D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Thomas Shey]

That's not an opinion, it's a fact - why am I not supposed to say facts out loud? A single decision maker/top-down organization is simpler than a democratic/collaborative organization.

Efficient =/= Good.

And simpler is not identical to more efficient. A simpler tool can require you to take more steps than a more complicated one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Whats faster? I tell you to do something or 10 people in a committee discuss what to do?

If you properly research it, and the committee already includes people who know about the subject, you could easily take longer to make the decision than they do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’ve not commented in a bit because there seems to be little point by now. But I want to say that expecting/asking/hoping the GM to allow some player input/choice/decisions doesn’t require the kitchen sink element that everyone seems so scared of.

Just…listen to what your players want, and consider that in making your decisions. That doesn’t open the door for everything. It doesn’t have to “ruin” the GM’s idea of the setting.

That defense “I don’t like kitchen sink settings” doesn’t address the idea presented in the OP, or the criticism of any approach that gives the GM even more authority.

It strikes me….and I’ll admit I’m a bit biased in this regard, and maybe I’m not being entirely fair, but it’s a gut reaction….that the anti-kitchen-sink stance seems like an easy one to take in order to dodge the actual issue.

 

[Oofta]

If your ability score adjustment and cultural weapons/item is all that makes a race, then the race is basically an alternate human.

But not all races are like this. A D&D dwarf or Elf is closer to a human than a D&D dragonborn or tabaxi. And mythological dwarves and elves are farther still.

That's why traditional D&D races tend to be redundant. They aren't that far from the base human and rely on lore and rare happenings to make them look different.

I think that's another reason why many choose some of the non-humany races and ask to have them in settings. To roleplay something that constantly feels not like a human and having a constant reminder of fantasy.

So the rubber mask that they wear makes them unique? Because they look different they are different? I mean tabaxi have, like, almost nothing. They look like cats and come from someplace far away. Where? Who knows! What's their culture like? No clue, it's, ummm, really far away?

All I can say is we have different standards on what makes a race unique. If you can't acknowledge that elves and halflings (I didn't even get into the multiple crunch differences) are distinct I don't see any reason to continue.

 

[Oofta]

I’ve not commented in a bit because there seems to be little point by now. But I want to say that expecting/asking/hoping the GM to allow some player input/choice/decisions doesn’t require the kitchen sink element that everyone seems so scared of.

Just…listen to what your players want, and consider that in making your decisions. That doesn’t open the door for everything. It doesn’t have to “ruin” the GM’s idea of the setting.

That defense “I don’t like kitchen sink settings” doesn’t address the idea presented in the OP, or the criticism of any approach that gives the GM even more authority.

It strikes me….and I’ll admit I’m a bit biased in this regard, and maybe I’m not being entirely fair, but it’s a gut reaction….that the anti-kitchen-sink stance seems like an easy one to take in order to dodge the actual issue.

When I invite players to my game I'm quite clear about a few things. One of those is allowed races. If you want to customize or run a PC that can pass as a different race, we can talk; I've only been taken up on that once. So right away, people have a choice. If they disagree with my curated list they can find another game. That may sound harsh, but I always have 6 players when I only really want 4. So the limited list of races doesn't seem to matter too much.

So what is the actual issue. Because I don't remember ever dodging anything. I do think the DM has and should have more power than the rest of the group. The DM has a much, much broader responsibility not only in terms of what they create and control but also who their responsible for. A DM creates an entire world and has to think about what 6 other people want. A player? Primarily concerned with their own build. It's not that they have 100% authority and the players have 0, but to me it's a different kind of authority.

When I start up a campaign I talk about the types of campaigns I enjoy running which includes no evil or chaotic "I'm not really evil" neutral. Beyond that? I'm pretty open. Typical hero's path, urban, wilderness, mercenary, I want to run a campaign people will enjoy. While I build the world, the stage and NPC actors, how the PCs interact with those is completely up to them. They can add details to the world, I just want editorial control so it doesn't conflict with established lore and that it fits with the theme and style of the world. Because once it's established it becomes set.

But this is all stuff we've discussed many times. We have different opinions and that's fine. If we all agreed this forum would be boring. What am I or anyone else dodging?

 

[Minigiant]

o the rubber mask that they wear makes them unique? Because they look different they are different? I mean tabaxi have, like, almost nothing. They look like cats and come from someplace far away. Where? Who knows! What's their culture like? No clue, it's, ummm, really far away?

Well that's the point

Tabaxis are very different from humans but only official in one setting as a minor race.
Mechanically the race has a climb speed, faster speed, and natural weapons. So so a tabaxi community would be very different from humans before you layer culture. Same with a tabaxi PC with their increased speed, addition movement, and claws. Almost every scene a tabaxi player can display their tabaxiness before culture.

Same with dragonborn. Every single dragonorn player I've every seen goes into hostile environments with their breath weapon and resistance in mind. And they never turn down the request to short rest.

However because D&D is traditional and it's been decade since a setting with these fantastical races have been in mind as major aspects, the lore is weak. And having DMs who ban them doesn't create or reinforce their lore.

All I can say is we have different standards on what makes a race unique. If you can't acknowledge that elves and halflings (I didn't even get into the multiple crunch differences) are distinct I don't see any reason to continue.

Elves and halflings are distinct.
My point is the distinction is small and the races with high distinction rarely, if ever, get any real setting support..

There are no D&D official settings where dragoborn, goblins, orcs, tabaxi, minotaurs, etc are at the same level of importance or prominence as dwarves, elves, halflings, or gnomes. And none where they replace them.

And there are few DMs, like me, sharing and running homebrew setting and worlds where this happens.

I mean, this is a thread about DMs throwing a bone and allowing one member of the race. Imagine one saying "replace dwarves with lizardfolk".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’ve not commented in a bit because there seems to be little point by now. But I want to say that expecting/asking/hoping the GM to allow some player input/choice/decisions doesn’t require the kitchen sink element that everyone seems so scared of.

Just…listen to what your players want, and consider that in making your decisions. That doesn’t open the door for everything. It doesn’t have to “ruin” the GM’s idea of the setting.

That defense “I don’t like kitchen sink settings” doesn’t address the idea presented in the OP, or the criticism of any approach that gives the GM even more authority.

It strikes me….and I’ll admit I’m a bit biased in this regard, and maybe I’m not being entirely fair, but it’s a gut reaction….that the anti-kitchen-sink stance seems like an easy one to take in order to dodge the actual issue.

I don't think anyone has said that the GM shouldn't listen player wishes at all or try to be accommodating to a certain degree. It really is about to what extent the GM is allowed to say "No, I really don't feel that is suitable for this setting/campaign premise" before getting labelled a tyrant.

Also, I think kitchen-sinkyness is related in a sense that if that's what you're used to and what your default assumption is, then adding one more intelligent species in the setting might not sound like a big deal. But that really isn't how I approach things. I think what intelligent species exist is rather foundational aspect of the setting creation, and probably among the first things to be decided, so new ones will not be added willy-nilly. Now this is not to say that new things cannot ever be introduced or the setting be expanded, but to me a new intelligent species is a major addition.

 

[Orius]

How much of a car can you change before it becomes a different car? Everything but the body? Less? Does it take a body change?

The most important question though is this: Does Theseus have Michelin tires on his car?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And there are few DMs, like me, sharing and running homebrew setting and worlds where this happens.

I mean, this is a thread about DMs throwing a bone and allowing one member of the race. Imagine one saying "replace dwarves with lizardfolk".

Right. I fully support your right as a GM to replace dwarves with lizardfolk. Which means that the player should accept that they don't get to play a dwarf in that setting.

 

[Maxperson]

The most important question though is this: Does Theseus have Michelin tires on his car?

He did until he ate them. Might be why they only got one star.