Shoehorning is exactly what is being talked about here. If the setting doesn't have gnomes and you want to put one in despite that, you're trying to shoehorn a gnome into the game, plain and simple.
Let’s set semantics aside because we obviously view the word “shoehorn” differently.
Do you see the difference between saying “hey guess what....gnomes exist on Athas and always have” and “this gnome is actually a human that was changed by the Pristine Tower”? Or the difference between “in the city of Ur Draxa, there are a few gnomes who actually survived Nibenay’s pogrom, and there are rumors that some of the other races thought extinct may have been preserved by Borys for some nefarious purpose” and “this gnome is actually a sub-race of the halfling”?
Do these all seem equally jarring to the setting? It seems a matter of degree, no? Like, blowing your pinky toe off and getting shot in the head are both gunshot wounds, but we all know the difference.
Let’s go back to the Dray? How do you feel about their addition to the Dark Sun setting? And then about Dragonborn subbing for Dray in 4E?
No, what you are saying is that the DM either must make the changes, or must concede that the setting is 'fragile' and 'not all that strong' if he doesn't want to make the change. You actually ARE saying that if that is the case, then the setting, the DM, and/or the other players suck and should just accept that their desire to play in an actual 'Campaign world X' game is badwrongfun and let the X-phile player shoehorn whatever he wants into the world. I don't have any problem if a person wants to run 'setting X, but with gnomes'. What I have a problem with is the idea that if someone wants to run 'setting X, without the change to gnomes' that means that the person or the setting is weak or flawed or unreasonable or some other bad adjective.
No, I’m not. I’ll ask you to read again what I said.
I agree that players can make changes. For me, it’s an easy decision to not play a race that’s not a default part of a setting. I have no problem with that myself. But not all players are like me. For some players, restrictions are actually helpful. For others, they’re not.
So sometimes, it may be easier for the DM to make a change than it is for the player. That’s really all I’m saying.
Regarding the settings themselves, my comment is by no means an absolute. I’m sure there are examples we could come up with where adding a race is fundamentally disruptive. I’m sure it’s possible. But I also expect it’s less likely than most claim. Athas doesn’t fall apart if there’s a PC gnome. The Domains of Dread are noless scary with a Dragonborn. And so on.
My point being, what makes a setting unique is more than the races it does or doesn’t include. If all there is to a setting is a list of races that aren’t allowed, then yeah, I’d say the setting isn’t really that unique. Does that mean it’s badwrongfun? Not really.
Everyone playing a game is selfish, people playing games are doing it for their own enjoyment, if they weren't being selfish they'd be off doing charity work. Trying to make the argument that being selfish is 'the worst' just doesn't work. Game preferences are inherently selfish, I consider anyone playing games to be selfish as there really isn't a non-selfish motive for entertainment.
Everyone wants to have fun, sure. But people make compromises. You’re advocating for exactly that, so this weird “everyone’s selfish” idea seems odd.
And it's perfectly valid for the issue to be resolved by the DM saying 'this is the game I'm running', and the palyer saying 'cool, I'll play my gnome somewhere else'. But you're arguing that the DM is somehow bad if he chooses that option, or that if he chooses that option that the setting is flawed somehow. Everyone has a selfish game preference, if the preferences don't line up then you go game with someone else.
No, I’m not saying the DM is bad. I’m saying e should see if there’s another way to deal with it.
And as for “other games”, maybe that’s not something that applies to everyone. For me, I only play with my friends. The same group every time, with occasional additions or absences. So we all want to play....but we also all want to play together. Perhaps that’s why I don’t share that “everyone’s selfish” view?
If I did something that made one of my players not want to play, in my mind, I’ve messed up. This doesn’t apply to all circumstances, but that’s how I’d feel.
"Consider" and "agree to" are two different things. Also, I've found that DM's with a strong vision tend to become very invested into the setting and the game. And they've often given a lot of consideration to how to get the setting to work. Based on this, the player should consider this, wouldn't you think?
Yes. I’ve said this already.
Players should consider making a change.
So can DMs.
False dichotomy. People can be invested in characters that actually make sense in a setting, the idea that people who come up with characters that do make sense in a setting are just picking a race/class combo from a list is both insulting and inaccurate. And in my experience, an awful lot of people who want to ignore the setting and create a character that runs contrary to it aren't invested in an interesting concept. Instead they are either just repeating a pattern that has worked for them in the past, or actually just want to keep playing the same character over and over regardless of whether that character makes sense in the world.
My example was not meant to be absolute. Some players do just look at what’s allowed and pick. That’s not an insult. Unless you think that’s somehow wrong to do? Some players aren’t invested in a setting. The DM may be psyched for it, and maybe some of his players are, too, and they spend time making characters strongly tied to the setting. Then another player just picks based on what’s allowed. He says “human fighter” and the character he comes up with could exist in pretty much any setting.
There’s nothing wrong with that, honestly. But if I have a choice between a character whose player has given a lot of thought to his character even if it seems not to fit in some way, or a character who fits and then there’s nothing more...then I have a hard time imagining wanting to go with the one who fits. It just seems like a lesser priority to me.
I think that your argument that a setting is 'fragile' and 'not all that strong' if anyone wanting to play the setting feels that shoehorning in additional races messes with their enjoyment of the setting is the thing that actually is 'not all that strong'. Trying to pretend that the setting or the players who enjoy the setting are 'fragile' if shoehorning races in isn't to their liking is just an attempt to poison the well.
I never said any players are fragile. I realize that you’re inferring a lot from what I’m actually saying, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
Got any examples you can think of that support your view? Gnomes in Athas, Dragonborn in Oerth, Orcs in Krynn? Anything?