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

[Reynard]

But like I said, the original actual question is running on an incomplete premise.

A reasonable DM offers an appropriate substitute. There is no question to be asked.

Again, I think we are talking past each other. I'm coming at it from a narrow premise to answer a narrow question: can the GM say "no." And the answer is, of course they can. We can certainly add texture and depth to the discussion regarding at what point is enough discussion enough, or to what degree does the "supply and demand" issue of available players impact the decision making process. But in this thread, my only stance is that when all other elements are accounted for, the GM always has the right to say "no." There is never a point that a player can force the GM to say "yes." That's the extent of my argument. Other folks want to make it about railroads and viking hats and none of that nonsense has anything to do with my thesis.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I guess where I'm failing to understand arguments is when "the Player goes and finds another game" is a bad thing. I think it's a very good thing! That way everybody gets what they want or, at least, doesn't have to get something they don't.

Indeed. It works for both kind of the players (the one with a PC and the one without) and is the best way to deal with expectations mismatch too wide to be easily solved by a few sentences of discussion over the game to run.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I mean, a Korean fried chicken place might do burgers.

.... I started this post like 20 minutes ago and got distracted looking for any nearby places that do it

LoL. It's like Del Taco in Los Angeles. Chicken strips, tacos, french fries, burritos and hamburgers all on the same menu. Freaked me out first time I saw it! Sometimes that's tasty to mix and match!

 

[Scribe]

I also think it mostly comes from D&D's expansion past Middle Earth fanboys of the 70s so a noticable amount of DMs and players have vastly different preferences.

I dont know, 3.5 had roughly 1563 race options, and I've seen this come up before.

I doubt that the folks pushing against DM fiat are all new to this edition, but there does appear to be some correlation in the 'world view' and a preference or at least appreciation for 4e.

It could be an interesting topic without the vitriol, but as one finds online in the 2020's, thats a big ask.

I do wonder if its specific race options, or themes, or what is the biggest hang up, because it seems like there is room for compromise, most of the time.

 

[Minigiant]

I also think it comes from D&D (and RPGs in general) growing past the kitchen sink aspect of the Forgotten Realms were anything went to more focussed stories. Keith Baker was indeed forced, because he was paid by WotC, to include a few new races in his setting (rightly subverted as everything else was), but his regular answer on his blog with regard to new race is "why do you want to include them in your Eberron? What role would they play that what is already in isn't providing"? Unless the player had a compelling story, he wouldn't want Tiefling in his game... even if they have become a somewhat common expectation based on the idea that "if it's in the rules, it must be in the game".

Well that comes through the discussion of a setting for commercial sale or setting for personal use.

A lot of settings many DMs suggest with class restrictions and race restrictions actually wouldn't sell squat or have been already taken in their niche by existing successful setting.

A lot of the hot hittedness and hyperbole about DM having control over the setting really comes from the fact that many settings that are homeroom would not sell a dime. People might enjoy them because they're free from the DM but no one would spend money to buy them. This is because they either not good enough for commercial products or not tailored enough for the general public. Especially the very reductive ones that are very similar to what's in one of the past PHBs. Your middle earth clones. Your Greyhawk clones. Your dragonlance clones. Your historic medieval clones.

There is a HUGE difference between a setting design to make money and is set in design to fulfill the DMs preferences

 

[Minigiant]

I guess where I'm failing to understand arguments is when "the Player goes and finds another game" is a bad thing. I think it's a very good thing! That way everybody gets what they want or, at least, doesn't have to get something they don't.

I think the hostility come from the fact that a lot of players do not have the environment to simply find another DM who has a DM style that matches their preferences.

At least for in person play. Which was a huge problem back in the day.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Well that comes through the discussion of a setting for commercial sale or setting for personal use.

A lot of settings many DMs suggest with class restrictions and race restrictions actually wouldn't sell squat or have been already taken in their niche by existing successful setting.

That's why I was referring KB. I don't think he can be suspected of being a bad setting builder, and yet he doesn't want "kitchen sink" either. It's not because he was doing a ME clone. Sure, as it was designed to sell he had to shoehorn a few things in over the time, but "in his Eberron" there is a few significant deviations from the published Eberron. I was answering to dismiss the idea that "having a curated list of what is appropriate in a campaign (be it races, classes, background choices...)" is "being an unimaginative, copycat setting fanboy". Sometimes one just want to run a campaign around a specific theme or universe, and I don't think it's fair to imply some sort of inferiority in them.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I did not assume they didn't. I asked for a courteous level of normalcy. "In an average game, a player, even one that has done the work, has not done as much as a DM that has put in the work." I would go so far to say this is true for even DMs that haven't done the work, but I have supervised too many high school D&D clubs to know sometimes the DM knows less about what is going on than the players.

And I don't know how else to explain it to you. A DM that hasn't done the work should accommodate the new race. But one that has done the work, for either their players, themselves, or both; for logic or story underpinning or both; for consistency and future involvement, or for any singular one of those things, doesn't need to accommodate. In fact, it is the player who is breaking a social contract. Can the player suggest it? Yes. Can they sit down with the DM and explain the how, why, where, and when. Yes. And the DM should listen. But, if it derails any of the above reasons, the player shouldn't care if the DM says no. If they have done that much work, they too can start worldbuilding, and then DM the next campaign.

I should note, this is one reason why my campaigns are short. People like to DM. So this gives everyone a chance. It also allows for the story to progress rather than stagnate into an entire session where the group is haggling over the price of a ferry to cross a river. But again, I like creative constraints.

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.

I agree with all these. Especially be a reasonable adult. Any reasonable adult I know doesn't insist on altering someone else's hard work. They find a way to appreciate the work for what it is, and if it is not for them, they themselves can create a work.

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.

I would strongly disagree with the above bolded statement. Perhaps, that is where we actually disagree. A DM is awash in limitations, limitations that are much greater than a player's. Please allow me the opportunity to explain.

As has been mentioned, this is a social game, and the DM is trying to fulfill the needs of many players, not one. That constraint limits any caring DM greatly. The DM must also hold bear to outside pressure - players wanting to use all books (sometimes even 3rd party books). This may not seem like a pressure, but it is pressure: by the publishers, by the players, by outside groups, to conform. One only needs to look at the racial attribute bonuses to see an example. Then there are all the regular constraints that the players need to follow. I mean, I don't know of any DM that cares about the game, that would give their first level antagonist a +15 to hide. I don't know any DM that cares about their D&D world that allows a creature that was presented in the lore to suddenly be completely different. Which is the last part - a DM that cares is beholden to their lore. Their creations. Which is a far greater constraint than any player ever has to deal with. One just needs to look at a DM world that has extremely limited magic. It rarely means the player can't be a wizard. But it does mean that every goblin group the party comes across doesn't have a shaman.

 

[Minigiant]

That's why I was referring KB. I don't think he can be suspected of being a bad setting builder, and yet he doesn't want "kitchen sink" either. It's not because he was doing a ME clone. Sure, as it was designed to sell he had to shoehorn a few things in over the time, but "in his Eberron" there is a few significant deviations from the published Eberron.

But that's my point.

Your personal setting might not be the best seller. Or might be outdated with current trends.

Even if you are a great designers, you might have to change things to get more customers.

Boiardi had to change his name to sell canned pasta.

 

[Older Beholder]

This topic comes up a lot, and it’s hard to say ‘I like having all the options available’ and not have it sound like you’re against a curated list. Or not have it be framed as player vs DM as has been the case again in this thread.

As a player it doesn’t really worry me if there’s a curated list, I like to play to the theme so it‘s rare that I can’t find something that would be fun from any given set of options. I‘d still prefer to be given a theme, be it a setting such as Dragonlance or Ravenloft, or something more vague, like a pirate swashbuckling campaign, rather than just be given a list of what’s banned.

It's more that as a DM I prefer to have no limits beyond the options officially published. Part of the fun of world building for me is finding ways to write new races into my homebrew setting. I also want the players to be engaged and into the game as much as possible, and letting them play the thing that they're most excited about is a big part of that.