D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Mannahnin]

Minigiant: People who hate kitchen sink settings should be all for Tasha Race Customization or more race and subraces.

This confuses me. It boils down to, "People who hate kitchen sink settings should be all for kitchen sinks."

Could you clarify?

I suspect because it gives me more tools in the toolbox for building my curated setting. Tasha's in particular gives more options to let players get the mechanical and customization options they want even if I limit the list of races.

 

[Lyxen]

No one said I was quoting you. It's things that have actually been said here.

And still, you were responding to me specifically.

No one said you did. In the rest of the thread, people are talking about cooperative world design and the like hardly character backgroudn or initiative.

And I did run a 10+ years multi-DMs campaign but guess what, apart from a few snippets here and there, it was the DMs who did most of the work. It's just not the way D&D works (mostly because epic adventures require an epic setup), and it's just not the way I've seen players contributing except in very very rare cases.

It's the 'dedicated to others' part that's lacking when talking DM superiosity.

And it's strange that you read the parts of the rule which acknowledge DM's authority and not the parts where it's just as obvious that he is doing that for the players, as it should be. And if players find a DM who does not run things that way (never actually met one in 40+ years of play), nothing forces them to play with that DM anyway.

I volunteer too; mentor abused kids, but I doubt either of us thought that meant we got to boss around the people were were serving in those roles.

And again, who says that a DM bosses people around ? It's just a leisure activity, if you don't like having a DM run your game, just leave, you won't ever be bossed around.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

They absorb the armor into them adding the metal to their bodies gaining thicker, better protection. I also don't mind them being able to heal magically. They're magically creations, so why not.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And it's strange that you read the parts of the rule which acknowledge DM's authority and not the parts where it's just as obvious that he is doing that for the players, as it should be. And if players find a DM who does not run things that way (never actually met one in 40+ years of play), nothing forces them to play with that DM anyway.

I am very confused as to how this is a response to what I wrote.

I said 'some people are missing the part about 'dedicated to others' and you accuse me of not acknowledging the part of about 'dedicated to others'?

And again, who says that a DM bosses people around ?

The attitude is pretty clear.

Edit: or rather the idea that they shouldn't have to boss people around because their word is law and why argue with the law?

 

[Oofta]

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.

I admit that as a DM I create the playground for the PCs and invent or control pretty much everything they interact with. Has anyone ever denied that? Of course I set restrictions because I want the world to be consistent with past decisions and to make a living, breathing, logical world. Many of those decisions are preference and judgment calls.

Every decision I make has the possibility of limiting choices. Whether it's telling the monk that they can't run so fast that they create a Flash tornado or that no, they can't make a PC that's half dragon half vampire.

Stop pretending that words have no meaning:

Tyranny: arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.​

Fiat: an arbitrary decree or pronouncement​

I'm not arbitrary in my decisions. I'm making decisions based on what I think will work best for everyone at the table. Of course I listen to my players and take their desires into consideration. At the same time I don't want to mislead people about what kind of game I run. It's why in my campaign invite I tell them to read my limited house rules which includes a list of acceptable races.

DM long enough and I think every DM is going to make some decision at some point that will mean a player can't do what they wanted. It's called being a DM. Why is limiting races called tyranny? Why is this particular decision "fiat"?

Why can't people just admit that their preference, their decision as DM is to have a kitchen sink campaign?

 

[Lyxen]

I am very confused as to how this is a response to what I wrote.
I said 'some people are missing the part about 'dedicated to others' and you accuse me of not acknowledging the part of about 'dedicated to others'?

The thing is that I'm not sure that there are many people missing it. I have not met any, maybe you have, but I still think that they constitute a very small minority.

The attitude is pretty clear.

Again, it's only your opinion.

Edit: or rather the idea that they shouldn't have to boss people around because their word is law and why argue with the law?

No, because once more it's not what the rules say or what people advocate, so that cliving perspective belongs nowhere actually.

 

[Maxperson]

The "attitude" is misconstrued by most here. The rules give the DM absolute authority, but I've seen no one in this thread, and very few in other similar threads say that the DM should be a jerk about it.

The reality is that even though I am given absolute power over the game by the rules, I should also exercise discretion and listen to the players when they have issues. If what the players want won't disrupt the game or cause the DM's enjoyment to suffer, then the request should be accommodated.

 

[Minigiant]

This confuses me. It boils down to, "People who hate kitchen sink settings should be all for kitchen sinks."

Could you clarify?

I mean.

Two of the secondary drivers for race creation is the lack of variation and options in settings with few races and the boredom of constantly using the same races.

They are a lot of uncreative DMs who design the same setting with the same races and no twists nor depth.

New races and classes offer uncreative DMs with new options for spice.

 

[Oofta]

I mean.

Two of the secondary drivers for race creation is the lack of variation and options in settings with few races and the boredom of constantly using the same races.

They are a lot of uncreative DMs who design the same setting with the same races and no twists nor depth.

New races and classes offer uncreative DMs with new options for spice.

Is the race of a PC the main thing that distinguishes one PC from another the only thing that matters? Combinations of race/class/personality/goals/setting/etc don't mean anything?

Why is a DM "uncreative" if you can't possibly have more depth to your PC than "it's an elf so it's exactly the same as every other elf I've ever played"?

 

[Lyxen]

They are a lot of uncreative DMs who design the same setting with the same races and no twists nor depth.
New races and classes offer uncreative DMs with new options for spice.

If a DM is truly uncreative, I very much doubt that adding races is really going to do much for the game.