D&D General The Importance of Page 33

[prabe]

That's literally been the opposite of my experience. When options are banned and replaced with campaign specific options, folks at my table tend to get excited about the new options. The only time I've seen that not be the case was when the new options were uninspired or mechanically weak.

I think most players are happy to deal with options that are somewhat circumscribed if there's a decent reason--and "they aren't on my world" (when it's really "my world" and not "Ravenloft as published") is different from "everyone I've ever seen play those was a glory-hogging min-maxer" as a reason.

 

[Oofta]

I don't exactly disagree with this, but I think it's just as possible for the DM to be the problem. I'm willing to work with players who have some specific idea they're trying to make work. I'd hope it's something other than "This is the character I always play."

Oh, absolutely. I've had 2 horrible DMs. Killer Bob was the worst, but "Hey let's use a 6 sided die to use when the enemies crit (and only the enemies) to see what body part you lose? Lose your head? Too bad you're dead again" was a close second. I also had a DM that was a good guy, just ran a different game than what I wanted to spend my time playing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's literally been the opposite of my experience. When options are banned and replaced with campaign specific options, folks at my table tend to get excited about the new options. The only time I've seen that not be the case was when the new options were uninspired or mechanically weak.

Yeah, never once had a player who was turned off by the idea of their race being more common.

 

[Rdm]

Yeah, never once had a player who was turned off by the idea of their race being more common.

Yes, there are players whose only interest in a race is it’s oddity.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, there are players whose only interest in a race is it’s oddity.

He never claimed that those players don't exist. He just said he'd never had such a player.

Frankly, a player like that isn't an option problem IMO. They'll be an "issue" regardless. Even if you're adamant that they have to be only human, they'll insist on being the long lost heir to the empire (or whatever).

A special snowflake player will insist on being a special snowflake. Insisting on playing a restricted option can be a symptom, but it's not the root issue. Players may have the desire to play a restricted options completely unrelated to wanting to be a special snowflake or other problem behavior.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are seriously putting forth that. Ok. Sure.

People literally believed in humanoid creatures with animal features at that time. Not as fairy tales or tall tales or whatever, but literally believed they were genuinely real.

You know that, right?

Pretty sure a giraffe would garner about as much shock.

 

[Coroc]

....

My own suspension of disbelief matters to me while I'm DMing--I am tempted to say I can't DM without it. That's part of the reason I'm homebrewing the world--I have a harder time managing suspension of disbelief in the worlds others create.



So, the folk I don't allow, I don't allow because they don't make sense to me, in the world I'm making. I am not intending to accuse any player who wants to play something I'm not allowing of anything worse than possible tone-deafness. There is no "purity of the world" to be violated, there is no judgment of playstyle.

This nails it imho. I could have written it myself.

I put a lot of work into making my own world out of whatever published setting I use as a baseline.

This includes but is not limited to: Filtering NPCs, available races, classes, equipment, spells, items, deities, monsters, locales, parts of the official canon, structure of the multiverse (aka which planar configuration), economics (what kind of coinage and pricing), technology level, etc. etc.

I try to meet players expectations, and I talk upfront about the relevant things like playable races. If a player comes along and puts some constructive argument on how a race / class I did not plan in would be meaningful in this world then I am open to change that.
But if a player comes to the table and insists on playing some exotic race or a class which has no background in my personal view of the setting e.g. paladin in darksun (Or ravenloft ;P, yes you can play one if I master a ravenoft game, for about an hour or so if you are real good ^^)
then I refuse.

 

[Coroc]

Oh, absolutely. I've had 2 horrible DMs. Killer Bob was the worst, but "Hey let's use a 6 sided die to use when the enemies crit (and only the enemies) to see what body part you lose? Lose your head? Too bad you're dead again" was a close second. I also had a DM that was a good guy, just ran a different game than what I wanted to spend my time playing.

I would not play in that game, but for interest, did the six sided die also apply for players? So player crit and on a 6 the 25 HD dragon is an autokill?

 

[Hussar]

See, the problem I see here is a lot of dms insisting it’s their campaign. Which drills down to a larger problem IMO. If the dm is so inflexible that adding a 31st race will ruin the campaign for them, I often wonder just how much input am I going to be allowed in the game?

It’s not a deal breaker but it’s certainly a red flag.

 

[Rdm]

People literally believed in humanoid creatures with animal features at that time. Not as fairy tales or tall tales or whatever, but literally believed they were genuinely real.

You know that, right?

Pretty sure a giraffe would garner about as much shock.

theoretically believing they existed and seeing one walk down your street are differing matters. But you are wedded to this rather strange insistence that people back then were MORE accepting than people now, somehow.