D&D General Do you like LOTS of races/ancestries/whatever? If so, why?

[Oofta]

I did not equate horribleness to the topic divide. Not all DMs are enjoyable company, for any number of reasons. It is a factor in DM scarcity.

I think more people should try DMing, I get why they don't and as an obligate introvert I understand. But people shouldn't be intimidated because of what they see on streams, if we all compared ourselves to Matt Mercer we'd all come up short.

Maybe I'm lucky but I've only had one truly horrible DM, the guy who's version of fun was to see how he could "creatively" kill off every single PC in a single session. He didn't get it even when my PC could have survived but instead just gave up. I've had DMs who's games I quit or didn't join because they didn't work for me, but that's different.

 

[Aldarc]

How is this not "allow whatever the player wants"? After all, it all comes down to the DM's vision versus the player. Why do I need to "justify" my decisions as DM?

(1) One is an assertion that the GM should allow everything that the player asks. I did not make this assertion. (2) The other is a question about why the GM can't change the setting to accomodate the player and how the setting would break in the process. This is NOT an assertion that the GM should allow everything the player asks. It's a question about what are the points of compromise and how the GM can exercise their power over the setting on behalf of the player.

These logically are not the same arguments, despite what you may think. I hope you appreciate the distinction between these arguments. At the very least, I would appreciate if you trusted me in good faith when I tell you that I am not arguing what you believe that I am arguing that you trust me.

As the saying goes "if you allow a camel's nose under the tent the rest of the camel will soon follow". If I allow 1 exotic race, I have no reason to not allow another and another.

This is something of a slipperly slope argument. But if everyone wants to play an exotic ancestry, then maybe your homebrew setting isn't as appealing as you think it is. However, I think that it's likelier that not everyone will run one. So how many players' exotic ancestry requests are you reasonably looking at having to accomodate for your game? Tops?

I will work with players.

Cool. That's good.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not talking about your setting but many DM either don't have many PC options or don't establish the race's lore well enough to grip anyone but themselves.

Ok, very true. A lot of players, especially newer ones when they DM, use published adventures for this reason and allow whatever races they want to play. When I run short-termed adventures instead of campaigns, I let people play whatever they want.

The majority of players have a handful of PCs they are enthusiastic to play. And most of them are willing to switch a race or class or feat to get the aspect of that PC that they wanted.

95% off the time there shouldn't be a problem.

Heck, I would even say 99% of the time. Even in my own game, if a player asks "Can I play a Yuan-Ti?" and I reply "No, I don't allow them as PCs in my game" they say, "Ok" and choose something else. To be honest, I've never a had a player so set on playing something that they actually left the game, but that would always be their option.

DMs who have very niche setting or boring settings.. well. If your setting is very very niche, you should be selling your setting. An if your setting is boring, well you are just asking for a headache.

Agreed.

FWIW, I've actually thought about trying to "put it all together" for DMs Guild, etc. (especially during the COVID quarantine) but frankly with everything else I just don't have the time.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think more people should try DMing, I get why they don't and as an obligate introvert I understand. But people shouldn't be intimidated because of what they see on streams, if we all compared ourselves to Matt Mercer we'd all come up short.

Maybe I'm lucky but I've only had one truly horrible DM, the guy who's version of fun was to see how he could "creatively" kill off every single PC in a single session. He didn't get it even when my PC could have survived but instead just gave up. I've had DMs who's games I quit or didn't join because they didn't work for me, but that's different.

They're even scarce in Seattle, land of geekery. Some people find it overwhelming, some people are flakes, and some people will use it to gain power over others to be a creep. Running a game comes with sacrifices and responsibilities that not many are up for, especially with a big real world to explore full of other cool stuff to do.

There's a reason people are able to get others to pay for DMing.

 

[Oofta]

(1) One is an assertion that the GM should allow everything that the player asks. I did not make this assertion. (2) The other is a question about why the GM can't change the setting to accomodate the player and how the setting would break in the process. This is NOT an assertion that the GM should allow everything the player asks. It's a question about what are the points of compromise and how the GM can exercise their power over the setting on behalf of the player.

These logically are not the same arguments, despite what you may think. I hope you appreciate the distinction between these arguments.


This is just a fallacious slipperly slope argument. But if everyone wants to play an exotic race, then maybe your game setting isn't as appealing as you think it is.


Cool. That's good.

Ultimately it all comes down to DM preference and decisions. It is impossible to prove that a change would be a "fundamental" change other than the DM deciding that it is.

Since you have set an unachievable criteria for the DM to say "no", it is the same as "let the player decide ".

 

[Aldarc]

There are unsurprisingly a lot of logical leaps in there, but if you see any and all openness to settings concessiosn as "let the player decide," then those logical leaps you make are not so surprising.

ETA: changed back to original post.

 

[Oofta]

There are unsurprisingly a lot of logical leaps in there, but if you see any and all openness to settings concessions as "let the player decide," then those logical leaps you make are not so surprising.

There is no way to "prove" that adding a race would be an issue other than a DM deciding that it is. Which just takes us back around. The DM makes the decision.

I've given you plenty of reasons I wouldn't allow a yuan-ti. Did I "prove" it to you? Is my justification good enough? Who gets to decide what's good enough other than the DM? That's why this goes round-and-round. Either the DM makes the final call or they don't.

 

[Scott Christian]

Isn’t part of presenting something like this to your players seeking constructive feedback?

If you want me to play with you in your setting, shouldn’t I have some say as well, particularly if you are expecting me to commit to a potentially multi-year campaign?

It is an act of seeking constructive feedback. And if the DM has done the work, then that player giving feedback should have done the work too. Can we agree that coming up with a character concept with a turtle race is a far cry from worldbuilding, or even building a small portion of the world, or even building a city, or even building a hamlet?

And once again, a DM that hasn't done the work - accommodate everything and anything. It won't matter. But a DM that has done the work, the player should accommodate everything and anything. This still leaves an enormous amount of room for character development. Sometimes, it seems to me, the player that can't accommodate is as stubborn as the DM who hasn't done the work and still says no.

It's very strange to me that players accept tons of limitations: class limitations (go ahead, make your 1st level wizard wear armor and use divine magic while using barbarian rage), racial limitations (Go ahead and play a titan or giant eagle), background limitations (go ahead and pick seven backgrounds and get all those skills and equipment because you're a 500 year old elf), time limitations (go ahead and start your medieval fantasy game with a belt of hand grenades, a machine gun, and two laser pistols), and spell limitations (go ahead and have all the spells in the PHB at your disposal, after all, it's all magic). Let alone accepting attribute limitations, DC limitations, damage and to hit limitations, and level limitations. But when a DM limits a race, it means they are not taking feedback? It's very strange.

 

[Scott Christian]

As a player who is more often the DM, and who has built quite detailed worlds, I would consider it rude to build a world so detailed and developed that the DM is uncomfortable adding in player ideas.

Adding ideas or races?

 

[Scott Christian]

Isn’t part of presenting something like this to your players seeking constructive feedback?

If you want me to play with you in your setting, shouldn’t I have some say as well, particularly if you are expecting me to commit to a potentially multi-year campaign?

As a little side note: My campaigns are never over four months if we play twice a week.

As a player, I have had both styles of DMs (years or months), and they both had pros and cons - but it never crossed my mind to tell them how to build their world, no matter the length. But I am a person that likes creative constraints. I find it more fun to build against tropes using roots already set. That is my fun, but definitely agree, it is not for everyone.