And we once more are judging. Anything not core four is "some flavor of freak". This is why people are feeling like you are dismissing them for no reason. You are acting like we are somehow doing something weirder than you are doing.
Two things.
1) As I demonstrated... maybe in a different thread, ah yes, here
Oh, the Humanity! Exotic Races, Anthropocentrism, Stereotypes & Roleplaying in D&D when looking at published settings, even the ones that are seen to be the strictest in theme or tone can have a massive number of sentient races. Dark sun has 25 races in it, if you don't count the Mul and Half-Elves. Many things can fit the same theme with a bit of rewriting.
2) Sure, maybe the player who is saying "I portaled in" is being a little bit of a tool. But what if they said "Well, can I be a dwarf and just use the Gnome Stats?" are they still being contrarian? To me that would sound like they are trying to work with the DM.
The thing is though, you are presenting this as a single interaction. Player comes with idea, DM says no, and the player is supposed to immediately abandon their idea. And if they don't, you are labeling them as a problem. Why? Why is caring about an idea enough to try and compromise it in such a way it can work, a problem? Especially to the point where you need to deride and label the player?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You and
@EzekielRaiden seem to be talking past each other.
Your point is that the rules are there to be broken. That the game is an open toolkit for anything to be put in or taken out.
His point is that if you don't tell him you are taking things out of the PHB, he is going to assume it is all in there. Because otherwise he has to come to you and ask EVERYTHING.
Do we roll d20's? (Can't assume that DM, might have changed it)
Can I play a Fighter? (Can't assume that DM, might have changed it)
Does magic exist? (Can't assume that DM, might have changed it)
Do we use hitpoints? (Can't assume that DM, might have changed it)
Do I use the Hitpoint calculation in the book? (Can't assume that DM, might have changed it)
Do longswords deal a 1d8+strength modifier when wielded in one hand? (Can't assume that DM, might have changed it)
You have to start assuming that something in the core rulebook is guaranteed, or the DM is going to have to whitelist EVERYTHING. So, if you are taking things out, you need to tell people. And if you don't tell people, then you can't get upset at them for assuming the rules work as written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is not how it should work. You as the DM do not get to dictate everything. and proposing that "no good dm" wants disruptive players in this context makes it sound more like you don't want players who stand up for the things they want instead of sitting down, shutting up, and letting you tell them about your new novel.
I'm being harsh, but that is exactly the impression your text here gives.
Ultimate Authority.
Lays down the law
The inmates don't run the asylum.
Yeah, I don't agree. I will quote myself from earlier in this thread. Your players are your partners. You are right that the game doesn't run without a DM. The game also does not run without the players.
And for some reason, when they designed this game, they decided to puff up the DMs ego, calling them the "Master" and that they were a rare breed and other such nonsense.
The reason you don't argue with the DM about a ruling
at the table is because it wastes game time. But if you want to talk afterwards? I encourage that, and for good reason. Because when I do things that truly upset my players (and I did once) then I don't want them to see me as some Ultimate Authority laying down the law that they can either accept or leave, because then... they leave. And I have less fun if there are less people at the table. If I drove someone away, I'd feel like a heel.
And maybe I won't change my opinion, maybe I stick by what I did, because I did it for very good reasons. But I'm not unquestionable. I don't dictate. Because that isn't the way to manage the game and make sure everyone has the most fun they can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, other than you saying the DM both does and does not make these empires (which I think is a typo) then you seem to agree with my point.
Saying that adding one or two more races suddenly makes a Mos Eisley Canteena, while you have half of those races already built and fleshed out and trading with each other doesn't make sense. You don't need to add Lizardfolk and Hobgoblins to the setting, they likely already exist, along with the dozens of other sentient monster cultures in the game.
Not sure what them being recessed has to do with anything. I mean, you can't be world-class slavers and not be willing to sell to all sorts of types, or buy from them. So they need to have some interaction with the rest of the world, unless they are completely isolated.
And you lost me.
Because the point I was making that you were responding to had nothing to do with where the PCs start. Just because the PCs start on the East Coast doesn't mean you didn't build out the West coast, right?
Because the problem being discussed at the time, was that adding a single new race to the world would be highly disruptive. So you can't have an unbuilt West Coast, because if you did, then...why couldn't the race the players want come from there.
And from that, we go back up to those Monster cultures you built. People wanted to argue that they can't have too many sentient races, or it is too strange and packed together. But basic DnD assumes that
Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Orcs, Stone Giants, Cloud Giants, Fire Giants, Frost Giants, Hill Giants, Storm Giants, Trolls, Gnolls, Kobolds, Dragons, Hags, Ettins, Ogres, Cyclops, Aboleth, Mind flayers, Drow, Duergar, Humans, Elves, Halfings, Dwarves, Gnomes, Beholders, Medusa, Dryads, Minotaurs, Bullywugs, Kuo-Toa, Sahaguin, Lizardfolk, Cloakers, Myconids, Yuan-Ti, Tritons, Flumphs, Grimlocks, Quaggoth, Formarians, Harpies, Sprites, Pixies, Sphinxes, Naga, Krakens, Merfolk, Rakshasa, and Troglodytes all live together in the material plane. That is a massive number of societies and cultures, and ignoring adding Werewolves, Weretigers, Wererats, Were bears, Wereboars, Vampires, Liches and other undead. So how is adding a Tiefling suddenly tipping the balance of your world into being the Canteena?
Unless, when talking about world building, the DM only takes the player races from that list. Human, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome and Halfling. But even still, Drow, Duergar, Yuan-Ti, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Bugbear, Kobold, Tritons and Lizardfolk all exsit in that list, and are all also player options.
And that was the question I was asking, all those pages ago. Why does it seem that when people are talking about worldbuilding, and the races they allow, they look exclusively at the "safe" parts of the map, the human kingdom and their allies and take that as the whole of their worldbuilding?
Right, so if you have build every culture in your world out to that point, where does the Canteena argument come from? You have at least 25 fully formed cultures in your world already, interacting with each other. That is the basic level of DnD, and that seems to be fairly diverse already.
And sure, after getting all of that to work together, being forced to change something could be aggravating, but you might also just find easy places to slide things in. You've already got Stone Giants, Cloud Giants, Fire Giants, Frost Giants, Hill Giants, Storm Giants, Ettins, Ogres, Cyclops and Formarians as your giant races and how they all interact. Slotting in Firbolgs and Goliaths might be a lot easier, since you've built so much existing structure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, but they are in round three of this back and forth, and Oofta still seems completely flabbergasted that what he said could be taken badly in anyway shape or form.
And while no offense might be meant, sometimes it is meant. And so people end up discussing what was meant and how it could have been phrased better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tend to assume people on this forum are older and have families. So let me ask you this.
Imagine your father, or maybe if you are a father imagine yourself, declaring to the entire family that something they like to eat will no longer be purchased, because they have decided they don't like.
There is to be no argument. They are the final authority in this manner because they make the most money, and therefore they have the biggest opinion, and are the final arbiter of the rules.
Do you think it would go well?
I can imagine my Father doing this. Of course, my mother is finally divorcing him like she should have done 20 years ago, which I think shows my opinion on the matter quite succinctly. This isn't how you treat people.
), I wouldn't start out a bunch of drow PC's in a city that wants to kill them. (Again, provided where going with the common typical FR lore.) This is why I used the word "focus." Maybe I should have used the word focal when referring to starting a campaign. But, when it comes to world building, all is built.
