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

[Minigiant]

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?

I think the issue is less the list existing and more what is on the list.

TV Tropes used to promote a trope of the Five Races where a setting would tend to have 5 standard type of races (The Stout, Cute, High Men, Fairy, and Mundane). Then there are the 4 classic class groups.

If your restrictions narrows things down under the "Five Races" and "Four Class Groups", it is too different from standard D&D and might cause issues with many players.

Then you get into customization options via other classes, races, feats, or whatever.

 

[Reynard]

I think the issue is less the list existing and more what is on the list.

TV Tropes used to promote a trope of the Five Races where a setting would tend to have 5 standard type of races (The Stout, Cute, High Men, Fairy, and Mundane). Then there are the 4 classic class groups.

If your restrictions narrows things down under the "Five Races" and "Four Class Groups", it is too different from standard D&D and might cause issues with many players.

Then you get into customization options via other classes, races, feats, or whatever.

I'm not sure how that is related to either the discussion at large or the post you quoted. I don't think anyone has suggested a "elves only" campaign or whatever. The entire sub-debate has been about how the GM denying a player access to one race that doesn't fit the GM's world is is r/rpghorrorstories material. And @Vaalingrade seemed to suggest that any GM who would do such a thing is sure to railroad the party through their failed novel.

 

[MGibster]

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?

WEG's Star Wars falls into this camp on occasion. They introduced some sort of lizard man species that was both very strong and had +1d6 armor vs. blasters and +2d6 versus physical attacks. You resist damage by making a Strength roll, so the PC lizard man with his 5d6 Strength rolled a totaly of 6d6 when resisting blaster fire making him virtually invulnerable to a Stormtrooper carbine which only did 4d6 damage.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I plead guilty on mentionning the "elf-only" campaign with my example of campaign pitches that heavily constrained choices. I have no problem with the GM constraining choices. If they want to run a "harry potter game", then everyone must be a spellcaster to play in it, if they want to run the story of the children of king X, then it stands to reason that you're the same race or a compatible half-race of king X.... and so on. I am probably more flexible than most. And I am not saying this from a GM point of view, but from a player's as well as I've played in such heavily curated cast of character.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

People are highly unlikely to actually be as totalitarians and defensive over ~their creation~ as they are on here, but I feel there's still value for pushing back against the culture that encourages acting like this on forums because seeing people bragging about how they're a tiny emperor is going to convince others that it's a thing they can do.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not sure how that is related to either the discussion at large or the post you quoted. I don't think anyone has suggested a "elves only" campaign or whatever. The entire sub-debate has been about how the GM denying a player access to one race that doesn't fit the GM's world is is r/rpghorrorstories material. And @Vaalingrade seemed to suggest that any GM who would do such a thing is sure to railroad the party through their failed novel.

Because the discussion is incomplete and runs off the incompleteness.

Denying access to one race is not a big deal because 99% of players are willing to play asimiliar nonbanned race or swap to the second or third choice. The problem usually resolves itself.

The issue is when the player's 1st, 2nd,and 3rd choice are all banned and the setting lack any race with similar feels.

Then either the player's desires are too narrow or the DM's setting options are.

Ther /rpghorrorstories material only really happens when either the DM or player choice preferences well outside of the bound of expected D&D, stubbornly refuse to change, and are unwilling to cooperate to find options within the expected scope.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Adding ideas or races?

A race is an idea.

 

[billd91]

Realistically, who has the authority to make final determinations about the setting and campaign pitch is based on the market. If you're a forever DM with 10 players wanting to be in your campaigns, then you have a great deal of latitude to exclude any sort of player concept that doesn't fit with what you want. If you have exactly 2 players, and decide you want to do a no-magic Game of Thrones game when your two players always play casters, any appeals to "The DM has final say over the setting" are probably going to fall short.

We can quibble over exactly what moral constraints exist that demand flexibility on any of the participants, but, IME, supply and demand is the real arbiter.

We’ve pretty much been over that. If the DM of the 2 casters pitches a non-caster game, and the two refuse to sign on, that campaign goes on the shelf. That’s pretty simple.
But now suppose there are 5 players, 4 or whom are keen to play but the fifth keeps pitching a caster.

 

[Reynard]

Because the discussion is incomplete and runs off the incompleteness.

Denying access to one race is not a big deal because 99% of players are willing to play asimiliar nonbanned race or swap to the second or third choice. The problem usually resolves itself.

The issue is when the player's 1st, 2nd,and 3rd choice are all banned and the setting lack any race with similar feels.

Then either the player's desires are too narrow or the DM's setting options are.

Ther /rpghorrorstories material only really happens when either the DM or player choice preferences well outside of the bound of expected D&D, stubbornly refuse to change, and are unwilling to cooperate to find options within the expected scope.

I don't think you are broadly wrong, but I do think that some folks in this thread have been advocating for forcing a GM to allow something in the game the GM does not want in the game, rather than either choosing something else or finding a different game.

I'm still trying to figure out how "no yuan-ti" equates to "viking hat railroad GM" tho.

 

[Reynard]

We’ve pretty much been over that. If the DM of the 2 casters pitches a non-caster game, and the two refuse to sign on, that campaign goes on the shelf. That’s pretty simple.
But now suppose there are 5 players, 4 or whom are keen to play but the fifth keeps pitching a caster.

Yeah, i think it is important to reiterate that in the proposed scenario, the player with the ill fitting request is coming into an existing game or at least existing campaign world. Assuming some level of explanation and discussion occurs and the GM still disallows the desired character, that's the end of the discussion about that character. Now, whether that is enough to make a player walk is about that player. The GM isn't responsible for that.