D&D General Do you like LOTS of races/ancestries/whatever? If so, why?

[Minigiant]

I'm still trying to figure out how "no yuan-ti" equates to "viking hat railroad GM" tho.

Because it skips step.

The "Why do youwant to be a yuan ti purebrood?" step.

Because based on the answer, the DM can offer a race, class, feat, item, curse, or boon within the setting that gives the player that.

If the answer is something commonly found in D&D but not an aspect in the setting, the DM's setting might too narrow.
If the answer is something rarely found in D&D and not an aspect in the setting, the Payer's desire might too narrow.

D&D is a rather conservative game in 5e. Most of the racial aspects exist elsewhere. You can usually fiqure out who is being unreasonable based on the "Why" question.

 

[Azzy]

The player entitlement in this thread is astounding.

Conversely, the DM entitlement is equally in full swing.

 

[Reynard]

Because it skips step.

The "Why do youwant to be a yuan ti purebrood?" step.

Because based on the answer, the DM can offer a race, class, feat, item, curse, or boon within the setting that gives the player that.

If the answer is something commonly found in D&D but not an aspect in the setting, the DM's setting might too narrow.
If the answer is something rarely found in D&D and not an aspect in the setting, the Payer's desire might too narrow.

D&D is a rather conservative game in 5e. Most of the racial aspects exist elsewhere. You can usually fiqure out who is being unreasonable based on the "Why" question.

I don't think "why" is relevant at all. There's an established setting, and yuan-ti purebloods are inappropriate for player characters. The end.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think "why" is relevant at all. There's an established setting, and yuan-ti purebloods are inappropriate for player characters. The end.

You are confused on the Why question.

The Why Question is "Why do you want to play a (banned race/class/whatever)?".

The DM who isn't even attempting to find an allowed PC for the player to run is unreasonable. The DM should want players to play their game.

 

[Reynard]

Conversely, the DM entitlement is equally in full swing.

Yes, GMs are entitled to make decisions about the games they choose to run in ways the players are not entitled to makes decisions about the game the GM is running. Remember, in the examples we are talking about, the group isn't creating a campaign together. Rather, a players is coming into a game requesting an inappropriate character and has been told "no." The options for that player are to choose something appropriate, or to play a different game with a different GM. So, what is your issue with this scenario?

 

[Azzy]

Yes, GMs are entitled to make decisions about the games they choose to run in ways the players are not entitled to makes decisions about the game the GM is running.

Ah, the DM-as-tinpot-dictator stance.

 

[Reynard]

You are confused on the Why question.

The Why Question is "Why do you want to play a (banned race/class/whatever)?".

The DM who isn't even attempting to find an allowed PC for the player to run is unreasonable. The DM should want players to play their game.

I think that is beyond the scope of what I was replying to and makes some pretty bold assumptions. We don't have to assume that there has been no discussion and we don't have to assume the worst about anyone involved. The question is more simple than that: is it incumbent upon a GM to allow an inappropriate character in their campaign? The answer is clearly "no." What happens otherwise -- the GM helping the player find an appropriate character, the player starting his own game, whatever -- is not at issue for this particular question.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, the DM-as-tinpot-dictator stance.

You aren't engaging the question in good faith. There was a bunch of text following what you quoted that makes that clear and you ignored it in order to take a pot shot.

 

[Azzy]

You aren't engaging the question in good faith. There was a bunch of text following what you quoted that makes that clear and you ignored it in order to take a pot shot.

Et tu? After you "player-entitlement" post, I thought pot shots were fair game. Or is that a DM-only feature, too?

 

[Minigiant]

I think that is beyond the scope of what I was replying to and makes some pretty bold assumptions. We don't have to assume that there has been no discussion and we don't have to assume the worst about anyone involved. The question is more simple than that: is it incumbent upon a GM to allow an inappropriate character in their campaign? The answer is clearly "no." What happens otherwise -- the GM helping the player find an appropriate character, the player starting his own game, whatever -- is not at issue for this particular question.

That's where I disagree.

Once the DM create restrictions beyond the game's norm, the DM should have the onus to at least suggest an appropriate PC similar to an inappropriate PCs offered by the players if the original PC is within the game's norms.