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

[Minigiant]

If all the players, as per the example, want something that lies outside of the GM's pitch, then maybe the fault does not lie with either the GM or the players, but with the GM's pitched setting. There is likely a mismatch of play desires here. It's easy to say "what the GM says goes," but maybe this isn't the right group to pitch running this setting to. If so, the GM can leave or the GM can pitch a different setting to the players.

I usually have a few pitches that I'm fairly excited about, and then I pitch those ideas to players to see which ones they latch onto most rather than get upset that they are not rallying around a singular pitch. Colville did something similar with his Chain of Acheron game. The mercenary band campaign was the idea that the group picked out of a set of ideas. But if the players aren't really in the mood or onboard with the setting/game that I'm pitching, then I'll just drop it for another time rather than get upset about it.

I usually go to groups with 3 settings I am excited to do. I let them pick and ask questions about the settings.

Some settings are not built for the general D&D public. So damns who want to play these settings either have to find players who want to play the settings convince players who played a sentence or change the setting to make it more applicable to a general public.

A DM has the right to run a game that they are excited and comfortable with. But you can't dm a game without players.

That's why I typically don't like settings that don't have a lot of classes don't have a lot of races have a lot of restrictions because it puts the onus on me at the DM to convince players to play. Unexcited players are more likely to drop. I don't like having no responsibility of convincing players to play so that's why I typically allow a lot of options in my settings so that a player will gravitate to something that's already in my game and therefore I don't have to keep gifting them goodies in order to keep them excited and not drop.

This is one of the things that I think that the many dungeon master guides that D&D had have not really convinced people to think about people other than themselves and their excitement levels. They really goes on assuming that the DM and players have exact similar likes and dislikes and therefore do not actually help DMs craft a setting to excite players.

One of the biggest things about 3rd 4th and 5th edition is that how shocked the designers were on how other groups played and what they liked.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The player entitlement in this thread is astounding.

If the GM does not provide the game you want, your freedom as a player is to decline and join or start another game. Full stop.

If the GM wants to just walk people through their novel, they should write a book. This is a cooperative game, not an art show.

 

[Minigiant]

agree that it would be a case of the players wanting to play in a "all-inclusive" setting while the GM expects something very specific and probably a cae of mismatched expectation. However, without knowing anyone in this thread, I am nonetheless pretty sure that @Oofta, for example, isn't advocating against the "active attempting to hook the players in", even if it's only by saying "trust me on the curated list, I have built a world very fun to play in over the last decades, I understand not everything fits in it but it's part of the appeal, sure you don't want to try it?" I assume that actively attempting to hook the players is the baseline when proposing to GM

I think that D&D because it's so old and now diverse that is gotten past the point of "come on just trust me" as being consider a good pitch.

D&D is no longer just a group of Middle Earth fanboys who just want to play medieval Europe-ish fantasy with Elves and the occasional weirdness.

There's a lot of different people playing now so " trust me it'll be fun" ain't enough anymore due to the extreme amount of variables you have now

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

A DM has the right to run a game that they are excited and comfortable with. But you can't dm a game without players.

What? Those are my most successful campaigns!

I generally agree with you but I think there is no obligation to DM as well. If there is no players, sure, the DM can play in another DM's campaign. No D&D is better than bad D&D and if no player want to play in your world, because perhaps it's too specific or has too many constraints, then well, tough luck, you don't get to run your favourite game. I don't see that resulting logically into "you run something else for the players" (especially something you're not necessarily interested in running) and not "you play something run by another DM".

There's a lot of different people playing now so " trust me it'll be fun" ain't enough anymore due to the extreme amount of variables you have now

D&D as a whole, certainly, but the players you're playing with might not. If you're playing online with random strangers, sure, that's a lame pitch. If you've run several very successful campaigns without restrictions with your friends and want to try something thematic (like the example I played in, where a GM pitched "you're all Cannith heirs. Or maybe a warforged serv... employee") once in a while, it might just work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's still the best Star Wars game ever made.

The core mechanics seem a bit clunky, but the Galaxy guides are treasures I use frequently in my Saga games.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D as a whole, certainly, but the players you're playing with might not. If you're playing online with random strangers, sure, that's a lame pitch. If you've run several very successful campaigns without restrictions with your friends and want to try something thematic (like the example I played in, where a GM pitched "you're all Cannith heirs. Or maybe a warforged serv... employee") once in a while, it might just work.

Of course

"Trust me" only works with people who already trust you or have no other options but you.

 

[Reynard]

If the GM wants to just walk people through their novel, they should write a book. This is a cooperative game, not an art show.

I am not sure how much a list of constraints on player character options has to do with "frustrated author railroad DM syndrome" -- could you please explain how you got there?

 

[Scott Christian]

If the GM wants to just walk people through their novel, they should write a book. This is a cooperative game, not an art show.

This is a great point, and one I was going to bring up. It is a cooperative game, and it is a cooperative game with a DM; a person that makes decisions like how hard something is, how many bad guys are there, and how the NPC responds. Basically, a decision maker.

The DM needs to be aware of the feelings of their players. This comes through practice and being open.

Also, the player needs to be aware of the DM's feeling and the other players' feelings. I have seen enough consternation from players (mostly quiet effects like tuning out or slight facial contortions) to know when another player just broke their inner story consistency.

Fortunately (and I know everyone on these boards is tired of hearing me say this), I have played in many states with many different groups. And never really had a problem. They have all been great. Conventions are another thing, but home groups have always seemed to go well - no matter the DM choice of races and restrictions. This goes from 1st edition to 5e and will most likely continue through every edition.

 

[LordEntrails]

My question is: does that appeal to you? Do you like a campaign world that has dozens or even hundreds of player option races?

No. There are only very special cases where dozens or hundreds of races appeal to me, and then I don't think those settings generally appeal to me.

Sci-Fi future, like Star Wars. Maybe. Good for stories, but annoying and ... generally broken or redundant when it comes to an RPG and for character building. How many combinations of abilities and racial differences can you really come up with before the mechanics either have to have extremes (which leads to imbalance) or are just story driven re-skins of the same thing over and over?

Fantasy / Medieval, maybe for Spelljammer or universal/planar nexus types of things. But again, see above.

Ugh, spend the time making a few races, and their societies, special. Don't try to make everything special, cuz then nothing is. (I'm unique! Just like everyone else.)

 

[Doc_Klueless]

D&D is a group setting. If the group all decides that they want to make the next campaign Mr Toad the Bullywug and Mr Frog the Grippli and they're all excited for that, then if the DM is against it, the DM will very quickly find themselves not a DM any more because the group will just, leave and find another one

Except that, as a DM, I typically have WAY more players asking to play than I need. So Mr. Bullywug and Mr Frog can go find another group that better fits their play style.

I'm still gonna have way more players than I need.

In short, that ain't even close to a threat.