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

[Scribe]

So for the folks saying they are for limits, have you looked at how many options you offer?

I THOUGHT, I was being restrictive, and yes I've cut out a lot of options, but if you include the variants, I'm actually at 30 options.

From your basic Human/Elf/Dwarf, to Goblin/Orc, to Planetouched, to what I consider the really weird stuff like Plasmoid/Reborn that are options but are essentially unique as a result of some of the backstory of my setting.

Again yes, if you think you are going to play a cat person, you will be out of luck with me, but 30 options isnt a short list to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why are you asserting that none of the other players at the table care about the canon? That that might be the reason they signed up to play this game in the first place?

I Think those people are bad players too, according to this philosophy.

 

[Older Beholder]

Whether a person can come up with a good explanation for a particular race in a particular setting is besides the point. The issue is that there are parameters (whatever they may be, for whatever reason) for a setting and the GM chooses to hold those limits. Given that, prospective players have a couple choices: play something within the boundaries, or don't play. "Force the GM to change the setting" is not one of the options. That's all.

There are lots of games out there. Players can find one they want to play -- or, failing that, run the game they want. Goodness knows we can usr more GMs.

Again, I'm not coming at this from a position of being against curating lists. I have no issue with a DM restricting options to fit a theme or whatever. I was using your example of Warforged in Dark Sun to show what I love about world building as a DM and how tailoring things to what excites my players is part of the fun for me and one of the many reasons I like to include as many options as possible.

I'm not saying anyone else has to do it this way, I just don't think it's as 'ridiculous' an idea as you suggest.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This, I think, rather pithily highlights exactly what I'm trying to say. The time you spend away from the table creating fiction by yourself entitles you to exactly nothing, IMO.

I mean, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with restricting options in and of itself. Personally, I’d just as soon have everyone be human as I said earlier in the thread. And if I made such a setting, then I’d hope that people would stick to it. Nothing wrong with that.

This problem, such as it is, seems more a product of online discussion than actual experience. Whenever these conflicts have come up in games in which I’ve been involved either as a player or a GM, we’ve talked it out and found some solution. Again, nothing wrong here.

But if we couldn’t figure it out… if attempts to compromise or reskin things somehow all failed… I’d simply give the player what they wanted. It’s just courtesy. As GM, I decide so much of the setting and its elements… I can yield one decision to someone else.

I think a lot of this comes down to control. The DM controls the setting. They’re the master of the world. All that rhetoric from the books. Many people spend months preparing their worlds, devoting hours upon hours to it. It’s no wonder they get attached to them.

But that’s all bollocks. None of it is necessary to run a game. You don’t have to spend all those hours doing all that work in order to do the job of the DM.

So if you do that amount of work, it’s a choice. You shouldn’t hold your choice over others’ heads.

And as I’ve said in the past, no one is going to share your connection with the world you’ve crafted. It’s just not going to happen. Players may enjoy it and even find it interesting, but they’re not going to be attached to it in the way the DM is.

Expecting others to be as faithful to your setting as you are is kind of odd. If that’s what you want, then you need to convince them in some way. If you’ve described your unique setting where it’s only humans and elves, and everyone shows up wanting to play dwarves and tieflings… then you dropped the ball.

I think that, generally speaking, the hobby overall but especially D&D in particular, involving more people in setting creation is a good idea.

I’d love to see them drop this “the world is yours” BS once and for all in One D&D. You can do things that way, and if everyone’s cool with it, great. But as a default I’d love more focus on collaboration.

I think limiting options becomes much easier when everyone has a say in what’s limited.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So for the folks saying they are for limits, have you looked at how many options you offer?

I THOUGHT, I was being restrictive, and yes I've cut out a lot of options, but if you include the variants, I'm actually at 30 options.

From your basic Human/Elf/Dwarf, to Goblin/Orc, to Planetouched, to what I consider the really weird stuff like Plasmoid/Reborn that are options but are essentially unique as a result of some of the backstory of my setting.

Again yes, if you think you are going to play a cat person, you will be out of luck with me, but 30 options isnt a short list to me.

I think that there is a misunderstanding here that is also present when someone scoffs at the idea of wanting more options in the game when there are already “so many you’ll never use them all”.

Most people don’t want to use them all. Or even half of them. They want to use the things that inspire them. They want to play the characters that they think of and get really excited about.

That means that if there is no Unarmored swordfighter with a divine mission, and their concept is that, a person might argue for adding Avengers to 5e.

Or ask a DM about adding a forest gnome culture in the mountains that live in the hollows of giant trees and root burrows that are cozy inside with hidden doors and windows and little carved paths underground between places. And then the conversation ensues and a basic idea of a place becomes a collaborative work between the player and GM, and a really engaging community on, in, and around this mountain home.

 

[billd91]

Or ask a DM about adding a forest gnome culture in the mountains that live in the hollows of giant trees and root burrows that are cozy inside with hidden doors and windows and little carved paths underground between places. And then the conversation ensues and a basic idea of a place becomes a collaborative work between the player and GM, and a really engaging community on, in, and around this mountain home.

Yeah, but if you know the DM has deliberately omitted gnomes (for whatever reason), maybe the idea isn’t to pitch a specific race at all, especially gnomes, but focus on the culture living in mountain forests among the roots with hidden doors and see what the DM fits to it. Because I can tell you, bringing a gnome PC concept to a DM who has omitted or even banned gnomes kind of says you’re looking for a conflict.

 

[Scribe]

I think that there is a misunderstanding here that is also present when someone scoffs at the idea of wanting more options in the game when there are already “so many you’ll never use them all”.

Most people don’t want to use them all. Or even half of them. They want to use the things that inspire them. They want to play the characters that they think of and get really excited about.

That means that if there is no Unarmored swordfighter with a divine mission, and their concept is that, a person might argue for adding Avengers to 5e.

Or ask a DM about adding a forest gnome culture in the mountains that live in the hollows of giant trees and root burrows that are cozy inside with hidden doors and windows and little carved paths underground between places. And then the conversation ensues and a basic idea of a place becomes a collaborative work between the player and GM, and a really engaging community on, in, and around this mountain home.

And I think I get that. My initial reaction to this thread was 'no, we dont need lots, heck I dont think I have 10' but that was at a cursory "what are my primary" races look, and NOT at looking into the cracks and the nooks and just saying 'ok yeah, there could be a gnome here' or 'you know what, that high level Wizard? Yeah he experimented with an ooze -> Plasmoid.

Which I guess was the point of my question. Now that I'm really looking, yes I still have restriction, but not nearly as much as I thought I had.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, you see,only GMs can be bad.

Again with the hyperbole. Clearly it's only a problem when people are advocating for the badwrongfun players might want, not the goodrightfun of the flawless divine GM.

This isn't helpful.

I tried. I legitimately, actually tried to engage, to give a nuanced understanding, to recognize that both sides have a point, to concede important things while not simply vacating my position. I was either ignored, scorned, or met with a renewed salvo of hyperbole.

Do you actually want to discuss it, or do you simply want surrender?

Because the more this happens, the more it seems like yes, you really do want absolute, unquestioned and unquestionable, arbitrary authority--utterly and totally unconstrained license to do what you want, when you want, for as long as you want, as GM. And anyone who has even the tiniest bit of protest or concern or even simply not being instantly obedient is a threat to be destroyed, before they destroy your precious setting.

For God's sake, if that's not true, prove me wrong. Show me that it is possible for you to take a more nuanced opinion. I already tried. Twice, in fact. I want to talk. Give me SOMETHING to work with.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There's just too many games out there that can make that fit possible.

And this is where you are simply, flat-out, unequivocally wrong.

There aren't that many games. I've tried. I tried for over a full year to find a 5e game I could enjoy. Or a 4e game, or a Shadowrun game, or a White Wolf game, or 13th Age, or Dungeon World--I've played all those systems, I have at least some idea what to do in them. I don't have easy transportation, so physical games are essentially impossible for me. Online is my only option. Fair enough, lots of games are online-only now.

I struck out. Every single time. For over a year.

So don't come here and tell me that there's some boundless cornucopia of games hungering for my participation. There isn't. An AWFUL lot of the time, there is one game in town. You get one chance.

 

[Aldarc]

Except that's not the restaurant (5e Game) I created and advertised. I made and advertised a Korean Restaurant (A flavor of D&D). I did not create and advertise an International Delights Restaurants to tastes the flavors from around the world. You (general) may not like my menu selection, but you knew it before you started eating.

So, yes, it's a perfectly good analogy.

Nah, it isn't. You made a D&D restaurant and are upset that people are asking for D&D options.

The analogy would be more apt, IMHO, if you were advertising for Call of Cthulhu or some other different tabletop roleplaying game, but people asked for D&D options.