D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad


Is limiting races part of what makes your game serious?
What makes halflings and gnomes more serious than tieflings and dragonborn?

He's replied a whole bunch about having a cohesive world history and the like previously... many times. And also saying that worlds with everything in it are a fine choice for games too if that's what people like.

I don't remember him posting about halflings and gnomes vs. tieflings and dragonborn. I assume he's seen game worlds where the former doesn't fit and the later do. He specifically mentioned a half-dragon/half-vampire a few times. And others in the thread have asked about Toons.
 

Radio Elves: when fully extended (up to several feet, in some cases) the ears on these Elves act as tunable antennae, allowing them to pick up any radio-frequency signal they can receive and decode it so it can be heard and understood by the Elf. If multiple signals are coming in on the same frequency the Elf must save vs confusion to understand any one of them.
These were wiped out by the Video Elves. A song was made memorializing the event.
 


You missed the point.

Heavy pushes and classes were often a response by players who ran into uncreative DMs and thought they could create something better as DMs.

The player who asks to be a monkeyman arrtificer PC in a 4th playthrough of a traditional world ends up creating a setting with Monkeymen, Warforged, Half-Giants, Soulblades, Runists, and Blood Hunters.
This doesn't seem to jive with why a DM who doesn't like kitchen sink settings would welcome the Tasha variants. How does a player who was bored by an uncreative DM and created a world with monkeymen, warforged or half-giants have anything to do with the former?
 

Is limiting races part of what makes your game serious?
What makes halflings and gnomes more serious than tieflings and dragonborn?
I have a hard time taking campaign worlds seriously if there are dozens of races running around. The mix doesn't really matter I suppose, but I have an established world and I don't see a reason to change.

If I had a crossroads world or spelljammer I could justify it. But I don't, so no I could not take my campaign world seriously if I allowed any and all races.

Do what makes sense to you and I'll do the same.
 

Speaking of fantasy worlds, serious question. Other than books specifically set in FR or other D&D property, how many fantasy novels have anything similar to the number of different races that D&D has?

I mentioned the SpellSinger series from Foster, it was populated with all sorts of anthropomorphic animals. But most fantasy novels I've read? Only a handful. Then again I freely admit my selection is somewhat limited.

Oz, maybe? Though in that case we're talking more about a variety of unique (and at times borderline freakish) entities and one-offs than "races"…

I don't consider "Because it's my world" or " Because I'm the GM" as satisfactory or meaningful answers to the question.

Not everybody is DMing for a coequal group of friends in a more or less egalitarian social situation. The dynamic can be utterly different in, for example, a long-running open table where most players who join the game are (a) joining after the campaign has begun and (b) are joining the game in response to posted advertisements or the campaign's word-of-mouth reputation. If somebody I don't know rolls up to my table and asks to join my game, great—but if they demand to play a race that doesn't exist in my setting because it's in Volo's or Tasha's or Van Richten's, I mean, that's just rude for starters.

Now if they ask politely, "can I play a Tabaxi?", my response (based on the setting I'm running now) will be along the lines of, "This is a setting with a very intentional Middle-Earth vibe. Do you absolutely need to play a cat-person, or are you okay with the standard lineup of humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, and hobbits?" And if they're very set on Tabaxi, the next question is going to be, "Okay, we can have your character be from some very far away corner of the world that isn't well-known, but there aren't exactly mechanics for Tabaxi in this edition—are you cool with playing a Rakasta, and with being the only Rakasta around for a few thousand miles, and maybe the first and only Rakasta every NPC you'll meet has ever seen?" And if yes… "Okay, roll 3d6 in order. You need to roll Strength 9+ to qualify for the Rakasta class; good luck!"

(And based on the setting I was running the last time we all had this argument? The answer from the get-go would be: "Hard no. There are no cat people in this world. Why? Because I'm the DM, and I made this world up, that's why!" The player is free to vote with their feet if they don't like it; it's no skin off my nose, I've got plenty of players already and more all the time. It's very much a referee's market these days.)
 
Last edited:

As I've been watching over this thread, I've become curious what fantasy fiction (books and movies/shows) the folks here have been influenced by and how it might (or might not) relate to their opinions.

These are the "primary" ones I've been influenced by over the years:

Book of Swords 1, 2 & 3 (my primary campaign world has a LOT of elements taken from this)
Chronicles of Narnia (very influential, up to "A Horse and His Boy")
Hawk the Slayer (very influential, to the point there's a Hawklands in my campaign world :) )
Willow
Dragonslayer (all my dragons are based on this movie)
Lord of the Rings (primarily movie version)
Dragonlance (novels - Autumn, Winter, Spring, Twins trilogy, Legend of Huma)
Savage Sword of Conan comics
Elfquest
Fool Wolf series (in Dragon Magazine)
Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts (late influence, but growing)
 

Looking up Molday basic for another thread and near the end...

1641352072426.png
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top