Mfcttrf

I have just started GMing a homebrew campaign with a group of relatively inexperienced players. I have only played with one of them before (I have GMed for him as well as been a fellow player with him), and he is notorious for being a problem player. In fact, I know of at least one group who refuses to play with him anymore.

Problems in the past have included dice fudging, not taking full amounts of damage in combat, stealing the spotlight from other players, and a number of other annoying things. All that said, I have known this guy for a while and consider him a friend.

The setting I am running is a generic fantasy world, loosely based on the Forgotten Realms, using the same gods and lore. I typically allow my players to take part in the world-building process, so they feel like their characters belong. However, this problem player is obsessed with Celtic and Viking mythology and has been attempting to insert them into the world, even giving his half-elf barbarian a very long and hard-to-pronounce Gaelic name and saying that he is from a place called "Ironland".

During session zero, I tried politely explaining that there are no Celts in this world, and suggested saving these ideas for a future game. This resulted in him pouting in the corner for 20 minutes.

How can I deal with this player trying to insert real-world mythology into a game? Am I being too overprotective of the world I am creating? Should I just allow him to create his own corner of the world?

I appreciate any advice anyone has.

This is largely a matter of playstyle.

There are many playstyles which work well, as long as everyone is using at least roughly the same playstyle.

He seems to assume that you will allow he players to have a say in creating events beyond simply describing what they do. This is fairly common during character creation. At many tables, it is expected that the players will create fairly elaborate backstories for their characters. The backstories may include references to distant lands and earlier events created by the players with final approval of the GM, but perhaps little to no input from the GM while creating the backstory.

Having players directly dictate parts of the world outside of their characters action after character creation is, in my experience at least, less common in DnD. However, it is more common in some other roleplaying games and even in DnD it is common for the GM to take the player's desires heavily into account. I personally fall into that category. (Disclaimer, I have not been a GM in a 5E game, but I have been a DM in several earlier editions and other RPGs) I won't let a player just dictate something past character creation, but if a player hopes that there is a handy chandelier and asks the question, then the answer will almost always be yes unless I have a very good reason. Similarly, if the player expresses an interest in fighting a certain monster, it will likely appear in the near future. If a player says they want their character to follow a certain deity with a decent write-up, that deity will most likely be available unless I have a good reason to say no. When I do say no, I will explain the reason if it won't give away too much of the plot.

All of that is a long way to say that what your player is doing is not necessarily wrong, would be accepted at many tables including mine, and is a valid playstyle as long as it meshes with the rest of the table.

However, it is not the only playstyle. Other GMs want to keep a tight reign on the setting. This is also inherently valid. It is particularly justified when it is a homebrew setting that the GM has put a lot of time into building. I have played with others who GM that way, and it can work perfectly well. Also, even someone who tends to give the players a lot of freedom, like me, will occasionally say no if I foresee the request causing problems down the road.

Make sure you are on the same page

Everyone at the table needs to be at least roughly on the same page as to the style of game being played. If he expects player input into the state of the world to be used heavily and you don't, it will cause issues. If he expects a freeform sandbox and you plan for heavy railroading (or vice versa!), it will cause issues.

You should discuss with the entire group what type of game you plan and what your expectations are. As part of this, I would remind them that this is a homebrew setting that you have spent a lot of time on and have strong feelings about. Try to come to a consensus for the entire group. This may involve you adjusting your expectations some as well, but should not involve you simply giving the player everything he thinks he wants.

I know you said you had a session 0, which is a great idea, but it doesn't sound like that specifically included a discussion of the playstyle in use.

You may not be compatible.

It sounds from your description like you and this particular player both have strong feelings and heavily divergent playstyles. In that case, this may not be the right group for one of you. Often no roleplaying is better than bad roleplaying and finding a different group for one of you is always an option.

Deal With This As You Would Any Player Overstep

As it happens, I have had players try to insert real-world but inappropriate cultural influences into a setting of mine. In my case it was Japanese influences into a very European-themed fantasy world.

But this was not so different from the time someone tried to bring Japanese influences into an actual European-historical setting, long before Europeans had made independent, direct contact with Japan. (Same player.)

And honestly, it was not so different from the time someone tried to bring a Dune Mentat into my utterly, insipidly generic medievaloid fantasy ElfDwarfHuman setting. (Same. Player! I have other examples with different players, but they veer farther and farther from your basic problem.)

These examples are superficially different from each other, even though they get farther away from your exact premise-- from wrong culture in a culture-inspired game, to wrong culture in a historical game, to science fiction characters into fantasy games. They are all cases of the player trying to override the GM's setting and genre judgment.

What I Did Then:

(These were all long ago, but formative experiences that I remember fairly well and don't much want to repeat.)

In the first two cases, I just said no. Especially, "No, there are no secret ninja clans wandering around 10th century Europe. There just aren't. No, you did not inherit any of the exotic Japanese weapons you want. If you want to run a game on these themes, cool, I'll play in it. But this ain't that game."

Twenty minutes of pouting is a good description of the response. Then he got over it and played the game. But as you can see, there can be a serious persistence to this mentality that carries on from game to game. I had to be really clear and not give an inch.

In the third case (the Mentat) since the setting was wide open, I just made him stick to the actual rules of an established class, and let him design his little sect of Fantasy Mentats, with some oversight. It wasn't a complete failure, but it was a mistake because there simply was no opportunity for him to do all the cool stuff he wanted to do; the game world did not, and really could not, engage his character. As time went by he reverted more and more to a generic wizard of that setting.

What I Do Now:

What I do now is much more successful, and seems to head these issues off at the pass.

I'll get about halfway through my conceptualization process and run something similar to but not quite, a Session Zero. At this point, I have my general premise and concept, I have a very rough draft of how I'd expect a campaign to go, I have some definite ideas about what the world contains and how it works, but nothing set in stone.

Then I canvass the players and see if they're interested in that, and what types of players they might want to play. In a generic fantasy game, this is when I can more easily move things around to accommodate player background preferences. And in general, if I can, I usually do because I want the players to be playing characters they enjoy.

But sometimes I just can't (i.e., some alien influence from some completely mismatched background or genre) and in those cases, I can at least give the player a lot more time to get over it.

This has worked very well for me. There will always be problem children who require kid gloves or refusals, but getting that done early makes it much easier.

To Summarize Your Options:

1. 
   Just Say No: You're allowed to do this. Yes, you run the risk of the player pouting, or quitting, or continuing to try to subvert the game. But you can do it, and sometimes it is the right choice.


2. 
   Acquiesce: This is always, inherently, a judgment call on your part. Sometimes it works, but I historically don't have much luck with it because I run games with high levels of GM design and specificity. But if someone wants to bring a Slavic warrior into your Germanic themed campaign, that's maybe not a huge stretch.


3. 
   Early Feedback Cycles: Get feedback from your players early, before slight to moderate changes feel like backbreaking effort that scraps half your work. It may be too late for this game for you, but it is the best tool in my toolbox for this very common problem.

If it doesn't break the game, let players write their own stories.

When you establish a regional setting for your campaign, players have two options for creating their character's origins. First, they can create a character from within the setting, and adhere to the themes, rules, and available lore that you have provided them. This requires that you do specify this information clearly, as terms like "generic fantasy" or "sword and sorcery" could hold various meanings to different audiences. If the campaign's geography is that important, then it may help to write a primer with the relevant information and rules. Is the region inspired by any real-world settings (e.g. medieval western Europe) or known fictional settings (e.g. Middle Earth)? Are there important locations, pantheons, technologies, or other factors to consider? All this should be described explicitly to the players.

A player's second option is to write a character from outside the game's regional setting, which seems to be what your player wants to do. This has the inherent benefit that the DM doesn't need to flesh out every inch of their world, effectively delegating some of the worldbuilding work to the players. Plus, since the player is already enthusiastic about their character concept, then they're already somewhat invested in the campaign. Unless the DM has strictly defined every NPC, town, country, landmass, and planet in their game universe, it should be relatively easy to insert new lore into their world. So perhaps there are no Celt-inspired NPCs featured in the campaign's specific region, which you created, but the player's character hails from some distant Celt-inspired nation.

Alternatively, if you only want to provide one option - that the character must originate from within your setting - then you need to explicitly say so.

From your player's perspective, your objections to their character may seem contradictory. Most lore of the Forgotten Realms is based on real-world mythology, and generally follow western European naming patterns. So arguing against the player's choice of real-world mythos may be moot.

In my experience, when a player writes their own character lore and backstory, there are two primary concerns to address:

1. Ensure that their backstory and premise do not violate the game rules. Check for big-picture concepts, like cosmology or technology, that conflict with the campaign world. For example, if my campaign setting's technological level is comparable to medieval Europe, then a character from a futuristic mecha planet would not be appropriate. Or if the intended tone is friendly and non-combat, then a bloodthirsty murderer character could be thematically unfit.




2. Discuss hooks or other ways to tie in their character into your setting. The game takes place in your setting, not theirs. Even if the character is an outsider, it's vital to invest them in your setting and story, rather than have them focus on their distant homeland. This should be discussed with the player before the campaign proper, such as during a Session Zero.

Unless the player is suggesting ideas that violate the rules of your setting, then they aren't really threatening your campaign by bringing in their own ideas. If there's no harm in allowing a faraway Celt-inspired land as the character's homeland, then there's little reason to forbid it.

I personally wouldn't care much. Celtic gods are an established setting element in Forgotten Realms. If they want to worship another Celtic God, whatever?

The two major Celtic deities in Forgotten Realms are Silvanus and Oghma but is it a major issue if they want a cult to another one?

This isn't a hill I would care to die on, denying them the right to worship. D&D was designed with lots of mythological gods looted, including Norse and Celtic ones. It's meant to be a fun game where people get to meet and worship the deities of mythology they love and revere. It is a game where in the original setting there was even a celtic analogue tribe, the Ffolk.

You mention past offenses. Sure, they may have caused problems in the past, but it's best not to take it out on them. Let them have their Celtic themed location and use deities from the existing list of Norse and Celtic deities that, as you mentioned, you included in your homebrew setting.

This isn't just him trying to establish his own corner of the world. This is a well established part of Forgotten Realms, in terms of location, people, and deities. There is no special need to deny them what you allow other players to use simply because in the past they caused problems.

Three Options

Yes, And...

Embracing player ideas can build their enthusiasm, and is there much to complain about if you put Thor or Odin next to the Raven Queen?

A Comedy Improv skill that is often talked about in D&D is the princible of "Yes, And..." In Improv it means that if a scene mate walks in and says "Look how nice it is outside in this park." You adopt the premises the lay down, and add to it, rather than breaking scene by saying, "No, we're inside because it is raining out." Instead you say, "Yes, it is nice out here. (And...) The bugs are enjoying it, too..."

In D&D its application would be similar. "Sure, you can be from Ironland. Ironland is currently at war with the kingdom and people for Ironland are looked down in the border cities...." Or "Worshipers of X God are prohibited from practice, so they meet in secret..."

No.

You just say no, and if they aren't alright with that they are free to leave the game. Given the other issues that have happened with this player, I would be tempted to break up with him, "I don't think this is the group for you."

The Multiverse

Gary Gygax conceived of the concept that all D&D games happen in the same multiverse. With time the idea expanded and became proper. Jeremy Crawford has a great Dragon+ video about the Great Wheel and how every game happens in material plane on different worlds, most with glass spheres with stars painted on them.

So, "Ironland, sure... You were from there, but something happened and you woke up here. No one has a clue where this strange island nation Ironland is, and some think you are making it up." OR maybe even, "Your character is convinced he's from Ironland. No else seems to know or believe in this strange place you keep talking about."