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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do want to clap back on one issue that I feel misrepresents the position of the more player-centric players. Someone upthread cited yuan-ti as a race they like to play that is relatively uncommon, so I’ll use it as an example.

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM; Ugh, I hate snakes, their skin is icky and their eyes freak me out.
Player: How about if her bottom half is a scorpion and she can speak with arthropods instead?
DM: Sure, why not?

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM: Are you kidding? Poison immunity, innate spellcasting AND magic resistance? No way!
Player: How about I get rid of magic resistance and downgrade poison immunity to resistance.
DM: Sure, seems balanced.

As described by some posters, the situations described above constitute DMs being “forced” to accept changes demanded by the players. Except that’s not what happened. Both sides compromised.

In the first example, the player went with an arthropod rather than a yuan-ti. In the second, they accepted a weaker version of yuan-tis.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Sorry to interject, but can you just agree with @Crimson Longinus that there are levels to this. If I worked on a setting for several years, and finally came to a place where I feel comfortable bringing it to players, in part, because it is fully fleshed out - why on earth would the very first choice of a player be to change this? It seems rude, or at best, ignorant?
As a player who is more often the DM, and who has built quite detailed worlds, I would consider it rude to build a world so detailed and developed that the DM is uncomfortable adding in player ideas.
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
I disagree. Charging out of towners extra is a time honored tradition that is continued today by tourist trap restaurants and bars the world over.

Ah, yes, I was understanding "charging them double BECAUSE they didn't know that a cup of ale is 1cp and were obviously out-of-towners, and doing the 2cp price only for them". Having exorbiting places in touristy place is indeed, a time-honored tradition :)

IME PCs don’t care that much about dishonest business owners unless they are the ones being swindled by said business owners.

Indeed. IME, being overcharged 1 cp by a business owner often results in a proportionate and toughtful response, often involving burning the place down. Irrespective of the fact that they don't bother to collect even silver pieces on their dead enemies... Players... :)
 


DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
Subraces were lame in 2E too.
Pfft! In mine they were pretty decent. I never felt my my Hill dwarf was the same as my Gully dwarf or my High Elf like my Wood Elf...

In the first example, the player went with an arthropod rather than a yuan-ti. In the second, they accepted a weaker version of yuan-tis.
Or the DM can just let the player play the yuan-ti as it is, and have every person it encounters hostile towards it because they are scared of what they don't know or understand or feel threatened by its nature--and eventually kill it as an abomination of the realm since no other yuan-ti exists in that DM's world. It might be a tad passive aggressive but at least the player got to play one. 🤷‍♂️
 

Incenjucar

Legend
Pfft! In mine they were pretty decent. I never felt my my Hill dwarf was the same as my Gully dwarf or my High Elf like my Wood Elf...


Or the DM can just let the player play the yuan-ti as it is, and have every person it encounters hostile towards it because they are scared of what they don't know or understand or feel threatened by its nature--and eventually kill it as an abomination of the realm since no other yuan-ti exists in that DM's world. It might be a tad passive aggressive but at least the player got to play one. 🤷‍♂️
Sounds like a rough setting to be literally any fantasy creature or a spellcaster. Based on Castlevania, perhaps?
Here in the real world we have figures that people once or still believe in that have animal parts, people who use tattoos and body modifications to look like reptiles, not to mention numerous fandoms who would jump at the chance to hug a snake person.
There are absolutely settings (or populations within more diverse settings) where xenophobia is to be expected, but it's a bit wacky if it's not a low-magic world when Alter Self is a 2nd level spell.
Now if people associate yuan-ti with the Zehir cult or similar activities, sure they'd likely be terrified.
 

Clint_L

Hero
For me, this is a collaborative game. Even though I'm the DM 90% of the time, I still want to share the story with the players, and this is particularly true when it comes to their characters. So if they have a vision for their character that they are excited about, I want to facilitate that. I don't want to make my game world so inflexible that it crushes their creativity.

As long as what they want is balanced and not plot destroying, of course. But adding in a new race is never plot destroying. It's a game of magic and multiple planes of existence. I can shoehorn in anything.
 

Oofta

Legend
I do want to clap back on one issue that I feel misrepresents the position of the more player-centric players. Someone upthread cited yuan-ti as a race they like to play that is relatively uncommon, so I’ll use it as an example.

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM; Ugh, I hate snakes, their skin is icky and their eyes freak me out.
Player: How about if her bottom half is a scorpion and she can speak with arthropods instead?
DM: Sure, why not?

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM: Are you kidding? Poison immunity, innate spellcasting AND magic resistance? No way!
Player: How about I get rid of magic resistance and downgrade poison immunity to resistance.
DM: Sure, seems balanced.

As described by some posters, the situations described above constitute DMs being “forced” to accept changes demanded by the players. Except that’s not what happened. Both sides compromised.

In the first example, the player went with an arthropod rather than a yuan-ti. In the second, they accepted a weaker version of yuan-tis.

So, again, compromise means giving the player what they want? Other than races that can fly, the restrictions have little or nothing to do with racial features.

Because of the nature of my campaign a yuan-ti would be considered a monster. Maybe every bipedal creature that speaks common should be welcomed with open arms, but I don't run happy cuddly all accepting world when it comes to races. They would logically be killed on sight fairly quickly so it's easier to just say no.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Pfft! In mine they were pretty decent. I never felt my my Hill dwarf was the same as my Gully dwarf or my High Elf like my Wood Elf
And the Wood and High elf was fine.

The issue is when they went past the first 2 subraces. Like gully dwarves. 🤢
 

Reynard

Legend
Sure they can. But consider this. DMs that do this are acting more strictly than many actually published settings.

Let’s not talk about Forgotten Realms, since that’s low hanging fruit.
Matt Mercer’s Exandria? You better believe that he accommodates player’s concepts.
Dimension 20? Even more diversity.
Keith Baker’s Eberron? When 4e came out, he added dragonborn and tieflings to core.
Dark Sun? Also added dragonborn when 4e came out.

Even considering that the DM considers it “their world” and runs multiple games in it, what does it matter if one campaign within it has a small tribe of Loxodon monks that live on a mountain somewhere. That game could be non-canon to the setting.
The point is you don't get to tell the GM he has to accommodate these things. You can only decline to play.
 

Wikipedia says 50m to 115m, so I went with 100m.

Your post comes across like it’s arguing with me, but other than the initial prehistoric population number I think we are making the same general points.
My apologies; not strictly my intent. More one of "if we limit things to just what we can estimate from real-world medieval society, we don't even need that many and it still works just fine."
 

I do want to clap back on one issue that I feel misrepresents the position of the more player-centric players. Someone upthread cited yuan-ti as a race they like to play that is relatively uncommon, so I’ll use it as an example.

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM; Ugh, I hate snakes, their skin is icky and their eyes freak me out.
Player: How about if her bottom half is a scorpion and she can speak with arthropods instead?
DM: Sure, why not?

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM: Are you kidding? Poison immunity, innate spellcasting AND magic resistance? No way!
Player: How about I get rid of magic resistance and downgrade poison immunity to resistance.
DM: Sure, seems balanced.

As described by some posters, the situations described above constitute DMs being “forced” to accept changes demanded by the players. Except that’s not what happened. Both sides compromised.

In the first example, the player went with an arthropod rather than a yuan-ti. In the second, they accepted a weaker version of yuan-tis.
Ah, but players are always the demanding ones, you see. It's simply impossible for the DM to be a tyrant, since they work their fingers to the bone, slaving away for ungrateful and scornful players, who never lift a finger nor do anything whatsoever to contribute. It's truly a wonder anyone is ever willing to take up the mantle of unrestrained absolute power, when the legions of vicious players out there stand ever ready to assault and deface the artistry so delivered with their "could I do X?" or "would you be willing to consider Y?"
 

Scribe

Legend
Ah, but players are always the demanding ones, you see. It's simply impossible for the DM to be a tyrant, since they work their fingers to the bone, slaving away for ungrateful and scornful players, who never lift a finger nor do anything whatsoever to contribute. It's truly a wonder anyone is ever willing to take up the mantle of unrestrained absolute power, when the legions of vicious players out there stand ever ready to assault and deface the artistry so delivered with their "could I do X?" or "would you be willing to consider Y?"
In no way is this a reasonable post. :p
 

Hussar

Legend
But, I was just told that the curated side of the issue is perfectly fair and balanced and not in any way like this.

I’m confused now.

You folks have really different experiences from me. The fastest way for me to get five characters from a curated list would be to ban those races. Any time I say “no X” that’s all anyone wants to play.
 


Micah Sweet

Legend
Ah, but players are always the demanding ones, you see. It's simply impossible for the DM to be a tyrant, since they work their fingers to the bone, slaving away for ungrateful and scornful players, who never lift a finger nor do anything whatsoever to contribute. It's truly a wonder anyone is ever willing to take up the mantle of unrestrained absolute power, when the legions of vicious players out there stand ever ready to assault and deface the artistry so delivered with their "could I do X?" or "would you be willing to consider Y?"
The hyperbole is a little thick here.
 


Oofta

Legend
Oh and it would be nice if logic wasn’t being redefined as “things I like”. That’s not what logical means.
Depends on how the DM constructs and views their world. If they start with assumptions about the world and the themes that they want to support, the fact that there's a curated list that grows out of those assumptions can be logical. It's all make-believe of course, but I don't exclude tieflings from my allowed list because I don't like them. I don't really care one way or the other. I don't allow them because there's a long history of fiendish incursions in my history so the logical response to someone that looks like a fiend showing up in town would be to assume that they're the vanguard of an invading army. They wouldn't last long.

But even it is "what I like", so what? If the DM doesn't like the campaign world I don't see how they're going to be enthusiastic about running it.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
They would logically be killed on sight fairly quickly so it's easier to just say no.
Logical based on what? Based on your game’s assumptions? Great!

But that isn’t how statements like this come across.
The point is you don't get to tell the GM he has to accommodate these things. You can only decline to play.
I’ve kicked GMs out of campaigns. 🤷‍♂️
My apologies; not strictly my intent. More one of "if we limit things to just what we can estimate from real-world medieval society, we don't even need that many and it still works just fine."
Ah fair enough.

Yeah whether we hit 6 billion by adding ancient human populations or assume RL population levels in a given year and split that amongst the races, or really any math other than weirdly assuming human pop numbers for every race using the same century you’re trying to emulate without increasing food production exponentially using magic, there no reason to see 60, or even 100, sentient tool using species as impossible.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top