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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micah Sweet

Legend
That was, in fact, the point.

When people are straight-up literally comparing ANY form of such requests to literally defacing an artwork, we've already long since entered the hyperbole zone. I'm using the weapons already deployed. Where was this criticism back then?
I'm pretty sure  one person did that, and given the flack they've received i expect they regret it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Micah Sweet

Legend
Yes. I'm asking why it did not merit a criticism from anyone whose side the hyperbole was deployed to support, but my hyperbole against that side does merit such criticism.

It comes across as being a double standard, which is deeply frustrating to me.
Fair enough. If it makes you feel any better, I also think that comparison was over the top.
 

Oofta

Legend
Yes. I'm asking why it did not merit a criticism from anyone whose side the hyperbole was deployed to support, but my hyperbole against that side does merit such criticism.

It comes across as being a double standard, which is deeply frustrating to me.

I don't remember seeing the comment (and they could have me blocked for all I know) but does it really help anything to just throw gasoline on a burning fire? Respond to that particular post, sure. But repeatedly go onto hyperbolic rants? Not sure how that helps anything. 🤷‍♂️
 

Oofta

Legend
Logical based on what? Based on your game’s assumptions? Great!

But that isn’t how statements like this come across.
At a certain point, someone has to decide what to allow and not allow. The default is that DM has final say on the world and the rules. @Reynard is just stating the obvious, if you disagree with the DM you can either decide to accept what they say even if you disagree or you can quit. Maybe it's so bad that everybody else quits with you and the DM has no game.

What other option is there? Dump chocolate pudding on the floor to slow down the DM's escape while setting your hair on fire to prove how serious you are? 🤯
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
At a certain point, someone has to decide what to allow and not allow. The default is that DM has final say on the world and the rules. @Reynard is just stating the obvious, if you disagree with the DM you can either decide to accept what they say even if you disagree or you can quit. Maybe it's so bad that everybody else quits with you and the DM has no game.

What other option is there? Dump chocolate pudding on the floor to slow down the DM's escape while setting your hair on fire to prove how serious you are? 🤯
I know I'd pay attention to that!
 

I don't remember seeing the comment (and they could have me blocked for all I know)
Here is the post in question. Should you be blocked by this person, you can open this page in a private window (which should mean you won't be logged in) in order to see the text.

Nice to know you can brush off someone wanting to have a living, logical and consistent setting with several variations on ‘does it matter?’ And ignoring the actual point that all those questions were leading up to, the player doesn’t consider the world when they make what they want they just make it.

A player just wanting to crowbar in an entire settlement to a constructed world to facilitate their character seems akin to someone taking a marker to someone else’s painting because ‘well I thought it would look better with a tree there’
Quoting the post in its entirety, though only the second paragraph is specifically relevant here.

but does it really help anything to just throw gasoline on a burning fire? Respond to that particular post, sure. But repeatedly go onto hyperbolic rants? Not sure how that helps anything. 🤷‍♂️
I mean, Snarf Zagyg does it all the time. They've blocked me so I rarely see it anymore, but they and others specifically use hyperbole to make a point and to attract attention. I'd say I've caught yours!

So. If the middle is feeling excluded, let's try to meet with it, yes? I consider it to be precious in the extreme for a GM to nail down so much of their setting that they cannot conscience any form of alteration or expansion. One of the greatest joys of fantasy is the mystery of what lies beyond the horizon, and one of the greatest benefits of playing a living game (as opposed to a computer game, or a prewritten adventure) is very specifically the ability to respond to new ideas, to adapt and grow and improve.

It is difficult for me to understand, then, why anyone would be absolutely unwilling to have a conversation about stuff, and doubly so why they would reject that key benefit, openness to new revelations or developments. You have said that you welcome player participation in terms of actions performed, but have more than once specified that you have pretty strict limits on what is allowed and what makes sense. I struggle to understand how this actually squares with supporting player freedom and the experience of the fantastical.

Conversely, I do understand that merely throwing things together willy-nilly isn't good or productive...which is why I don't do that, and never have. I think through components of the world very carefully. If an additional element is sought, I dig as deep as I can into why it is sought, into how those desires can be met, and (what is most important in a long term sense) how that element will interact with the rest and what consequences that might have.

As an example, I had told my players that I wanted Jewel of the Desert, an Arabian Nights styled game, to not feature demons or devils too prominently early on, and made clear that there are no dragons natively in this part of the world. (The aforementioned time dragon is only the third actual dragon character that has appeared in over four years of play. I have shown great restraint!) Then, however, one of my players asked to play a tiefling. I knew he wasn't going for something disingenuous or subversive, that's both entirely the opposite of his personality and kind of difficult to pull off in Dungeon World. Instead, he was expressing his sincere interest in something he found cool. So we talked about it. I told him (more or less), "So, you wouldn't experience systemic racism here, because I'm following the lead of Al-Qadim on this, but it is possible you've had individual racism issues. Further, being connected to forces like this may matter. Who is your tiefling parent?"

His answer set a major component of the campaign: "I'm cool with that. And, uh, I was actually thinking both of his parents were tieflings? I'm okay with whatever you want to do on that front. I was thinking his mother's maternal grandmother was a succubus." (Again, paraphrased.)

The mystery of who his paternal bloodline's devilish ancestor is remains unsolved, but they know it's gonna be a spicy meatball when they find out. (They've narrowed down his ancestors to either Baalzephon, a Pit Fiend and former prime minister in Hell, or Prince Glasya herself.) By not taking a hardline stance, and instead taking the player's request, considering it carefully, exploring the implications, and then accepting it, the campaign was significantly enriched.

That's the kind of thing I would like to see. Careful consideration, earnestness, genuine discussion and not fiat declarations and "c'mon, don't you trust me?"
 

Hussar

Legend
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.

You misunderstand me. Saying it’s “what I like” is better because it’s honest. Saying it’s logical because I built something around my personal preferences is disingenuous.

I mean take the yuan to example. You do realize that yuan ti look pretty much like humans and can actually pass as such right? So it seems dubious to reject yuan ti for being too monstrous when they are actually less monstrous than say elves that actually cannot pass for human.
 

Oofta

Legend
You misunderstand me. Saying it’s “what I like” is better because it’s honest. Saying it’s logical because I built something around my personal preferences is disingenuous.

I mean take the yuan to example. You do realize that yuan ti look pretty much like humans and can actually pass as such right? So it seems dubious to reject yuan ti for being too monstrous when they are actually less monstrous than say elves that actually cannot pass for human.

Saying that it's only what I like devalues the effort that DMs put into building campaigns. Obviously DMs build campaign worlds that they find enjoyable, that they hope others will have fun playing in and exploring. But to say there's no room for logic? That's what I have an issue with. I put a lot of thought into my campaign world over the years, it's not just arbitrary whim.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
At a certain point, someone has to decide what to allow and not allow.
Okay.
The default is that DM has final say on the world and the rules. @Reynard is just stating the obvious, if you disagree with the DM you can either decide to accept what they say even if you disagree or you can quit. Maybe it's so bad that everybody else quits with you and the DM has no game.

What other option is there? Dump chocolate pudding on the floor to slow down the DM's escape while setting your hair on fire to prove how serious you are? 🤯
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with anything?
 

Oofta

Legend
Here is the post in question. Should you be blocked by this person, you can open this page in a private window (which should mean you won't be logged in) in order to see the text.


Quoting the post in its entirety, though only the second paragraph is specifically relevant here.


I mean, Snarf Zagyg does it all the time. They've blocked me so I rarely see it anymore, but they and others specifically use hyperbole to make a point and to attract attention. I'd say I've caught yours!

So. If the middle is feeling excluded, let's try to meet with it, yes? I consider it to be precious in the extreme for a GM to nail down so much of their setting that they cannot conscience any form of alteration or expansion. One of the greatest joys of fantasy is the mystery of what lies beyond the horizon, and one of the greatest benefits of playing a living game (as opposed to a computer game, or a prewritten adventure) is very specifically the ability to respond to new ideas, to adapt and grow and improve.

It is difficult for me to understand, then, why anyone would be absolutely unwilling to have a conversation about stuff, and doubly so why they would reject that key benefit, openness to new revelations or developments. You have said that you welcome player participation in terms of actions performed, but have more than once specified that you have pretty strict limits on what is allowed and what makes sense. I struggle to understand how this actually squares with supporting player freedom and the experience of the fantastical.

Conversely, I do understand that merely throwing things together willy-nilly isn't good or productive...which is why I don't do that, and never have. I think through components of the world very carefully. If an additional element is sought, I dig as deep as I can into why it is sought, into how those desires can be met, and (what is most important in a long term sense) how that element will interact with the rest and what consequences that might have.

As an example, I had told my players that I wanted Jewel of the Desert, an Arabian Nights styled game, to not feature demons or devils too prominently early on, and made clear that there are no dragons natively in this part of the world. (The aforementioned time dragon is only the third actual dragon character that has appeared in over four years of play. I have shown great restraint!) Then, however, one of my players asked to play a tiefling. I knew he wasn't going for something disingenuous or subversive, that's both entirely the opposite of his personality and kind of difficult to pull off in Dungeon World. Instead, he was expressing his sincere interest in something he found cool. So we talked about it. I told him (more or less), "So, you wouldn't experience systemic racism here, because I'm following the lead of Al-Qadim on this, but it is possible you've had individual racism issues. Further, being connected to forces like this may matter. Who is your tiefling parent?"

His answer set a major component of the campaign: "I'm cool with that. And, uh, I was actually thinking both of his parents were tieflings? I'm okay with whatever you want to do on that front. I was thinking his mother's maternal grandmother was a succubus." (Again, paraphrased.)

The mystery of who his paternal bloodline's devilish ancestor is remains unsolved, but they know it's gonna be a spicy meatball when they find out. (They've narrowed down his ancestors to either Baalzephon, a Pit Fiend and former prime minister in Hell, or Prince Glasya herself.) By not taking a hardline stance, and instead taking the player's request, considering it carefully, exploring the implications, and then accepting it, the campaign was significantly enriched.

That's the kind of thing I would like to see. Careful consideration, earnestness, genuine discussion and not fiat declarations and "c'mon, don't you trust me?"

Pointing the finger at someone else saying "they did it first" doesn't justify anything. There was an analogy you don't like, so now all DMs who don't allow any option the player suggests are tyrants. That's the kind of hyperbolic incendiary statements that leads nowhere.

You seem to disagree with a core tenet of D&D that has always been there. That the DM makes the final call. Fine. At some point it's probably best to just accept that you're fighting against one of the assumptions that has half a century of a history and one of the things that makes the game work for millions of people. If someone comes up with an idea I'll work with them and see if we can work something out. I used to allow anything but after getting burned a few times I simply tell people what's allowed and if they want to discuss options to let me know. However, sometimes the answer will be "no".

What other option is there? That "compromise" really means let the player do whatever they want? What about the other players at the table? What about the DM's enjoyment of the game?
 


What other option is there? That "compromise" really means let the player do whatever they want? What about the other players at the table? What about the DM's enjoyment of the game?
You tell me off for hyperbole, ask for less hyperbolic discussion, and then immediately resort to more hyperbole in response.

Did you really think that this would accomplish anything? I'm dead serious. Did you not see the contradiction here, of taking me to task for hyperbole and then immediately using more hyperbole?
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
You tell me off for hyperbole, ask for less hyperbolic discussion, and then immediately resort to more hyperbole in response.

Did you really think that this would accomplish anything? I'm dead serious. Did you not see the contradiction here, of taking me to task for hyperbole and then immediately using more hyperbole?
Well, not everyone feels exactly the same way, but @Hussar has certainly said that the DM should just find a way to do what the player wants. Hardly compromise.
 


Oofta

Legend
Again, if someone playing a race ruins anyone else’s enjoyment then that someone who is not welcome at my table. And if a dm would find adding a race would spoil their enjoyment I would suggest that they are probably going to not be a dm I would want to sit with.

If you can't accept restrictions, you're probably not going to be a good fit for my table either.

But that's okay, I accepted long ago that I'm not the DM for everyone and vice-versa.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Saying that it's only what I like devalues the effort that DMs put into building campaigns. Obviously DMs build campaign worlds that they find enjoyable, that they hope others will have fun playing in and exploring. But to say there's no room for logic? That's what I have an issue with. I put a lot of thought into my campaign world over the years, it's not just arbitrary whim.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t think anyone has indicated that there is no room logic.

The point was made that preference isn’t logic, and that most allusions to logic in this thread have not had any obvious logical necessity.

It isn’t (general declaration) logical that yuan-to would be killed on sight. That implies that worlds where they aren’t killed on sight are illogical.

It is only logical in the context of the decisions you made, many of which are by necessity based on preference, while building your campaign world.
 

Oofta

Legend
You tell me off for hyperbole, ask for less hyperbolic discussion, and then immediately resort to more hyperbole in response.

Did you really think that this would accomplish anything? I'm dead serious. Did you not see the contradiction here, of taking me to task for hyperbole and then immediately using more hyperbole?

I asked a question, no hyperbole. If the DM doesn't make the final call, who does?
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top