D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Lyxen]

Just so you know, that's a rather grievous misstatement of my position.

See how easy it is to me misconstrued and jumped upon when simply making general statements about the inherent suitability of games and/or editions to specific playing styles, even when being absolutely non-judgemental about said games/editions/playing styles, and recognising that most of the games/editions are not only broad enough to accommodate many playing styles and that it's not wrong to use any game/edition for any playing style as long as everyone is having fun ? Maybe you'll remember that in the future...

 

[Arilyn]

The rules just don't do enough to make them feel adequately distinct.

Like the fact that they wear normal armour might make it easy from a rules perspective but it's really a bit silly that the character made out of metal (or in the case of my Silk Road game, Terracotta) needs to put on armour on top.

I also house-ruled that they could also only be magically healed by someone casting Mending at a higher spell slot, rather than cure wounds.

There's a lot of things in D&D that don't make a lot of sense. Warforged aren't the worst offenders. Maybe the metal they are made of is not constructed to act like armour so they should have extra protection. Most magical healing works because the source is divine and the deities have the power to heal non- biological entities. Natural healing comes from self repair systems.

Not saying you shouldn't make changes to warforged to make them more interesting or distinct but they are more or less workable as is.

 

[Oofta]

Perhaps he'd become persuaded by Marxist-type theories and thus believed in collective ownership.

"You own part of my soul?"
"Part of our soul, comrade."


Okay. Who said "the buck stops here" has to mean "fiat declaration"? Keep in mind, the man who made that his slogan was part of a system of checks and balances, and he used the phrase to indicate who takes responsibility, not who declares what will and won't be.

I also categorically reject the notion that the DM is "responsible for...the enjoyment of everyone at the table." Everyone at the table is responsible for that. The DM has more tools and powers, but everyone participating is equally responsible for contributing to fun. It's exactly the same duty no matter what powers you may have to bring it about.

This is like saying that only judges and LEOs are responsible for having a just society to live in. Everyone is responsible for contributing to that. Judges and LEOs etc. have more powers to help bring it about, but literally everyone is responsible for producing such a society.

The duty is there, as soon as you participate in the game. Having greater or lesser power to enact it has no bearing on whether it is there.

Who said "Buck stops here" means "fiat declaration"? Oh right. Any time a DM makes a decision that a player could possibly disagree with it's "fiat declaration" and bad-wrong-fun. I keep forgetting that. Silly me.

You do you. I'm just saying that when I play the DM has final say on rulings and how their world works. Someone has to make the final call. If you have a problem with the advice from the DMG that says "You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game." I suggest you take it up with WOTC because I'm tired of the argument.

 

[Lyxen]

Not saying you shouldn't make changes to warforged to make them more interesting or distinct but they are more or less workable as is.

My point here is that it really depends on what people like at your table, and what tickles them off. Some tables will have no problem with the warforged as described, others will house-rule them so that they become pleasing to them, others will just discard them, etc. It's just a matter of taste, just like having a set number of races well described and well integrated into a setting, or having anything available.

The only thing that matters is finding the right set and answers for your table, any attempt to say (as was the intent of this thread) that a DM is bad because he bans some races from the available choice is actually going in the wrong direction.

Such threads are good to make people and tables aware of the possibilities, and the potential advantages and drawbacks of them, etc. but you can be sure that as soon as someone comes and says "this is the only right way", it's in fact the wrong one. What it shouldn't do is prevent people from explaining their personal preferences, and unfortunately, this being the internet, there will be people taking offense at that...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

And yet, warforged is one of these races that have always posed a problem of verisimilitude to me. Are they constructs or not ? How do they heal ? Not to mention things like sleeping, eating, breathing and such. Various editions have had various takes on this, with more or less success, and this is where, for me, 5e's simplicity which works very well in general fails to provide explanations that look both interesting, fun and "realistic" to people at our tables, which is why we don't have any in our groups, including in Eberron campaigns.

I can see what you are saying, but at the same time feel like that's picking out a singular thing and making it a problem when you might have things like gargoyles, elementals, and undead that would all have a similar problem if you looked into it. In your game would Cause Wounds repair a skeleton who took damage? How is that different than cure Wounds fixing a Fire Elemental?

I guess that to me its seems like you would have to jettison a large amount of the monster books if real life rules had to apply to game content.

 

[Lyxen]

I can see what you are saying, but at the same time feel like that's picking out a singular thing and making it a problem when you might have things like gargoyles, elementals, and undead that would all have a similar problem if you looked into it. In your game would Cause Wounds repair a skeleton who took damage? How is that different than cure Wounds fixing a Fire Elemental?

I don't know, this is not a problem that has occured in 7+ years of playing 5e, so that's the beauty of the game system, I don't need to care about those, I'll make a local ruling if and when it occurs (which I doubt it will).

However, if I allowed PCs of these races, for sure, these problems would occur, forcing me to houserule heavily, something that I'd rather not do.

I guess that to me its seems like you would have to jettison a large amount of the monster books if real life rules had to apply to game content.

No, I don't see above. I can perfectly use these monsters and even make small rulings behind the back of my players if really pressed (not that I had to in that case, but the possibility is open to me), I don't need huge rulesets that only burden the play and still remain inconsistent or block our open way of playing.

 

[Arilyn]

The only thing that matters is finding the right set and answers for your table, any attempt to say (as was the intent of this thread) that a DM is bad because he bans some races from the available choice is actually going in the wrong direction.

The OP is not saying that a GM is bad for banning races. The OP is simply asking GMs to reconsider their choices and that there are ways to accommodate players. I read this as a simple reminder that we can think outside the box and a player choice on race will not derail a campaign or ruin a world. That's it.

The OP is talking knee jerk reactions. A GM might have a perfectly valid and well thought out reason for saying no.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, the OP is about one person’s shift in thinking, and a suggestion to others to make similar attempts to look at things differently.

Honestly, with 5E, there’s so little that’s up to the players that any reduction of their choice does seem a bit problematic. I get sone of the reasons some of the time, but most often it seems to be mostly about the preference of the GM or what the GM thinks “makes sense”.

And it’s interesting to watch people get offended by the use of the word tyranny in the title and then go on to explain how “it’s the GM’s game” and “the GM must have final say” and the like.

I get it….if you don’t like certain races or they don’t suit your gaming world, then don’t allow them. But acknowledge that you’re reducing player choice in favor of more GM choice. In a game that already has an abundance of GM choice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Warforged are living constructs, meaning they are constructed of still-living organic material, sustained by the magic that created them. Therefore, they do not require outside sustenance (ala ring of sustenance) and can be healed healing magic because they're living organic being.

It's that easy.

 

[Lyxen]

The OP is not saying that a GM is bad for banning races. The OP is simply asking GMs to reconsider their choices and that there are ways to accommodate players. I read this as a simple reminder that we can think outside the box and a player choice on race will not derail a campaign or ruin a world. That's it.

The OP is talking knee jerk reactions. A GM might have a perfectly valid and well thought out reason for saying no.

The problem is that, once more, this is totally player-centric, it's up to the DM to accommodate and not be a jerk. How about the player accommodating and not being a jerk ? And I'm not even speaking about the title of the thread here.

Once more, I've seen tons of really bad players and never seen a really bad DM.

Yeah, the OP is about one person’s shift in thinking, and a suggestion to others to make similar attempts to look at things differently.

And how about the player needing a shift in thinking ?

Honestly, with 5E, there’s so little that’s up to the players that any reduction of their choice does seem a bit problematic.

Poor, poor players, living in such a world of tyranny...

I get sone of the reasons some of the time, but most often it seems to be mostly about the preference of the GM or what the GM thinks “makes sense”.

And, in general, for good reasons, the DM thinks about the whole of the campaign and all his players, when it's very rare that a player thinks about anything else than his entitled little self. When you add that to all the work that the DM does, you see immediately that this is not a game where all roles are equal, and 5e just fully recognises that again.

And it’s interesting to watch people get offended by the use of the word tyranny in the title and then go on to explain how “it’s the GM’s game” and “the GM must have final say” and the like.

And it's really annoying seeing such one-sided perspectives.

I get it….if you don’t like certain races or they don’t suit your gaming world, then don’t allow them. But acknowledge that you’re reducing player choice in favor of more GM choice. In a game that already has an abundance of GM choice.

In the end, what really, really annoys me there is that constant vibe of "the poor little players against the nasty powerful DM". THERE IS NOT SUCH THING, or at least there should not be any such thing, but all these posts are promoting a Player vs. GM mindset that I find detestable in what should be the most cooperative game on earth, starting with the word "tyranny" indeed.