Didn't say that at all.
I said it's so rare as to be irrelevant to consider. It would be stupid for either a player or DM to suffer through playing for a miniscule chance that "It might turn out for the best."
Again, there is no difference. The player is certain and 90% likely to be correct about not liking what they don't like. And it's probably higher than 90%, but I'm throwing you a bone and downplaying it.
Right, so when other people suggested that for the player, you would have disagreed with that as well. Because there is no real difference between DM and Player
So, if those people believe that for players, the same thing should apply to DMs. Because there is no real difference between DM and Player.
No, no. That's you once again trying to invent a double standard for me that doesn't actually exist.
Okay, so then those people who believe a Player can play something they don't initially like, should believe the same for DM's . After all, it isn't a double standard, it is one way or the other. Either you can grow to enjoy something or you can't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the campaign world is persistent, what happens happens. If Sir Bob the 10th level fighter builds a castle, raises an army, clears out wilderness hex 0306, and declares it the Barony of Bob, then the Barony of Bob is now part of the campaign world. If Mel the Mysterious, 15th level magic-user, flies by and levels the castle with disintegrate spells and conjured elementals, so much for the Barony of Bob. If Clarence the cleric starts a new religion, leads an army of zealots on a crusade to conquer a kingdom that the DM originally placed in the campaign world, succeeds and turns it into a theocracy, that's what happens.
But is Mel the Mysterious a PC or an NPC? And why would the players want to go and destroy something they created? Did the Barony of Bob become an antagonist between campaigns?
Wonder why the DM would have made the player created thing a villain for the Players to destroy....
Can you point to something specific, or is this more of a free-floating whinge?
You mean other than making a statement like this "A DM who creates worlds in this manner is no more obliged to solicit player input than a painter is obliged to let an art critic touch up their canvas. For a DM like this, the singular creation of the milieu is one of the very reasons for playing D&D in the first place; and in that case, a statement like "If I didn't think of it, it's not in my world—because then, if I added it, it wouldn't be my world anymore" doesn't just make perfect sense, it's also a literal ethical principle for that DM."
Which implies a very heavy control over the world, I mean, even including an idea they did not come up with is against their ethical principles.
But, when I extend that control over play, I'm obtuse and, how did you put it? "May God have mercy on [my] soul" because those things are entirely different and a person who sees working entirely in isolation making their world with zero outside influence will of course not extend that level of control over the setting in other areas.
Through things like DM PCs, overpowered NPCs and Enemies, acts of the Gods re-establishing the status quo. Nope, clearly not even a possibility.
I'm getting tired of the false equivalence. I have met more than one entitled player married to a character concept ill-suited to the campaign. That's a thing; it's real. But I have never met a DM who imposed limitations on character creation as part of a diabolical plot to terrorize their saintly players by malevolently theming a setting, or focusing a campaign with malice aforethought.
Well, I'm happy you've never experienced it. Since it is the holidays, I'll quote a Tim Allen movie, "Have you ever seen a million dollars? Then how do you know it exists?"
Just because you've never seen it, doesn't make it impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure it's possible.
So What?
No guarantees.
The proverbial Saintly DM is under no obligation of any kind to make it possible.
There is simply no imperative or obligation for any DM to accommodate a potential player that wants to do things different from all the other players at the table.
And quite frankly most of us have enough game running experience to make the judgement call that most 'special requests' from potential players are usually not worth the punt.
The potential players gets to ask. The DM gets to say no if he wants. There really is no real argument here.
If I have a campaign setting that I am exited to run, why would I bend backwards for potential player #1 out of 4-5 players, when with an established group I can easily recruit a new player that would be more than happy to join the game as is?
It's a no brainer. Potential player #2 for the win.
And here is again a point I just can't agree with.
Not only are we assuming that accommodating player #1 is "bending over backwards", but you are also assuming that accommodating them isn't worth the time and effort.
And finally, that getting a new player is trivially easy.
And, in my experience, none of that is true by necessity.
I've had games where we lost a player and they simply could not be replaced. The logistics of finding another person who we knew and would let into our homes, who had the time at the scheduled time was simply infeasible.
I've had games where helping a player meet their request was a rather easy amount of work.
I've had games where going forward with that accommodation was far and beyond worth the effort. Literally one of my absolute favorite people and characters to DM for came from exactly this scenario. Established game world lacking the requested race, new person coming in part way through the game, no idea who she was. But, she was excited about a concept and I decided to "bend over backwards" to help her, and it was the best decision I ever made.
So, maybe, checking our assumptions is useful, since my game would have been far poorer if I had acted as people in this thread had suggested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well. I'm not gonna build a setting with elements that I don't like. If I wanted that sort of a setting I'd just use Forgotten Realms.
Thematic and aesthetic preferences are ultimately just 'I do like this/I don't like this.' If GM is not allowed to make decisions based on such they simply cannot express any sort of artistic vision.
That is a poor understanding of artistic vision.
I've included elements I don't particularly like in my artistic work before, because they were appropriate. Artistic visions are more than "here is a box full of everything I like."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So this this is the argument now? I just need to be clear. Because what you are saying is it doesn't matter if the DM sets expectations up or not - it only matters that they ban a race.
I just want to be clear so everyone knows. The only thing we are debating here is whether a DM is good or bad based on whether they allow races or limit races. Is that a defined description of what you have been arguing?
How can you possibly come to that conclusion from what I said? Seriously I'm actually at a loss here.
You quite literally took a question of similar structure to "Is it wrong to steal if you are starving?" and have twisted it into "So what you are asking is if it only matters whether or not they stole."
NO. It does not only matter if they ban the race, because the question is about banning the FOR THAT SPECIFIC REASON. That literally, by definition, means that I am asking about more than the act of banning itself.
But frankly, I'm just left with the single observation that you don't want to answer the question. Because this is, I believe, the THIRD time you've tried to redirect it.
Wrong.
You have simplified his argument and multitude of responses to a single:
- He only said a DM is bad if they go out of their way to ban a race because they are being spiteful towards the player.
That is just so wrong on so many levels.
My god man, how are you so bad at this. I'm sorry if I'm getting insulting by this point, but you clearly did not read Hussar's own response to my quote.
Here, I'll quote it for you.
Just quoting this bit since it appears that there has been a repeated reading failure.
If you have any other reason OTHER THAN purely personal reasons, then you are fine.
That's the fifth time I've had to repeat this.
That is Hussar saying that I am correct in how the argument should be read. So you are literally telling me and him that you understand his argument better than he does.
I don't understand how you can keep doing this by accident.
Yup. This is what I listed in my "little list."
There are many times a DM could change their parameters, but that is not what the debate is about. If all the DMs here said suddenly, "Oh, well I would just add the race," then there would not be an argument. So, and here is the important part, I was trying to find where the conflict was. I am not trying to find the point where if the DMs change, then suddenly everyone agrees. We all already know that point. Instead I am trying to find the point of contention. That is why it is a question that I asked, and not a declarative statement.
Please feel free to respond to this with some snarky, triple down on your logic, statement. But if the above, after being explained, is not clear to you, then my gut feeling is you don't want to find where the problem is, you just want the DMs to say they are wrong.
So, you are saying you are trying to find the point of conflict.
Then you ignore something that, in your own words, would nullify the conflict if it went one way or the other. Isn't that, sort of by definition,
where the conflict is!
So, if you truly want to find the point of conflict, why leave out something that so obviously seem to be a point of conflict!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Chaosmancer is also just making an argument for the DM to hold firm anyway. After all, there's no guarantee that the player isn't going to love some other PC race/concept more. It's just as possible as the DM suddenly liking something he knows that he doesn't like.
Don't attribute other people's arguments to me. I literally said it was an argument other people were making, and that if they hold that belief, then the same should hold true of DMs.
Seriously, how am I the one constantly being accused of "twisting people's words" when you are quite literally taking an argument I said was not my argument, and then claiming it is my argument.
I knew checking this thread on a holiday was a mistake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read all 150+ pages of this thread. What a ride.
I think that explaining "the appeal of the weird fantasy races" first requires us to define what is meant by "weird." And according to the original post, we are asked to assume that "weird" means any character race that is anthropomorphic or monstrous--basically anything that couldn't pass as human. (Specifically mentioned: "turtle people, flying people, dragon people, and so on." "Turtle people and cat people and demon people and dragon people." "Anamilistic type characters," "bird people, elephant people, demon people, cat people, and so on." "ampthormorphic/furry")
So to answer the question, I first must accept that "not human-passing = inappropriate for a fantasy setting." And I firmly disagree with that assumption. They aren't weird to me, and they never have been, so the discussion ends before it can start.
Regarding monstrous or anthropomorphic heroes, there are plenty of references in real-world mythology and religion to draw inspiration from, and a lot of folks have pointed some of them out. I think they only get "weird" when the players' expectations don't match the expectations of the DM, that's all. Like, if the current campaign is based on Lord of the Rings, having dog- and cat-headed people walking around will definitely be strange...but if the campaign is based on ancient Egyptian mythology, they'll fit right in.
TL;DR: There aren't any weird fantasy races, there are only weird fantasy settings.
Which is one thing we tried to discuss earlier, before things got derailed.
People keep leveling accusations about "kitchen sinks" but many fantasy worlds have no problem with "not human-passing" individuals, and so much mythology practically depends on them existing. But, it doesn't seem to end up mattering.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like this argument, and a few others around here right now, comes down to DM authority vs player entitlement. Both should be flexible and willing to listen, but also accept that not every DM is a good fit for every player. No player is entitled to have a DM run for them, and no DM is entitled to have players automatically buy into their world or reasoning. So find a DM who’s interested or find players who are interested. Nothing says everyone should always be able to play with everyone else in the hobby. It’s too big for that.
Here's a problem with that assessment.
Everyone currently arguing is a DM. So how is it Player Entitlement? Part of my reasoning comes from being a DM who adjusted their game to accomodate a player, and having a fantastic time. Where is my "Player Entitlement" in that scenario?
Trying to make it "us vs them" doesn't work so well when both groups are "us"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowing reality to intrude.
You're running a themed world my last campaign was Egypt. Most anthromorphic stuff was fine.
Potential player 1 doesn't get with the program wants to play Warforged or whatever, Elf. Insists on it.
Potential player 2 just wants to play and is looking at a leonal, tabaxi, or Ravenfolk.
Gee wonder which one gets the nod.
The Warforged wants to be an experimental project for a new type eternal guardian for the Pharoah's tomb that does not have the weaknesses to fire that mummies have.
The Tabaxi wants to be a wanderer from the dunes with no connections to the Phaux-Egyptian society.
Now who gets the nod? Is it truly so cut and dry?
