D&D 5E Access to Races in a Campaign

[Fedge123]

ha ha ha -- really?

one option (my silver dollar, which no one is saying you have to play with, but which is available) is potentially too many for you?

I look forward to your rock piles.

And apparently one less option is potentially too little for you. Good luck creating.

 

[Mercule]

As far as I'm concerned, when a GM says he doesn't want a certain option in his campaign because "he just doesn't like it", what he's telling me is that enforcing his little pet peeves is more important to him than letting his players have fun.

Wow. This is so wrong, in so many ways.

I'm not your babysitter, tasked with entertaining you. Nor am I a paid representative of "the hobby", whose job it is to ensure you continue to play the game and buy products. There is absolutely nothing in the social contract that implies that I should set aside my definition of fun any more than another player.

I'm a player of the same game, with the same right to enjoy what I'm doing. Even if we're using a published adventure, in a published setting, it's almost guaranteed that I'm putting in more time and effort than anyone else at the table. If I'm using a custom setting or custom adventure, that goes up by an order of magnitude. Yes, a lot of the extra work from customizing comes from the enjoyment gained by the "art" of it all, but there is a definite, inescapable baseline that's already baked into just making it work and entertaining everyone else at the table.

Part of being a grown-up, playing with other grown-ups, is that there is some negotiation about the group activity. Any well-adjusted human being (even teenagers) can do this and should be expected to be functional, in this regard. That said, there should be absolutely no expectation that part of the "job" of the GM is to capitulate to the need for someone else unwilling to have a grown-up conversation or unable to see past their own self-absorbed need for validation-by-proxy in a game of make-believe.

Here's how it looks (real, if abbreviated, example): I want to run Aces & Eights. Nobody else really wants to do a western. Bummer. How about nWoD? One of the players wants something a bit lighter and less political. Cool, D&D it is; the 5E Starter is out, let's do that. It's set in the Realms, which I hate, so I'll run in Eberron or home brew. The vote comes back for Eberron. Great. One of the players asks about a warforged. I've been at this long enough, I can throw together some stats, while we're talking. I'm not a big fan of warforged-as-droids because it's jarring, to me, in a fantasy setting; they're a great way to explore themes about being an outsider, political issues, etc. The player finds that a bummer but understands, so he goes with something else.

Here's how it does not look: I offer to run the new 5E game. We decide to use my 30-year running home brew with which most of the players are familiar and enjoy. One player wants to play a warforged. I let him know that there aren't any warforged on my world, but I have a race of self-willed homonculi that serve a similar niche. Player says that I'm being completely unreasonable and attempts to guilt/bully/otherwise coerce me into changing my ways without concern for why it's that way, established history, or my enjoyment at all.

It also doesn't look like this: I offer to run the new 5E game. We decide to do Eberron. Player wants to play a warforged. I tell him that I think warforged are dumb and not available as PCs because I don't like them, regardless of the fact that they're part of the published setting and others in the group think they're cool.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

There is absolutely nothing in the social contract that implies that I should set aside my definition of fun any more than another player.

...says the guy insisting it's okay for a DM to force a player to set aside their definition of fun.

Part of being a grown-up, playing with other grown-ups, is that there is some negotiation about the group activity.

Your definition of "negotiation" needs work, IMO.

 

[Marandahir]

I dunno. Mercule's story makes sense to me. If the player REALLY wanted to do Warforged, the negotiations would have gone on longer, and Mercule might have conceded. But there was a solution for the player to have fun and the DM to have fun. There are DMs who don't like certain parts of the game. Should we outlaw DMs who have their own specificities? "Yes, and…" and "Yes, but…" are the ideal, but there are times when "No" makes sense. The DM has to manage these complex issues. If the DM would burn out and not want to run the game anymore because a player is playing a race that's problematic for the DM's game, then maybe it's better if the DM does say "No."

I think we should encourage "Yes, and…" but not demonize DMs who say "No."

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

Here's how it looks (real, if abbreviated, example): I want to run Aces & Eights. Nobody else really wants to do a western. Bummer. How about nWoD? One of the players wants something a bit lighter and less political. Cool, D&D it is; the 5E Starter is out, let's do that. It's set in the Realms, which I hate, so I'll run in Eberron or home brew. The vote comes back for Eberron. Great. One of the players asks about a warforged. I've been at this long enough, I can throw together some stats, while we're talking. I'm not a big fan of warforged-as-droids because it's jarring, to me, in a fantasy setting; they're a great way to explore themes about being an outsider, political issues, etc. The player finds that a bummer but understands, so he goes with something else.

Here's how it does not look: I offer to run the new 5E game. We decide to use my 30-year running home brew with which most of the players are familiar and enjoy. One player wants to play a warforged. I let him know that there aren't any warforged on my world, but I have a race of self-willed homonculi that serve a similar niche. Player says that I'm being completely unreasonable and attempts to guilt/bully/otherwise coerce me into changing my ways without concern for why it's that way, established history, or my enjoyment at all.

It also doesn't look like this: I offer to run the new 5E game. We decide to do Eberron. Player wants to play a warforged. I tell him that I think warforged are dumb and not available as PCs because I don't like them, regardless of the fact that they're part of the published setting and others in the group think they're cool.

No, actually, it looks like this. If I don't like your game, and we do our best but completely fail to agree on what kind of character I should play, I'm not going to argue with you, let alone try to bully or coerce you in any way. I'll just walk away and find another game I like better. It's nothing personal.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

No, actually, it looks like this. If I don't like your game, and we do our best but completely fail to agree on what kind of character I should play, I'm not going to argue with you, let alone try to bully or coerce you in any way. I'll just walk away and find another game I like better. It's nothing personal.

Agreed.

In his first "how is does work" example, I noticed a couple interesting things. First, he offered to run Eberron or his homebrew. His players opted against his homebrew in favor of Eberron, a setting with established content. A player then showed interest in playing a distinct and iconic race in the setting (warforged). What does the DM do? He immediately starts altering the established lore by tacking on his own homebrew twists in an effort to lessen the budding interest in the thing he doesn't like, warforged.

I'd put money on him being even more overt and adamant about warforged not existing in the homebrew option had the players chosen that in lieu of Eberron...

 

[Mercule]

...says the guy insisting it's okay for a DM to force a player to set aside their definition of fun.

That's a nice cherry-pick. You omitted "any more than another player".

Which is pretty typical of how these conversations go: The DM is left as a servant and the player gets to make demands because otherwise the DM is ruining their fun, getting on an ego trip, or not thinking of others. Meanwhile, the guy coming to the table demanding that he must be able to play exactly what he wants is only asking for what he's due.

In reality, that attitude is as petulant as demanding to play red in Risk and, when the other guy who really wanted to play red offers to dice for it, you throw a fit because he's not being fair. That sort of player doesn't deserve a seat at the game. I'm part of a monthly(ish) "board game night" where the games are discussed and picked ahead of time. The host sets it up, with the playing pieces all counted out and ready to go by the time everyone gets there. If someone pitched a fit because the red pieces they wanted to use were set up so that they had to read the map upside down, they'd be booted. That behavior isn't just inappropriate for a game, it's inappropriate for life.

When I GM, the game doesn't have to fit my vision precisely, but I do have to be able to put together a plan that feels right. There's a lot of leeway I'm willing to give to try to make sure the players all have fun. But... I'm playing the game to enjoy the game, myself, and I'm only going to go so far before it starts to feel like the player is being a bad sport. Sometimes, it's not even the specific request; it's when the request becomes a demand. If you're a jerk, you get no rights.

Sometimes, a character just rubs a GM the wrong way. I've stopped watching TV shows because a character was introduced that just sucked (IMO). That doesn't mean the character is objectively bad. I do think it's a bad plan for all involved if I'm cheering for your character to die, though. It's much better to be up front that I'm done with drow forever and I'm probably going to subconsciously (i.e. without intent) avoid any plot lines around your character, transfer my irritation to NPCs, and generally treat you as supporting cast.

GMs don't get to go on an ego trip, but players don't have an entitlement, either. I really have no way of knowing the experience of anyone on this thread. Maybe they're saying "GMs should let the players choose what they want" because they've had GMs that used the game as a way to tell their story, without regard for the others at the table. Or, maybe, they're socially maladjusted with a heavy sense of entitlement. Maybe the "GMs get to restrict your choices" advocate has had players who've dominated the game with a mary-sue to the point where the other players all dropped out. Or, they might be the bully, themselves.

Really, the only thing that makes sense to me is that "it depends". Sometimes a concept just doesn't work without a lot of work or it throws the flow of the game off (which creates a lot of work). Sometimes it adds huge value to everyone at the table. If everyone is a grown up, it shouldn't be a big deal. Talk it out. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that you don't get to bring a klingon with a disruptor into a Dark Sun game, but a mul wizard shouldn't be a problem, even if it's very odd (the second, third, or forth mul wizard might be harder to integrate, though).

 

[Mercule]

No, actually, it looks like this. If I don't like your game, and we do our best but completely fail to agree on what kind of character I should play, I'm not going to argue with you, let alone try to bully or coerce you in any way. I'll just walk away and find another game I like better. It's nothing personal.

Absolutely agree. I don't like rummy or most other "traditional" card games. I sure hope no one takes it personally when I turn them down.

I think folks sometimes forget that walking away is an option and it doesn't have to be personal. I've had periods where I really only wanted to play a game no one else did (nWoD) or didn't want to play a system everyone else did (d20, towards the end). I remained friends with everyone and just enjoyed board games, video games, and cookouts with them.

Other times, the desire to throw dice has been enough to overcome the hurdle. Heck, I'll even play pinochle with my wife's family around Christmas.

My only real problem is with folks who seem to hold an extreme position, to the point of absurdity. Sure, I'll probably never have a chance to play with them, and would likely walk from the game if I did. But, someone is wrong on the Internet!

 

[Mercule]

Agreed.

In his first "how is does work" example, I noticed a couple interesting things. First, he offered to run Eberron or his homebrew. His players opted against his homebrew in favor of Eberron, a setting with established content. A player then showed interest in playing a distinct and iconic race in the setting (warforged). What does the DM do? He immediately starts altering the established lore by tacking on his own homebrew twists in an effort to lessen the budding interest in the thing he doesn't like, warforged.

I'd put money on him being even more overt and adamant about warforged not existing in the homebrew option had the players chosen that in lieu of Eberron...

You'd lose. The actual offer made was, "Make up characters and I'll build a new world around them." I used my very, very established home brew in the second example to reflect that not every custom setting is infinitely flexible.

The actual conversation about warforged was significantly longer and involved the player making some suggestions on 5E racial abilities that really didn't reflect the way they fit into the Eberron setting, some game theory, and ultimately into a discussion between two guys with philosophy minors on what it meant to be warforged. I just condensed the contents of about 25 page+ emails into a single sentence.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That's a nice cherry-pick. You omitted "any more than another player".

As long as the end result is that you, the DM, got your way, sure. I just see a bit of a disconnect is all.

GMs don't get to go on an ego trip, but players don't have an entitlement, either.

Agreed. Though, IMX, the former tends to breed the latter.