D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, if I was designing a setting without knowing who the players were (I wouldn't, but hypothetically), I would make the setting as open and approachable as possible.

Or at the absolute least, you'd want to design it so that the top, say, six or eight most-played races are clearly given space for if players would want to pick them. Right? Like why would you intentionally design a setting knowing that you're excluding stuff folks are very likely to ask for?

As of the last time we got any data (collected in 2023, so the last hurrah of 5.0), that would look like this: Human, Elf, Dragonborn, Tiefling, Half-Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Orc. And this ain't no random showing either. Per the numbers (or rather best guesstimate because they used a crappy, inconsistent scale for a bar graph!!! ), humans were somewhere north of 700k, elves somewhere north of 500k, and dragonborn about midway between 500k and 200k--call it 350k. My very rough estimate is that the bar chart contains around 2.8-2.9 million characters, so this indicates dragonborn are shockingly close to 1/8th of all characters, or at least they were in 2023.

Is it really all that wise, if one is drafting a brand-new setting for strangers you've never met, to make no room for an option used by an eighth of all players? Seems like a pretty unwise choice to me.

And if you went just the tiniest bit further, and made room for genasi and gnome (the 9th and 10th most popular options), you'd have covered about 90% of all characters anyone has created on DDB. Only ten species, not the "Mos Eisley Cantina" that so many love to mock diverse settings with. None with any particularly egregious features, no always-on flight, none of the things typically banned. Out of the list, only dragonborn came out after the new millennium. (Genasi, as "planetouched", were late-2e, specifically 1996's Planeswalker's Handbook, and all the rest are much earlier, if not original options.) If anything, the OP options are elf, half-elf, and certain dwarves!

So...it's not an infinite laundry list of every possible thing imaginable. It's almost entirely well-precedented options, with the sole exception being the extremely popular "newcomer", if "existed for three editions running (aka over two decades)" somehow manages to still qualify as "newcomer". It's not wild ridiculous crap--it's a long-term, durable trend, over nearly a decade of data collection.

If one is going to draft a brand-new setting for unknown players, excluding dragonborn is almost as likely to cause problems as excluding elves!

 

[mamba]

How can you ask questions, or try to find a way to make things work, if the instant you get even the slightest hint of disgruntlement, you immediately cast aside any interest you had and never even consider it again?

you cannot, but no one forced them to drop it or considered it a breach of friendship if they didn’t. They simply went with another idea they were interested in rather than fighting for one their friend disliked.

 

[mamba]

I'm just asking because if I was to infer from the comments on this board, most DMs design a campaign world for themselves and allow options that they would also be willing to play, creating a game completely centered on their own tastes and no thought is given to the players. Akin to inviting people over to a party and serving only your favorite foods and hoping the other guests have the same food preferences as you (or will just suffer in silence if they don't).

I see it more akin to a party where I do not serve any foods I cannot stand, but then even that is not a good analogy as I could simply ignore that dish, so I guess to make it work it also has to stink up the place

 

[mamba]

If one is going to draft a brand-new setting for unknown players, excluding dragonborn is almost as likely to cause problems as excluding elves!

whatever that says about the likelihood… weren’t we excluding tortles though? Where do the dragonborn come from… and given that tortles are nowhere near the top ten, does that mean their exclusion is now approved?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

you cannot, but no one forced them to drop it or considered it a breach of friendship if they didn’t. They simply went with another idea they were interested in rather than fighting for one their friend disliked.

Except that that's precisely what Max described would happen if anyone did.

If the player knows the DM doesn't like dragonborn to the point that they are not in game and wants to play one anyway, that says a lot about the player and not anything that's good. I'd never be like, "So you hate elves, eh? Well I want to play one so you have to include him. Muahahahaha!" I'd pull out a different race that I can have fun with, and there are plenty.

And as a player you should want to avoid asking for things anyone else, including the DM, dislikes.

I don't have to exclude, because my players, being decent human beings, wouldn't want to play something that causes me even minor discomfort due to dislike.

It would, in his own words, make you not a "decent human being" to want something your GM just kind of doesn't care for.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

whatever that says about the likelihood… weren’t we excluding tortles though? Where do the dragonborn come from… and given that tortles are nowhere near the top ten, does that mean their exclusion is now approved?

It's the favorite punching bag and you know it.

Tortles were just brought up because when we all say what we're actually thinking, folks get all hung up on "why DRAGONBORN, why ALWAYS dragonborn?!?!"

As you can see, no matter what we do, no matter how we approach it, every choice we make is wrong. Is it any wonder I get testy about the constantly-shifting rules about what isn't allowed to be discussed?

 

[TwoSix]

As you can see, no matter what we do, no matter how we approach it, every choice we make is wrong. Is it any wonder I get testy about the constantly-shifting rules about what isn't allowed to be discussed?

Remember, as soon as anyone on the thread is even slightly uncomfortable, drop it immediately.

 

[mamba]

Except that that's precisely what Max described would happen if anyone did.

no, that was if the player already knows and asks to play one regardless, not whether they can play one, but to do so. Chances are it also still takes more than merely asking, something a lot closer to insisting.

In that case why not go with ‘I know you do not like X, what do you think of [something similar to X]’ rather than going, ‘I want to play X and you are a jerk for not letting me’.

 

[mamba]

It's the favorite punching bag and you know it.

Tortles were just brought up because when we all say what we're actually thinking, folks get all hung up on "why DRAGONBORN, why ALWAYS dragonborn?!?!"

I don’t think dragonborn are excluded all that often… if they are excluded more than tortles then probably because no one asks to play a tortle to begin with

Maybe it’s the flight, I am no fan of flying species

As you can see, no matter what we do, no matter how we approach it, every choice we make is wrong. Is it any wonder I get testy about the constantly-shifting rules about what isn't allowed to be discussed?

you are allowed to discuss anything (within the forum rules, which ai do not set), you just might not always like the way the discussion goes

 

[Remathilis]

I see it more akin to a party where I do not serve any foods I cannot stand, but then even that is not a good analogy as I could simply ignore that dish, so I guess to make it work it also has to stink up the place

I think that's kinda the part I don't understand. I might not particularly like scrambled eggs, but if I'm making a brunch for guests I'm still serving them even if I don't eat any. Bringing it back to D&D, there are some species I probably would never play (like say, centaurs) but I don't exclude them because that could be someone else's jam. I would never design a game as if I was DMing it just for myself, because I remember what it's like to be a player in such a game. To feel superfluous and that my enjoyment was secondary.