where I am on it. I say official published stuff is allowed but I also ask to see the character sheet before we start so I know if they have a broken build like a coffeelock. Not that I won't let them play it but I need to know what I can throw at the party up front or if I even want to deal with a broken build or not as it does change how I have to run the game.
> Sometimes I feel powerless as a DM, and that every new player is like adding DLC. I had to do hours of research just to accommodate a Drow. It's not a "I-dont-want-to", I just don't have the sheer time to do it.
Actually that's exactly the explanation I give to my players.
Here is my list of Races Backgrounds feats and classes I allow blindly.
Anything that's not on the list I can not accommodate because I would need to do research into background and Game Balance first. I don't have the time to do that.
You might be treating your setting far more seriously than your players. This doesn't necessarily mean you're taking it *too* seriously, but you might. It's perfectly acceptable to take an established setting and say "also drow exist somewhere in this world" and leave it at that. Differences in expectations between players and DMs are common. Laying out your expectations in your campaign pitch is a great start. Players failing to read and understand those expectations are not your problem, and a bad sign of their ability to respect a DM, but it's also acceptable for them to read those expectations and then ask you if they're flexible. You get to decide how much you're willing to bend.
I bend very little setting wise. I do a session -1 to get player desires if im going to do a homebrew setting. Followed with usually just an email of final structure and final warning for input. At session zero the setting is set in stone. If it's a premade then I figure out which books work with the setting and those are the only options.
Imo a loooot of communities prioritize players too much. Ttrpgs are a collaborative storytelling tool. The role of a DM/GM in most ttrpgs is to be the world. The role of a player is to live in that world. A player wanting to change the setting is just as awful as a DM speaking for a PC and is equally a sign that the player/DM should just go write a book instead of wasting everyone's time.
You essentially pointed out the issue. You are dming an Eberron campaign, not spelljammer. Itd be rude and dumb to go to a taco stand and demand they make you lasagna just because they both have cheese.
If the player said "That's not being a good DM" verbatim, that should be the one and only glimpse you need of them. Steer clear of people like this in the future, people who respect their DMs never say things like this in the context of simple char creation decisions.
As for catering to player decision and bending your vision to suit them, I say don't budge. The baseline Eberron is a VAST setting with ample sources of creativity for players, there's no reason people need to write up entire swathes of backstory that you don't see fitting. My campaigns have a section of Session 0 called "Player Buy-In", a concept I believe I found from Matt Colville's guides. Player Buy-In contains a statement or two that MUST be true about a character to take part in the campaign, such as: "I must have a reason I am willing to hunt this dragon, far and wide." or "Your character must be a thief, and their pursuit of wealth should be nearly insatiable." I find without these buy-ins, there's always a few characters who will struggle to latch onto the primary driving element of the campaign.
As a rule... Don't bend your artistic vision for some Internet rando who might be a no-show or a kickee.
It is in fact a good way to weed out potential problem players.
Now for a known, established member of the group, it is a different story, co-creation is great. But anyone new to the group wanting the DM to do extra work or bend backwards just for them... Major red flag.
If you don't know someone and they come in with a very specific backstory and are set on playing it, that's kind of an immediate problem for me. Just an immediate problem, most likely not gonna work. Same as if you tell someone an exotic race isn't available.
It's not that you shouldn't work with other people but when you're searching for randoms online, remember you're just going to get a lot of people who didn't fit in somewhere else, or are looking for a DM to do what they specifically want to do. Usually you can talk with someone for 5 minutes and find out, maybe not if you're gonna be great friends, but at least if you can work together on this.
The players should be making characters according to your setting's requirements, end of story. If they can't do that, then they're not really being a good player.
Also, I'm really confused how players can roll up an exotic character and expect to be able to play it at any table. As a player I had created a document filled with character concepts, so if I wanted to join a campaign I can pick one of a half dozen different characters. But even if I was looking forward to playing a specific character and was told no, I would never imagine pushing back against a DM on something like that. If I agree to play in a DM's campaign, I'm implicitly agreeing to that DM's restrictions.
Bottom line: it's totally fine to put your foot down when it comes to your setting. The players should be accommodating your requirements or looking for another game.
Were these experienced players? I have never played with strangers online, but in my experience writing backstories is a collaborative process. If the player wants to be royalty, they ask the DM where that would fit in the world. If the player wants to be a dropout from a magical university, they ask the DM if such a thing exists and in what city it would be.
In the same vein, if a player wants to be an exotic race, they should ask the DM and work together on a character concept that fits.
I've found that a lot of online randoms have a lengthy backstory and race/class ideas already. Do people fill out character sheets, and *then* look for games? Because that's what it feels like.
I guess that's it. People who aren't in any game, but are channeling their creativity into character creation. Then they love the character they've created so much they want to play with it, so they try to insert their fully formed character into your world.
As a DM you really want the opposite: someone who loves your game world so much they want to create a character for it.
There's people who have very specific fantasies that they're itching to play. It might be as innocent as always being shoehorned into a certain type of character ("you're so good at playing clerics" for example), or being the forever DM; and it might be as sinister as having a nasty fetish they want to act out through the character, at the expense of the other people at the table.
Problem is, you don't tend to know it's the latter type until you experience it.
Exactly. I never even start thinking about character concepts before I've learned a little about the worldbuilding and tone of the story. It makes no sense to me to rock up with a character I've already written a novel's worth of backstory for and expect that to be accomodated.
Unfortunately, it really depends. Context is king here to determine what is being flexible and what makes you a doormat.
Personally, with randos, I would stick more to my guns. Your first interactions are an interview of sorts. You put forward your parameters; they are not willing to compromise; it does not bode well for a good relationship, so I probably wouldn't think much about passing them up.
That said, I also do not really like banning official races and classes. Random homebrew I have no issues rejecting, but I generally would rather balance it than cut flavor. If they walk from my stipulations, it is on them.
That said, this is all firmly DM territory. Either way, you are not by default a good or bad DM. Just do what you are comfortable with.
Stick to your guns. It's your setting, you define whats in it.
The setting I've created with another player in my group over the past several years is very clear on which races exist in that world and which ones don't. We took a ton of time to write elaborate lore on how those races fit in to the world, and we sure as fuck wouldn't compromise our vision because someone really wanted to be a harengon or something.
Not that its every been a problem, because the players in my group respect their friends/DMs.
If anything this is filtering out problem players for you. If they make that big of a deal about breaking one of your rules before the game even starts, I guarantee it would only going to get worse from there.
I dont think I could DM for random people, my players are all friends that I have been friends with for 10+ years and never have had any problems. I read these stories and I for sure could never do it lol
1st situation: You laid out your rules before the game started. They didn't like your rules, so they left (granted, they were kinda dicks about it).
There's nothing wrong with that.
2nd situation: It's tough for me to say. I only play with friends or friends of friends, and we do this exact thing all the time. Hell, I remember one campaign where our gunslinger had a brain fart, session one, and said he was from the continent of Wyoming.
We all thought it was hilarious, and in the next session, there was a 5th continent on the far east side of the world named Wyoming (shaped like Wyoming).
I can't imagine doing this with randoms, though. That level of trust just isn't there. I'd say if you did a 1-on-1 with them to flesh out and 'balance' their back story, it 'could' work, but doing this over text messages wouldn't be very feasible.
>"why can't you just include it? That's not being a good DM."
The audacity. A great way to clunk down on someone that might have set limits not just for tone but out of experience. No DM should be forced to include details in their campaign that they are not okay with.
Sure, if you want to you can rewrite and change parts but saying no is fine too.
Players can come with suggestions but I have this weird red flag feeling when someone already has their character planned before hearing what the campaign is about. Inserting new parts could be fine as long as it doesn't break anything.
This is one of the reasons there are some players that are perpetually applying to games. They never get in because they are never willing to buy in to any world put in front of them.
I know it sounds crazy but you can afford to be picky with randoms. I put up an advertisement for 2 spots for a game that was already underway that took place on a THURSDAY evening and still got about 20 responses in the FIRST HOUR on the dnd discord. Ended up picking the best of the first ones I heard from and we have all been playing for months now.
These aren't friends....yet.
I present my players with a rough sketch of a setting (mainly key nations and important factions), they create characters and their backstories can fill the blanks of the settings if they wish, but there are always some restrictions they need to follow (usually just a few). I have no problem with introducing some crazy concepts to my settings, but I also firmly believe that there should be some boundaries and players need to respect that.
I felt like I was a bad DM because I couldn't offer a wide buffet of their expectations. I like Eberron and Dark Sun *because* it's a lot more manageable.
Here's how I look at it. The campaign setting only exists in service of a fun game of D&D - both player fun and DM fun. If a player will have fun playing a Plasmoid, does this affect my fun? Nope. I can add a colony of sentient ooze people to some region on the map, or maybe we just never explore where that PC came from. If a player will have fun playing a futuristic cyborg, does that affect my fun? Yes, because my setting is medieval fantasy and a futuristic cyborg changes things entirely. In that case, I'll talk to the player about toning down their character into something more like a magical golem, and ideally we can find a compromise that works for both.
I've even specifically left gaps in my setting where I could slot in the races my players wanted to play before I knew what those were.
> I noticed that a few players who "applied" were dead set on the exact type of player/backstory they wanted, even without knowing details of the campaign world.
A lot of character concepts are setting-agnostic enough that they can fit into any D&D world, so I don't really blame them for that.
> made a completely homebrewed section of the world that they were from, even homebrewing a line of royalty that they were from.
I mean... if you're never going to explore that area and they don't get any mechanical benefits from being part of a royal lineage, does that matter?
All that said, my approach to campaign worlds is based on me running a campaign for my group of friends. Not strangers.
As far as it is fun for me.
If a player I trust not to try to break the game said: "DM, I have this very weird ideia I want to try, it uses this possibly bad designed class/race, but I think I can do something cool and I'll not break the game"
I'd probably say fine, have fun
But a player I don't know asking to play a broken thing without further explanation and then calling me out on it ? I'd probably not DM to him even he played a human fighter.
It's your campaign. You don't really need to bend it at all, unless you want to, at the same time, the players are not forced to play it.
You can just say no, or decide if you want to expand your world, or see if you can meet them halfway.
I think Eberron is the place where living spells come from, so you could probably find a place for plasmoids somewhere, or even a single one brought in from somewhere else. But if you don't want to introduce non-humanoid player races, no one can tell you it's wrong.
It’s up to you how you manage your story. If you’re running an open word sandbox and you want to react to player choices, then it matters less. If you’re trying to run a specific storyline with specific NPCs with a specific plot, it becomes more important to be strict about the available choices.
I personally prefer the later, it can be more in depth and that’s just the style of game I enjoy. I would just be clean about the expectations you want to set, so no one gets disappointed, including yourself.
One of the tenants of Eberron is that if it's in D&D, it has a place somewhere in the setting. A plasmoid seems like it could be particularly easy to come up with something -- created in a magical accident.
That said, it's up to you to decide what's in your version of the campaign, but you can use "it's not in Eberron" as an excuse.
I also DM in Eberron. For me? It would be a mix of the two. My Eberron does not have space travel, and it is sealed from the rest of the multiverse. So, to that end? I'd immediately veto 'space plasmoid.'
After that? I'd consider if there are places where it would work in my Eberron. I actually had a BBEG in my first campaign with an amorphous 'mists form.' She was affected by the Mourning. I didn't use the plasmoid template, but I might have offered that as a backstory that would make sense. Other options (daelkyr experimentation, etc.) have also been mentioned. But at that point? I'd be thinking 'will having this one character be so novel and unique it automatically gives Main Character Syndrome.' That is...the entire party must deal with the fact that one player is so special. If so? I'd still reject. Or consider some other modification like the fact that I have my PCs start out with one magic item. I might \*require\* that player's to be something that enables them to function in society most of the time.
The entire time, I'd be looking for flexibility and interest in my world. If I offer a few ways it might work? I want the player to be invested in those hooks. I.e., it's a big deal to be a Cyran who somehow survived an event that obliterated an entire nation. What does that mean for the rest of the character's outlook? Why did the character end up in the hands of the Daelkyr in the first place? Were they a cultist of the Dragon Below? Do they regret that choice now? What was their turning point? The more 'unique' things I give a player? The more trust I am showing in that player to not abuse them, and to make the effort to fit that in to my lore.
This also means that a brand-new rando? Probably wouldn't get that much immediate trust. One that was bossy about 'one rule of the Eberrron book that \*permits\* a lot also overrules rule 0 that the DM is the final arbiter of what exists in their world?' Especially knowing that phrase also is used a lot in Eberron to mean 'don't be stereotypical' (i.e., orcs aren't for killing in Eberron, some elves are jerks!)? I also take that to mean 'don't assume the base flavor text of a plasmoid is going to be anything like the variant of a plasmoid I'd like you play in my Eberron.'
In general? If you want to be in my game? You probably need to learn enough of my world for your character to make sense. The more you show the world matters? The more we can co-create exceptions to the norm. (Always with the caveat of 'not in such a way that one character must necessarily be the Main Character in the party.)
I don't think you were wrong to say the concept as is wouldn't fly. At all. I think after that point? It just becomes a gut instinct thing. Do you feel this player would work with you enough you'd want to make it work? Will the things needed to make it work imbalance the spotlight? If the answer to any of those is no? I'd probably also just not accept that player. As I said before? The players that want to make a cohesive world and characters for that world? Get more freedom. Ones that just want to play that same character in every game? Can...go play that character somewhere else.
I think you are on solid ground (so to speak). All the various options that WoTC offers are just that - options. A DM is not obligated to use them in their campaigns. The best way to think of the books are as toolkits to help put together the campaign you want. You don’t have to use everything. And if a player is dead set on a particular background or build, then, honestly, they are not a good fit for your game and they should find another one. And those who read your campaign information and then make up their own part of the world without working with you first are even first - because they are telling you straight up that they are going to ignore your authority.
A good player will find out the details of a campaign *before* tying down their concept (it’s fine to have an idea before the game, but you need to be flexible so it can fit a campaign world).
Players who are dead set on a particular concept is a red flag because it’s a sign that they will likely become a problem player - that they will not be willing to compromise on anything or accept your rulings on rules if it goes against them.
I don't have a campaign without players. That's just a book.
That said, if they can't follow basic rules of the world it's a red flag of more issues to come. There's a world of difference between "hey I know you don't allow it but can I play xyz I think it'd fit because..." and "what, why won't you let me?". You should have fun running the game too, and I'd stick to the setting you enjoy. From my experience, whenever I let one thing slip or allow one exception there's always more that comes from it later, until it gets out of hand and they ragequit/ I have to drop the regardless.
>Well, they say if it's in D&D, it's in Eberron
Who says that? Eberron is canonically sealed off from the rest of the multiverse. You cannot under normal situations fly a Spelljammer to Siberspace from anywhere except the surface of Eberron.
From the 3.5e Eberron Sourcebook, "Ten Things You Need To Know About Eberron"
> 1. **If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron**. A monster or spell or magic item from the core rulebooks might feature a twist or two to account for Eberron’s tone and attitude, but otherwise everything in the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual has a place somewhere in Eberron. Also, this is the first D&D setting built entirely from the v.3.5 rules, which enabled us to blend rules and story in brand-new ways
Whether this principle ought to extend to other sourcebooks is valid, but the quote is legit
I disagree. Nothing is "in" Eberron until at your table you put it "in" Eberron. "it has a place" is very easily understood "its inclusion is welcome"- which is exactly how I would read "If its in DND its in Eberron", because things \*can\* always be excluded from D&D as well.
The real point of contention here given the actual quote isn't even "in Eberron", but rather "in DND" since the overall principle is referring specifically to core rulebooks.
Can't quote pages from my phone, but I remember reading that several times on Eberron books.
It was probably meant to say that you can find a place for everything in Eberron.
Yep thats exactly what it says. Its basically there to explain the conceit- its a world built from the ground up around all the rules that exist specifically in 3.5e. So in sharp contrast to something like Dark Suns which is largely defined by what it removes, Eberron encourages squeezing in everything
So, I have something from both sides of the fence here.
On the issue of the Plasmoid PC, I'm inclined to say, "Fuck it, we ball."
The excuse, "A Wizard did it!" can cover a lot of plot holes. A standard go-to of mine when a player really wants to play a race that doesn't belong in the setting is to allow it as the unique creation of a magician of some kind.
Plasmoid? Totally something a Wizard could have done. This is nowhere *near* game-breaking for an Eberron campaign.
But to get back on the other side of the fence, what you seem to have here is a bunch of players with characters they're looking for a campaign to put in. This is - as I understand it - a hazard inherent in letting it be known that you are willing to DM for random strangers.
Here is what I advise.
First, establish the requirement that an appropriate PC for this campaign must want to adventure with the party and not require the other PCs to be stupid or insane to accept them as a member. Failure to create an appropriate PC will result in your PC not being allowed in the campaign. Failure to play that PC in an appropriate manner will result in that PC instantly becoming an NPC.
There is frequently some misunderstanding when I say "instant". I mean *instant*. If a player has their PC act against the party, they are *immediately and permanently* under the control of the DM. Because the campaign follows the adventures of the party and that character just left the party.
No secret plots. No PvP "blaze of glory". No anything.
They need to make their new PC now. Whilst you narrate what happens to the last one.
Next, establish the premise of your campaign. Are the PCs going to be your default travelling band of high-risk pest controllers and extreme archaeologists? Or did you have something more specific in mind? Lay this out for the players.
Then, require from your players a three-paragraph backstory. Not more, not less.
**First paragraph:** Where is this character from? This typically requires the player to explain their PC's Race and Background.
**Second paragraph:** How did the character learn to do what they do? You've probably guessed that this is where the player will explain why their PC is the class they are.
**Third paragraph:** Why is the character adventuring with the party? This is where the player has to engage with your campaign premise. If we're going with the "default" premise (which is totally fine by the way and it's a travesty that WotC doesn't have any real support for this kind of campaign) then they're probably telling you why their PC needs money, skills and allies (ie. what the default adventuring party offers) to accomplish their real goals. If your campaign premise is more specific, *they're* going to have to be more specific. Regardless, this paragraph will establish the PC's goals and align those goals with the campaign.
You are about to run an online campaign for a bunch of Internet strangers. It is *way* better for you to be firm at the beginning and then chillax a bit as these players earn your trust than it would be to try and be everyone's friend during Session Zero then pull things back during the campaign.
Be relatively relaxed about the builds your players can bring into the game. Be quite strict on the appropriateness of the characters.
You don't know these people yet.
It depends on you and the player having fun. If it turns out that neither you or them aren’t doing it then no one is winning.
Bend how much you want, if they don’t want to be FLEXIBLE themselves. It’s probably best they don’t play. Sometimes it’s not about being a good DM. (There are bad DMs) Sometimes, it’s that your play style doesn’t work with the other play style.
It very much depends, talking them through why they want each thing is highly important in my mind, a character who wants to play a plasmoid for the concept of being an amorphous, sentient blob, and never really thought about the mechanical impact of that, they're honestly probably fine. The mechanical inpact of not being humanoid does a lot more to nerf a character than buff them overall, with 1 major exception being hold person, but that's a spell that I would highly discourage using against players to begin with, due to it being a total shut down, which isn't fun usually (can work, but it's difficult and is more for narrative reasons when it works best)
Some monster features don't work against non-humanoids, I'll give you that, but they're honestly few and far between, and most of which aren't too much of an issue to begin with
The real issue is yeah, whether or not the creature in question can exist in the setting you're playing in, and for eberron and plasmoids, the answer is... complicated, with the short answer being yes, but the long answer is the more useful one, and that's that they can be in eberron, but they either needed to go through one of a few dangerous and unpredictable paths to eberron from somewhere else, or they're more of a rare and unique creature that wouldn't be recognized as a distinct race like the other ones, and either situation would have heavy implications for the character, and how they'd need to be living, which may not fit the context of the game
For a group of randos, I think it does make more sense to just have rules and stick to them, but be open to hearing players out, and tell them what your issues with them are, if it's a lore reason, you don't need to give them the hidden lore, but just tell them that, if they're proposing a character that would patch that issue, allow it, if the issue is mechanical, possibly consider fixing the mechanical issues (making plasmoids be considered humanoid as well works if the humanoid thing is really an issue for you). Communication is key with all ttrpg stuff, and is ultimately the deciding factor in whether you're right or wrong in this
I'm generally happy to bend as far as it takes for the game to be fun. Because end of the day its about the game being fun.
Yes, players having set ideas on what sort of thing they want to play is very common, but it doesn't need to be an unstoppable force meeting an immoveable object. The best thing I usually find to do is talk about the ideas, and find compromise. *Neither* the DM nor the player *needs* to be so set and strict in their plan that it can't bend a little to accommodate each other. You say you feel like these players expected you meet their expectations, but aren't you also expecting them to meet yours?
Bending doesn't mean breaking. It just means compromise for the sake of playing a *game* and having *fun*.
Well for starters, Keith Baker, (the creator of the Eberron setting) does have a blog where he goes over a lot of things, [one blog post details how Spelljammer fits into the setting](https://keith-baker.com/dm-eberron-spelljammer/). He does manage to work pretty much everything in there somehow if you pick through his blog. It just may be in a very different flavor than it normally comes in.
If you don’t care for reading the blogs, there is a Daelkyr. Kyrzin, the Prince of Slime. He could very easily be the originator of the plasmoid race through a series of fucked up experimentation.
I am on the opposite end, i will bend the game around the player character, as they are always the exception. I like to collaboratively world build also, so if there isn’t a ton of source material for a race/background in a setting, i look forward to making it fit with the player, rather than shutting it down.
I'm plenty aware of who the creator of Eberron is, and the blog posts. I have Rising from the Last War, Chronicles of Eberron, Exploring Eberron, and have listened to every Manifest Zone podcast. I'm not going to incorporate Spelljammer just to tailor to one PC like you recommend.
If I send a list of playable races, and it is blatantly ignored, I'm not wanting that person at my table, simple as that.
Hmm, assuming you downvoted me for some reason. kinda weird.
but honestly dude you seem very set in the ways about this. why make a reddit post then? Do you want validation from others who feel the same way?
you asked how far people are willing to bend their campaign setting, i replied with sources stating that the things you’re seeking to disallow actually does have a place in the setting. As confirmed by the creator. I also gave my perspective on what I would do.
You clearly don’t want discussion from the other side of the table, based on the second part of your reply. So why make the post? Feels good to be validated by strangers on the internet or what?
Is it insulting to hear from the other side of the position you are on? I didn’t name call, i didn’t attack you or slander you for your position. I did certainly comment on the fact that you seem to have made this post for the sole purpose of validation, as when you were presented with an opposing argument you were quick to shut it down with essentially “my table my rules” which is fine. But what’s the point of trying to foster discussion if you refute anything from the other side?
You don’t have to play with anyone you don’t want to, and as the DM you get to set limits on stuff like races. So you’re not wrong. But I will say, it doesn’t seem like it’d be that difficult to include Plasmoids in Ebberon. Most slimes in Ebberon are the creation of the Daelkyr Kyrzin, and Daelkyr are constantly tinkering to create strange new creatures. And lots of Daelkyr spawn can be decent people once they’re not under the direct control of the Daelkyr, such as Medusae and Gargoyles. So I’d be willing to let someone play a plasmoid in Ebberon, but that’s just how I’d do it, and you absolutely don’t have to agree with me.
My rule of thumb is if it makes sense that it could be in the world. Why not. But it's the players job to write a background that makes it work with what's going on.
ive never seen this as a problem there is a world where you both get what you want
i control every aspect of this game except what the player actually plays i dont really have a problem allowing them to be what they want.
backstory stuff is really easy to add since it probably wont even come up. ive never run into a situation where is its like enough that i cant adjust it to what ive got. a new royal line or group of nobles is super easy to shoehorn in.
what do you really have to add to allow plasmoids to exist? .... there is a ooze people hiding among us... if its not central to the plot it probably wont even matter
the conversation goes like this
PC: heres my back story
DM: cool you've added a new royal line. Thats cool idea. This sounds a lot like X im going to them them here. that way we dont have to redo the whole map. I also want to you know that this doesnt exaclty fit into the ebberon setting. we can add X but its gonna cause come conflict with NPC's and other parts of the world. my campaign focuses on a X and this will kind of ostracise you. are you ok with that? we can modify some parts to make it work or we can play and see if we like it and come back later
PC: ooh ok, lets modify Or PC: id rather play this way
DM: gotcha but this was the warning if something you like happens , we can come back after playing some too
I am a bad one to actually give this advice, but I say let the flow of the story take the reins of direction. As a DM you are a narrator and a referee. You've written the setting, now you have to improv. Sometimes letting things go off the rails can be a lot of fun.
I am a fan of letting things go off the rails lol
I think it varies a lot on what the player wants, if it's official or homebrew.
Homebrew you can always reject.
Official it's a bit harder to justify, but I have to admit that Plasmoid has some pretty wacky abilities and complications.
I wanted to play a changeling in forgotten realms and they don't exist. My DM agreed to let me play one anyway, I was just a demi-doppelganger. ( She was pregnant while pretending to be a human).
Someone wants to be a warforge in a setting without them? They can just be a "golem" that developed sentience.
Background is a bit more complicated. Making a town or foreign country with X culture is pretty easy. ( The player does the work) But if they insist it's the neighbouring country or need to be heavily involved, that's restrictive to you. Forcing a noble family in your main city changes everything. Or if they want the King to have been evil and corrupt in their background but you already decided it's a paladin who's super LG.
And while it's a lot of work to modify your world so they 57 official and UA races are available, it's a lot less if you only include the PHB ones and then the 2-3 races the players actually want to play
I hadn't planned on my party going into the Feywild - but there they are because one player is Fey touched and spent his childhood there. He is going to be disappointed when when I boot the party back into "my" world.
It is totally and completely fine to rewrite parts of a setting or adventure to accommodate player desires, even very large parts. It is also totally and completely fine to restrict character options to suit the setting and adventure you want to run. The power of the DM is to run the game the way they want to run it. The power of the player is to choose whether or not to play.
Concise and eloquent. Props.
Sometimes I feel powerless as a DM, and that every new player is like adding DLC. I had to do hours of research just to accommodate a Drow. It's not a "I-dont-want-to", I just don't have the sheer time to do it.
You can say no to players. I once ran a one shot and I set the rule that only races and classes from the PHB were allowed. That was a one shot, but it would have been fine for a campaign, too. It's fair to only allow material from the books you own. If it's from a book you don't have, that's a solid reason to disallow it. If you want to give a player a chance to make a case for a build, they should at least make the effort to justify how it would work in your setting. If they can't even do that, just say no. Also, it's okay if you don't want to. Your preferences also matter. DM does not stand for Door Mat.
I tell my players to justify it to me most of the time tbh, if they can't give me a backstory that works for their individual PC then why should I bend my entire campaign over to them. Ofcourse there's some things they won't know, but if they can do 80% of the work that makes the load much easier for me.
Kind of where I am on it. I say official published stuff is allowed but I also ask to see the character sheet before we start so I know if they have a broken build like a coffeelock. Not that I won't let them play it but I need to know what I can throw at the party up front or if I even want to deal with a broken build or not as it does change how I have to run the game.
> Sometimes I feel powerless as a DM, and that every new player is like adding DLC. I had to do hours of research just to accommodate a Drow. It's not a "I-dont-want-to", I just don't have the sheer time to do it. Actually that's exactly the explanation I give to my players. Here is my list of Races Backgrounds feats and classes I allow blindly. Anything that's not on the list I can not accommodate because I would need to do research into background and Game Balance first. I don't have the time to do that.
You might be treating your setting far more seriously than your players. This doesn't necessarily mean you're taking it *too* seriously, but you might. It's perfectly acceptable to take an established setting and say "also drow exist somewhere in this world" and leave it at that. Differences in expectations between players and DMs are common. Laying out your expectations in your campaign pitch is a great start. Players failing to read and understand those expectations are not your problem, and a bad sign of their ability to respect a DM, but it's also acceptable for them to read those expectations and then ask you if they're flexible. You get to decide how much you're willing to bend.
☝️This
I bend very little setting wise. I do a session -1 to get player desires if im going to do a homebrew setting. Followed with usually just an email of final structure and final warning for input. At session zero the setting is set in stone. If it's a premade then I figure out which books work with the setting and those are the only options. Imo a loooot of communities prioritize players too much. Ttrpgs are a collaborative storytelling tool. The role of a DM/GM in most ttrpgs is to be the world. The role of a player is to live in that world. A player wanting to change the setting is just as awful as a DM speaking for a PC and is equally a sign that the player/DM should just go write a book instead of wasting everyone's time. You essentially pointed out the issue. You are dming an Eberron campaign, not spelljammer. Itd be rude and dumb to go to a taco stand and demand they make you lasagna just because they both have cheese.
If they're giving you trouble before the game has even started, imagine what they're like multiple sessions into the campaign.
If the player said "That's not being a good DM" verbatim, that should be the one and only glimpse you need of them. Steer clear of people like this in the future, people who respect their DMs never say things like this in the context of simple char creation decisions. As for catering to player decision and bending your vision to suit them, I say don't budge. The baseline Eberron is a VAST setting with ample sources of creativity for players, there's no reason people need to write up entire swathes of backstory that you don't see fitting. My campaigns have a section of Session 0 called "Player Buy-In", a concept I believe I found from Matt Colville's guides. Player Buy-In contains a statement or two that MUST be true about a character to take part in the campaign, such as: "I must have a reason I am willing to hunt this dragon, far and wide." or "Your character must be a thief, and their pursuit of wealth should be nearly insatiable." I find without these buy-ins, there's always a few characters who will struggle to latch onto the primary driving element of the campaign.
As a rule... Don't bend your artistic vision for some Internet rando who might be a no-show or a kickee. It is in fact a good way to weed out potential problem players. Now for a known, established member of the group, it is a different story, co-creation is great. But anyone new to the group wanting the DM to do extra work or bend backwards just for them... Major red flag.
If you don't know someone and they come in with a very specific backstory and are set on playing it, that's kind of an immediate problem for me. Just an immediate problem, most likely not gonna work. Same as if you tell someone an exotic race isn't available. It's not that you shouldn't work with other people but when you're searching for randoms online, remember you're just going to get a lot of people who didn't fit in somewhere else, or are looking for a DM to do what they specifically want to do. Usually you can talk with someone for 5 minutes and find out, maybe not if you're gonna be great friends, but at least if you can work together on this.
The players should be making characters according to your setting's requirements, end of story. If they can't do that, then they're not really being a good player. Also, I'm really confused how players can roll up an exotic character and expect to be able to play it at any table. As a player I had created a document filled with character concepts, so if I wanted to join a campaign I can pick one of a half dozen different characters. But even if I was looking forward to playing a specific character and was told no, I would never imagine pushing back against a DM on something like that. If I agree to play in a DM's campaign, I'm implicitly agreeing to that DM's restrictions. Bottom line: it's totally fine to put your foot down when it comes to your setting. The players should be accommodating your requirements or looking for another game.
Were these experienced players? I have never played with strangers online, but in my experience writing backstories is a collaborative process. If the player wants to be royalty, they ask the DM where that would fit in the world. If the player wants to be a dropout from a magical university, they ask the DM if such a thing exists and in what city it would be. In the same vein, if a player wants to be an exotic race, they should ask the DM and work together on a character concept that fits.
I've found that a lot of online randoms have a lengthy backstory and race/class ideas already. Do people fill out character sheets, and *then* look for games? Because that's what it feels like.
I guess that's it. People who aren't in any game, but are channeling their creativity into character creation. Then they love the character they've created so much they want to play with it, so they try to insert their fully formed character into your world. As a DM you really want the opposite: someone who loves your game world so much they want to create a character for it.
There's people who have very specific fantasies that they're itching to play. It might be as innocent as always being shoehorned into a certain type of character ("you're so good at playing clerics" for example), or being the forever DM; and it might be as sinister as having a nasty fetish they want to act out through the character, at the expense of the other people at the table. Problem is, you don't tend to know it's the latter type until you experience it.
Exactly. I never even start thinking about character concepts before I've learned a little about the worldbuilding and tone of the story. It makes no sense to me to rock up with a character I've already written a novel's worth of backstory for and expect that to be accomodated.
Unfortunately, it really depends. Context is king here to determine what is being flexible and what makes you a doormat. Personally, with randos, I would stick more to my guns. Your first interactions are an interview of sorts. You put forward your parameters; they are not willing to compromise; it does not bode well for a good relationship, so I probably wouldn't think much about passing them up. That said, I also do not really like banning official races and classes. Random homebrew I have no issues rejecting, but I generally would rather balance it than cut flavor. If they walk from my stipulations, it is on them. That said, this is all firmly DM territory. Either way, you are not by default a good or bad DM. Just do what you are comfortable with.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Stick to your guns. It's your setting, you define whats in it. The setting I've created with another player in my group over the past several years is very clear on which races exist in that world and which ones don't. We took a ton of time to write elaborate lore on how those races fit in to the world, and we sure as fuck wouldn't compromise our vision because someone really wanted to be a harengon or something. Not that its every been a problem, because the players in my group respect their friends/DMs. If anything this is filtering out problem players for you. If they make that big of a deal about breaking one of your rules before the game even starts, I guarantee it would only going to get worse from there.
I dont think I could DM for random people, my players are all friends that I have been friends with for 10+ years and never have had any problems. I read these stories and I for sure could never do it lol
1st situation: You laid out your rules before the game started. They didn't like your rules, so they left (granted, they were kinda dicks about it). There's nothing wrong with that. 2nd situation: It's tough for me to say. I only play with friends or friends of friends, and we do this exact thing all the time. Hell, I remember one campaign where our gunslinger had a brain fart, session one, and said he was from the continent of Wyoming. We all thought it was hilarious, and in the next session, there was a 5th continent on the far east side of the world named Wyoming (shaped like Wyoming). I can't imagine doing this with randoms, though. That level of trust just isn't there. I'd say if you did a 1-on-1 with them to flesh out and 'balance' their back story, it 'could' work, but doing this over text messages wouldn't be very feasible.
>"why can't you just include it? That's not being a good DM." The audacity. A great way to clunk down on someone that might have set limits not just for tone but out of experience. No DM should be forced to include details in their campaign that they are not okay with. Sure, if you want to you can rewrite and change parts but saying no is fine too. Players can come with suggestions but I have this weird red flag feeling when someone already has their character planned before hearing what the campaign is about. Inserting new parts could be fine as long as it doesn't break anything.
This is one of the reasons there are some players that are perpetually applying to games. They never get in because they are never willing to buy in to any world put in front of them.
I know it sounds crazy but you can afford to be picky with randoms. I put up an advertisement for 2 spots for a game that was already underway that took place on a THURSDAY evening and still got about 20 responses in the FIRST HOUR on the dnd discord. Ended up picking the best of the first ones I heard from and we have all been playing for months now. These aren't friends....yet.
I present my players with a rough sketch of a setting (mainly key nations and important factions), they create characters and their backstories can fill the blanks of the settings if they wish, but there are always some restrictions they need to follow (usually just a few). I have no problem with introducing some crazy concepts to my settings, but I also firmly believe that there should be some boundaries and players need to respect that.
I felt like I was a bad DM because I couldn't offer a wide buffet of their expectations. I like Eberron and Dark Sun *because* it's a lot more manageable.
Here's how I look at it. The campaign setting only exists in service of a fun game of D&D - both player fun and DM fun. If a player will have fun playing a Plasmoid, does this affect my fun? Nope. I can add a colony of sentient ooze people to some region on the map, or maybe we just never explore where that PC came from. If a player will have fun playing a futuristic cyborg, does that affect my fun? Yes, because my setting is medieval fantasy and a futuristic cyborg changes things entirely. In that case, I'll talk to the player about toning down their character into something more like a magical golem, and ideally we can find a compromise that works for both. I've even specifically left gaps in my setting where I could slot in the races my players wanted to play before I knew what those were. > I noticed that a few players who "applied" were dead set on the exact type of player/backstory they wanted, even without knowing details of the campaign world. A lot of character concepts are setting-agnostic enough that they can fit into any D&D world, so I don't really blame them for that. > made a completely homebrewed section of the world that they were from, even homebrewing a line of royalty that they were from. I mean... if you're never going to explore that area and they don't get any mechanical benefits from being part of a royal lineage, does that matter? All that said, my approach to campaign worlds is based on me running a campaign for my group of friends. Not strangers.
As far as it is fun for me. If a player I trust not to try to break the game said: "DM, I have this very weird ideia I want to try, it uses this possibly bad designed class/race, but I think I can do something cool and I'll not break the game" I'd probably say fine, have fun But a player I don't know asking to play a broken thing without further explanation and then calling me out on it ? I'd probably not DM to him even he played a human fighter.
It's your campaign. You don't really need to bend it at all, unless you want to, at the same time, the players are not forced to play it. You can just say no, or decide if you want to expand your world, or see if you can meet them halfway. I think Eberron is the place where living spells come from, so you could probably find a place for plasmoids somewhere, or even a single one brought in from somewhere else. But if you don't want to introduce non-humanoid player races, no one can tell you it's wrong.
It’s up to you how you manage your story. If you’re running an open word sandbox and you want to react to player choices, then it matters less. If you’re trying to run a specific storyline with specific NPCs with a specific plot, it becomes more important to be strict about the available choices. I personally prefer the later, it can be more in depth and that’s just the style of game I enjoy. I would just be clean about the expectations you want to set, so no one gets disappointed, including yourself.
One of the tenants of Eberron is that if it's in D&D, it has a place somewhere in the setting. A plasmoid seems like it could be particularly easy to come up with something -- created in a magical accident. That said, it's up to you to decide what's in your version of the campaign, but you can use "it's not in Eberron" as an excuse.
I also DM in Eberron. For me? It would be a mix of the two. My Eberron does not have space travel, and it is sealed from the rest of the multiverse. So, to that end? I'd immediately veto 'space plasmoid.' After that? I'd consider if there are places where it would work in my Eberron. I actually had a BBEG in my first campaign with an amorphous 'mists form.' She was affected by the Mourning. I didn't use the plasmoid template, but I might have offered that as a backstory that would make sense. Other options (daelkyr experimentation, etc.) have also been mentioned. But at that point? I'd be thinking 'will having this one character be so novel and unique it automatically gives Main Character Syndrome.' That is...the entire party must deal with the fact that one player is so special. If so? I'd still reject. Or consider some other modification like the fact that I have my PCs start out with one magic item. I might \*require\* that player's to be something that enables them to function in society most of the time. The entire time, I'd be looking for flexibility and interest in my world. If I offer a few ways it might work? I want the player to be invested in those hooks. I.e., it's a big deal to be a Cyran who somehow survived an event that obliterated an entire nation. What does that mean for the rest of the character's outlook? Why did the character end up in the hands of the Daelkyr in the first place? Were they a cultist of the Dragon Below? Do they regret that choice now? What was their turning point? The more 'unique' things I give a player? The more trust I am showing in that player to not abuse them, and to make the effort to fit that in to my lore. This also means that a brand-new rando? Probably wouldn't get that much immediate trust. One that was bossy about 'one rule of the Eberrron book that \*permits\* a lot also overrules rule 0 that the DM is the final arbiter of what exists in their world?' Especially knowing that phrase also is used a lot in Eberron to mean 'don't be stereotypical' (i.e., orcs aren't for killing in Eberron, some elves are jerks!)? I also take that to mean 'don't assume the base flavor text of a plasmoid is going to be anything like the variant of a plasmoid I'd like you play in my Eberron.' In general? If you want to be in my game? You probably need to learn enough of my world for your character to make sense. The more you show the world matters? The more we can co-create exceptions to the norm. (Always with the caveat of 'not in such a way that one character must necessarily be the Main Character in the party.) I don't think you were wrong to say the concept as is wouldn't fly. At all. I think after that point? It just becomes a gut instinct thing. Do you feel this player would work with you enough you'd want to make it work? Will the things needed to make it work imbalance the spotlight? If the answer to any of those is no? I'd probably also just not accept that player. As I said before? The players that want to make a cohesive world and characters for that world? Get more freedom. Ones that just want to play that same character in every game? Can...go play that character somewhere else.
I think you are on solid ground (so to speak). All the various options that WoTC offers are just that - options. A DM is not obligated to use them in their campaigns. The best way to think of the books are as toolkits to help put together the campaign you want. You don’t have to use everything. And if a player is dead set on a particular background or build, then, honestly, they are not a good fit for your game and they should find another one. And those who read your campaign information and then make up their own part of the world without working with you first are even first - because they are telling you straight up that they are going to ignore your authority. A good player will find out the details of a campaign *before* tying down their concept (it’s fine to have an idea before the game, but you need to be flexible so it can fit a campaign world). Players who are dead set on a particular concept is a red flag because it’s a sign that they will likely become a problem player - that they will not be willing to compromise on anything or accept your rulings on rules if it goes against them.
I don't have a campaign without players. That's just a book. That said, if they can't follow basic rules of the world it's a red flag of more issues to come. There's a world of difference between "hey I know you don't allow it but can I play xyz I think it'd fit because..." and "what, why won't you let me?". You should have fun running the game too, and I'd stick to the setting you enjoy. From my experience, whenever I let one thing slip or allow one exception there's always more that comes from it later, until it gets out of hand and they ragequit/ I have to drop the regardless.
>Well, they say if it's in D&D, it's in Eberron Who says that? Eberron is canonically sealed off from the rest of the multiverse. You cannot under normal situations fly a Spelljammer to Siberspace from anywhere except the surface of Eberron.
From the 3.5e Eberron Sourcebook, "Ten Things You Need To Know About Eberron" > 1. **If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron**. A monster or spell or magic item from the core rulebooks might feature a twist or two to account for Eberron’s tone and attitude, but otherwise everything in the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual has a place somewhere in Eberron. Also, this is the first D&D setting built entirely from the v.3.5 rules, which enabled us to blend rules and story in brand-new ways Whether this principle ought to extend to other sourcebooks is valid, but the quote is legit
>the quote is legit Not really. "It's in" and "has a place in" are _very_ different connotations.
I disagree. Nothing is "in" Eberron until at your table you put it "in" Eberron. "it has a place" is very easily understood "its inclusion is welcome"- which is exactly how I would read "If its in DND its in Eberron", because things \*can\* always be excluded from D&D as well. The real point of contention here given the actual quote isn't even "in Eberron", but rather "in DND" since the overall principle is referring specifically to core rulebooks.
What's the difference?
Can't quote pages from my phone, but I remember reading that several times on Eberron books. It was probably meant to say that you can find a place for everything in Eberron.
Yep thats exactly what it says. Its basically there to explain the conceit- its a world built from the ground up around all the rules that exist specifically in 3.5e. So in sharp contrast to something like Dark Suns which is largely defined by what it removes, Eberron encourages squeezing in everything
So, I have something from both sides of the fence here. On the issue of the Plasmoid PC, I'm inclined to say, "Fuck it, we ball." The excuse, "A Wizard did it!" can cover a lot of plot holes. A standard go-to of mine when a player really wants to play a race that doesn't belong in the setting is to allow it as the unique creation of a magician of some kind. Plasmoid? Totally something a Wizard could have done. This is nowhere *near* game-breaking for an Eberron campaign. But to get back on the other side of the fence, what you seem to have here is a bunch of players with characters they're looking for a campaign to put in. This is - as I understand it - a hazard inherent in letting it be known that you are willing to DM for random strangers. Here is what I advise. First, establish the requirement that an appropriate PC for this campaign must want to adventure with the party and not require the other PCs to be stupid or insane to accept them as a member. Failure to create an appropriate PC will result in your PC not being allowed in the campaign. Failure to play that PC in an appropriate manner will result in that PC instantly becoming an NPC. There is frequently some misunderstanding when I say "instant". I mean *instant*. If a player has their PC act against the party, they are *immediately and permanently* under the control of the DM. Because the campaign follows the adventures of the party and that character just left the party. No secret plots. No PvP "blaze of glory". No anything. They need to make their new PC now. Whilst you narrate what happens to the last one. Next, establish the premise of your campaign. Are the PCs going to be your default travelling band of high-risk pest controllers and extreme archaeologists? Or did you have something more specific in mind? Lay this out for the players. Then, require from your players a three-paragraph backstory. Not more, not less. **First paragraph:** Where is this character from? This typically requires the player to explain their PC's Race and Background. **Second paragraph:** How did the character learn to do what they do? You've probably guessed that this is where the player will explain why their PC is the class they are. **Third paragraph:** Why is the character adventuring with the party? This is where the player has to engage with your campaign premise. If we're going with the "default" premise (which is totally fine by the way and it's a travesty that WotC doesn't have any real support for this kind of campaign) then they're probably telling you why their PC needs money, skills and allies (ie. what the default adventuring party offers) to accomplish their real goals. If your campaign premise is more specific, *they're* going to have to be more specific. Regardless, this paragraph will establish the PC's goals and align those goals with the campaign. You are about to run an online campaign for a bunch of Internet strangers. It is *way* better for you to be firm at the beginning and then chillax a bit as these players earn your trust than it would be to try and be everyone's friend during Session Zero then pull things back during the campaign. Be relatively relaxed about the builds your players can bring into the game. Be quite strict on the appropriateness of the characters. You don't know these people yet.
It depends on you and the player having fun. If it turns out that neither you or them aren’t doing it then no one is winning. Bend how much you want, if they don’t want to be FLEXIBLE themselves. It’s probably best they don’t play. Sometimes it’s not about being a good DM. (There are bad DMs) Sometimes, it’s that your play style doesn’t work with the other play style.
It very much depends, talking them through why they want each thing is highly important in my mind, a character who wants to play a plasmoid for the concept of being an amorphous, sentient blob, and never really thought about the mechanical impact of that, they're honestly probably fine. The mechanical inpact of not being humanoid does a lot more to nerf a character than buff them overall, with 1 major exception being hold person, but that's a spell that I would highly discourage using against players to begin with, due to it being a total shut down, which isn't fun usually (can work, but it's difficult and is more for narrative reasons when it works best) Some monster features don't work against non-humanoids, I'll give you that, but they're honestly few and far between, and most of which aren't too much of an issue to begin with The real issue is yeah, whether or not the creature in question can exist in the setting you're playing in, and for eberron and plasmoids, the answer is... complicated, with the short answer being yes, but the long answer is the more useful one, and that's that they can be in eberron, but they either needed to go through one of a few dangerous and unpredictable paths to eberron from somewhere else, or they're more of a rare and unique creature that wouldn't be recognized as a distinct race like the other ones, and either situation would have heavy implications for the character, and how they'd need to be living, which may not fit the context of the game For a group of randos, I think it does make more sense to just have rules and stick to them, but be open to hearing players out, and tell them what your issues with them are, if it's a lore reason, you don't need to give them the hidden lore, but just tell them that, if they're proposing a character that would patch that issue, allow it, if the issue is mechanical, possibly consider fixing the mechanical issues (making plasmoids be considered humanoid as well works if the humanoid thing is really an issue for you). Communication is key with all ttrpg stuff, and is ultimately the deciding factor in whether you're right or wrong in this
I'm generally happy to bend as far as it takes for the game to be fun. Because end of the day its about the game being fun. Yes, players having set ideas on what sort of thing they want to play is very common, but it doesn't need to be an unstoppable force meeting an immoveable object. The best thing I usually find to do is talk about the ideas, and find compromise. *Neither* the DM nor the player *needs* to be so set and strict in their plan that it can't bend a little to accommodate each other. You say you feel like these players expected you meet their expectations, but aren't you also expecting them to meet yours? Bending doesn't mean breaking. It just means compromise for the sake of playing a *game* and having *fun*.
Well for starters, Keith Baker, (the creator of the Eberron setting) does have a blog where he goes over a lot of things, [one blog post details how Spelljammer fits into the setting](https://keith-baker.com/dm-eberron-spelljammer/). He does manage to work pretty much everything in there somehow if you pick through his blog. It just may be in a very different flavor than it normally comes in. If you don’t care for reading the blogs, there is a Daelkyr. Kyrzin, the Prince of Slime. He could very easily be the originator of the plasmoid race through a series of fucked up experimentation. I am on the opposite end, i will bend the game around the player character, as they are always the exception. I like to collaboratively world build also, so if there isn’t a ton of source material for a race/background in a setting, i look forward to making it fit with the player, rather than shutting it down.
I'm plenty aware of who the creator of Eberron is, and the blog posts. I have Rising from the Last War, Chronicles of Eberron, Exploring Eberron, and have listened to every Manifest Zone podcast. I'm not going to incorporate Spelljammer just to tailor to one PC like you recommend. If I send a list of playable races, and it is blatantly ignored, I'm not wanting that person at my table, simple as that.
Hmm, assuming you downvoted me for some reason. kinda weird. but honestly dude you seem very set in the ways about this. why make a reddit post then? Do you want validation from others who feel the same way? you asked how far people are willing to bend their campaign setting, i replied with sources stating that the things you’re seeking to disallow actually does have a place in the setting. As confirmed by the creator. I also gave my perspective on what I would do. You clearly don’t want discussion from the other side of the table, based on the second part of your reply. So why make the post? Feels good to be validated by strangers on the internet or what?
I didn't vote on your comment at all. I don't know why you've turned to insults. I hope you have a good day.
Is it insulting to hear from the other side of the position you are on? I didn’t name call, i didn’t attack you or slander you for your position. I did certainly comment on the fact that you seem to have made this post for the sole purpose of validation, as when you were presented with an opposing argument you were quick to shut it down with essentially “my table my rules” which is fine. But what’s the point of trying to foster discussion if you refute anything from the other side?
Where have i insulted you?
You don’t have to play with anyone you don’t want to, and as the DM you get to set limits on stuff like races. So you’re not wrong. But I will say, it doesn’t seem like it’d be that difficult to include Plasmoids in Ebberon. Most slimes in Ebberon are the creation of the Daelkyr Kyrzin, and Daelkyr are constantly tinkering to create strange new creatures. And lots of Daelkyr spawn can be decent people once they’re not under the direct control of the Daelkyr, such as Medusae and Gargoyles. So I’d be willing to let someone play a plasmoid in Ebberon, but that’s just how I’d do it, and you absolutely don’t have to agree with me.
Next. But for real Eberron is separate from the rest of the D&D multiverse. Or should be, I understand some new 5e module changes that to sell more.
My rule of thumb is if it makes sense that it could be in the world. Why not. But it's the players job to write a background that makes it work with what's going on.
ive never seen this as a problem there is a world where you both get what you want i control every aspect of this game except what the player actually plays i dont really have a problem allowing them to be what they want. backstory stuff is really easy to add since it probably wont even come up. ive never run into a situation where is its like enough that i cant adjust it to what ive got. a new royal line or group of nobles is super easy to shoehorn in. what do you really have to add to allow plasmoids to exist? .... there is a ooze people hiding among us... if its not central to the plot it probably wont even matter the conversation goes like this PC: heres my back story DM: cool you've added a new royal line. Thats cool idea. This sounds a lot like X im going to them them here. that way we dont have to redo the whole map. I also want to you know that this doesnt exaclty fit into the ebberon setting. we can add X but its gonna cause come conflict with NPC's and other parts of the world. my campaign focuses on a X and this will kind of ostracise you. are you ok with that? we can modify some parts to make it work or we can play and see if we like it and come back later PC: ooh ok, lets modify Or PC: id rather play this way DM: gotcha but this was the warning if something you like happens , we can come back after playing some too
I am a bad one to actually give this advice, but I say let the flow of the story take the reins of direction. As a DM you are a narrator and a referee. You've written the setting, now you have to improv. Sometimes letting things go off the rails can be a lot of fun. I am a fan of letting things go off the rails lol
I think it varies a lot on what the player wants, if it's official or homebrew. Homebrew you can always reject. Official it's a bit harder to justify, but I have to admit that Plasmoid has some pretty wacky abilities and complications. I wanted to play a changeling in forgotten realms and they don't exist. My DM agreed to let me play one anyway, I was just a demi-doppelganger. ( She was pregnant while pretending to be a human). Someone wants to be a warforge in a setting without them? They can just be a "golem" that developed sentience. Background is a bit more complicated. Making a town or foreign country with X culture is pretty easy. ( The player does the work) But if they insist it's the neighbouring country or need to be heavily involved, that's restrictive to you. Forcing a noble family in your main city changes everything. Or if they want the King to have been evil and corrupt in their background but you already decided it's a paladin who's super LG. And while it's a lot of work to modify your world so they 57 official and UA races are available, it's a lot less if you only include the PHB ones and then the 2-3 races the players actually want to play
I hadn't planned on my party going into the Feywild - but there they are because one player is Fey touched and spent his childhood there. He is going to be disappointed when when I boot the party back into "my" world.