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

[Reynard]

Et tu? After you "player-entitlement" post, I thought pot shots were fair game. Or is that a DM-only feature, too?

I don't care about that. Fire away. But it would be more interesting at least if you did it in context of an actual discussion.

So, again, what is the problem with a GM running an established game or a new game in an established setting telling a player "no" when they present a character inappropriate for the setting?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

You are confused on the Why question.

The Why Question is "Why do you want to play a (banned race/class/whatever)?".

The DM who isn't even attempting to find an allowed PC for the player to run is unreasonable. The DM should want players to play their game.

I'd say, if the player say "I want to play a yuan-ti" and is told "sorry, not possible, this is a X, Y or Z only game, why do you want to play a yuan-ti?" and the answer is "magic resistance", and the GM say "sure, play one of the allowed race and you're born under a special alignment of planets that made your resistant to magic", I'd say the player has stopped trying to impose anything on the gameworld and it's an example of the DM having the final word (no yuan-ti), not an example the player forcing a compromise over inclusion of yuan-ti.

Because if it had been unresolvable (ie, the player saying "I want to play an elf" and the DM saying "outside of the three tolerated races created by the gods worshipped here, anything is the the sign of evil gods in this setting, the equivalent of the Inquisition will KoS you if you have scales, let alone a serpent half, or you're not either a 3-kidneyed minotaur, a 3-kidneyed gully dwarf or a 3-kidneyed tortoise, that's why those are the only three allowed races in this campaign), sure the player would be within his right to point out that it is far outside the general context of D&D, but it wouldn't be "unreasonable" for the DM to still want to run a campaign in the bizarre world he'd like to run. Neither would be at fault, the player not wanting to play in this campaign, nor the DM not wanting to change it. They'd simply be unable to play together in that particular campaign.

 

[Reynard]

That's where I disagree.

Once the DM create restrictions beyond the game's norm, the DM should have the onus to at least suggest an appropriate PC similar to an inappropriate PCs offered by the players if the original PC is within the game's norms.

What I meant and probably didn't make clear is that part of landing on "no" may well have included a back and forth discussion with the player but the end result was still that the character was inappropriate. We can allow that once that is established the two can discuss what options might fit. But we weren't actually talking about finding an appropriate character. We were talking about disallowing an inappropriate one.

 

[Azzy]

I don't care about that. Fire away. But it would be more interesting at least if you did it in context of an actual discussion.

So, again, what is the problem with a GM running an established game or a new game in an established setting telling a player "no" when they present a character inappropriate for the setting?

A DM should listen to their group. Like Minigiant said, "The DM who isn't even attempting to find an allowed PC for the player to run is unreasonable."

 

[Doc_Klueless]

That's where I disagree.

Once the DM create restrictions beyond the game's norm, the DM should have the onus to at least suggest an appropriate PC similar to an inappropriate PCs offered by the players if the original PC is within the game's norms.

I, as the DM, have no such onus. If the player doesn't want to play in my campaign, they have that power. They do not, however, have to power to insist on something in my campaign. Nor do I have an obligation to change my campaign or world to fit their desires. They have the ultimate power to either play or not play. If that, in turn, means I can't run my campaign. So be it.

Call that tin-pot whatever or DM entitlement. But I, as the DM, am going to be putting in WAAAAY more work than the players. Therefore, I wanna run what I wanna run.

Now if it's something that the player finds offensive/triggering/etc., I'd be willing to discuss the themes and tropes of the campaign. But having a player say: "I wanna play X" because they just wanna play X and them expecting me to change my campaign world to accommodate that... Bleh. I'd rather just not play with them.

And, as I stated earlier, the pool of players for online games is so vast at the moment, I have no impetus to do so. I can simply find 6 other players to replace that one very, very easily.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

A DM should listen to their group. Like Minigiant said, "The DM who isn't even attempting to find an allowed PC for the player to run is unreasonable."

The player who can't play within the bounds of the races available within the campaign is being unreasonable.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

Why do you assume the player hasn’t done any work though?

“Hey, I have a cool idea for a race”, shouldn’t be met with a curt refusal. Once again, D&D is a social game.

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.

Stubborn people are stubborn. I cited my principles for DMs upthread, but they also apply to players:
1. If something doesn’t work explain why;
2. Be open-minded;
3. Try to come to an agreement like a reasonable adult.

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.

I don’t think it’s strange: it’s related. A player already has to deal with many limitations, why are you adding more?

Conversely, a GM has exceeding few limitations: they can if they want to (but aren’t required to) create a whole world.

 

[Azzy]

The player who can't play within the bounds of the races available within the campaign is being unreasonable.

Back to the DM-is-God BS.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

Sure, and limitations on races will definitely be more palatable for a two-month campaign than a two-year campaign.

 

[Minigiant]

I, as the DM, have no such onus. If the player doesn't want to play in my campaign, they have that power. They do not, however, have to power to insist on something in my campaign. Nor do I have an obligation to change my campaign or world to fit their desires. They have the ultimate power to either play or not play. If that, in turn, means I can't run my campaign. So be it.

That's not what I'm trying to say.

I'm saying a DM should ask "Why do you want to be a YTPB?" If the answer is spell resistance, then the DM offers the allowed gnome race. If they say poison, then offer the allowed tiefling race with the resistance and spell swapped to poison.

If gnomes and tieflings are banned as well, then the player will have to walk.

There is no forced changing of the the setting.