So, why do we say "Core Four"? Why do we think that Human, Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit are the foundations of DnD?
I can't speak for anyone else on here, but I use the term "core four" in this forum. On this thread. Prior to this thread, I had never even heard the term. I consider gnomes to be part of the core races. Always have.
If they came to me and said "I spent hundreds of hours on this world of the Blade coast, with the city of Everwinter and there is a powerful wizard called Leminster" Then I'm going to be highly skeptical they really devoted hundreds of hours to the game world. Maybe they did, but it is all stuff so far behind the scenes that all I can see is a poorly painted copy of the Forgotten Realms.
Thanks for the clarification. It is appreciated. I think we might still see things differently based on skepticism. (Perhaps?) I would never be skeptical of a DM that told me that. I can't imagine someone lying about the amount of work they put in because it corners them into very high expectations. (Maybe?) You are skeptical of them. I think that is our difference, which causes us to have different takes on DM power.
Time is a commodity. I'll grant you that, but no player then ever has a chance. DMs build their worlds before they bring them to the players, so no player would ever have a chance to try something the DM didn't think of .
Every player has a chance though. They have many chances. They can:
- find a different table
- join a different game online
- choose to DM next campaign
- wait until the next campaign and prior to the DM starting the parameters ask them to insert their choice
And I do not mean any of those as a negative. As I have noted, I have never seen a DM not bend over backwards. I also have played on very few tables (I can only think of two campaigns in D&D out of my 30+ years) that limited races. So there are many many many out there for that player if they have the absolute need and cannot deviate from their ideal character of a specific race. Again though, those are my experiences viewing the problem associated with a DM limiting races. I just really don't see it as a problem; one because I have never seen this type of conflict at a table, and two, because it literally is six months to a year until they get to play something else (average).
And I'll be frank with you, and this may be just my style, but I'd rather get the chance to work in a new race or a new section of the world than have a painted miniature or the DM talk in an accent.
Especially since, after the game starts, then they have plenty of time to paint their minis and practice their voices.
But again, I guess that is just my style. I don't bother with miniatures, too poor, so maybe it really does require so much extra work.
I respect your playstyle. And that was kind of my point about time. A DM puts the work into the world pre session zero from my experience. I have never seen a DM hold session zero and then build the mythos, gods, races, cultures, kingdoms in the time allotted (one or two weeks) until the next session. That seems impossible, even if they were on vacation or retired. One way they could do it is to improv a lot of things. But I have been very clear. If the DM is just going to improv, then they
should probably allow any race the player chooses (outside of power or clear turbulent dynamics of said race). I know not everyone on the DM side agrees with that. And that is okay. Just my two copper.
But back to the point. Once a DM builds their world, then the work falls into other things: adventures for the players to go on, plot lines, character arcs, dungeon design, NPCs, villains, (and for some - minis, maps, etc.). Online offers even more work at times. So there is no time to expand the cosmology, add a new kingdom, etc.
I think the point more was "People have been using this term negatively for over ten years, why should I have taken it to be positive in this context"
Which, is a fair point. When something has commonly been an insult, it is very hard to believe it should be taken as a compliment.
Ok. We'll just have to agree to disagree then. The context of my sentence was clearly positive - uber positive - in my mind. A negative word surrounded by all positive context means it is meant as a positive. I mean, a drag queen on RuPaul's Drag Race saying, "
Bitch you look so stunning, I have to shield my eyes. I am jealous!" is not referring to the other person negatively even though they use bitch.