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

[Older Beholder]

Let's say that a GM decides to run her favorite setting: Dark Sun. She runs player driven improv based games with an eyes always toward the PCs being the protagonists. One player says "I want to play a Warforged," and the GM says , "No, I want to keep this one by the book. Pick a Dark Sun race, please." Suddenly the GM is one of the worst thing for the hobby?

You don't see how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

I'm currently running a game where the characters were teleported to (my version of*) Dark Sun.
One of the characters is a Warforged, so I've added them in, with a simple explination that they're said to come from a distant land to the north. NPC's might refer to the player as 'A child of the ore' or some such terminology. So this is a basic example of world building as a plot hook rather than a restriction. I've found they fit in really well from a mad max vibe, which Dark Suns does pretty well.

*I've been really inspired by the recent Spelljammer set to do a Dark Sun/Jammer mash up setting, with the idea that there was an age of falling stars when a bunch of Spelljammer ships crashed on Athas. The premise makes it very easy to add anything to the setting and lets me have fun world building to suit my players.

 

[Xamnam]

Choosing your imaginary friends as being more important than real people is a very, very bad idea.

But then wouldn't the player also being doing that with their character?

 

[Scribe]

But then wouldn't the player also being doing that with their character?

I have to imagine someone who would make such a choice, is looking at their character as more than just a character, but as a representation of their expression of self, which may be why this is a topic of such emotion.

 

[Reynard]

I'm currently running a game where the characters were teleported to (my version of*) Dark Sun.
One of the characters is a Warforged, so I've added them in, with a simple explination that they're said to come from a distant land to the north. NPC's might refer to the player as 'A child of the ore' or some such terminology. So this is a basic example of world building as a plot hook rather than a restriction. I've found they fit in really well from a mad max vibe, which Dark Suns does pretty well.

*I've been really inspired by the recent Spelljammer set to do a Dark Sun/Jammer mash up setting, with the idea that there was an age of falling stars when a bunch of Spelljammer ships crashed on Athas. The premise makes it very easy to add anything to the setting and lets me have fun world building to suit my players.

So what you are saying is because you don't mind altering the setting, no one should?

I'm honestly, truly surprised that the idea of setting fidelity is controversial. I guess that is something that happened in the play culture along the way that I missed. Which is weird since I run regularly at cons and have a player pool numbered in the dozens.

Or, possibly, it's not a representative opinion at all and 2 or 3 people in this thread are trying to sell something that no one else actually ascribes to. Hmm...

 

[Reynard]

But then wouldn't the player also being doing that with their character?

No, you see,only GMs can be bad.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Why? Note, you've now changed your example from a restaurant to home cooking

Only if you assume that I'm not the cook at the restaurant. Which I am in this case.

for friends, which does change the dynamic. But, why is it rude? Maybe I don't like bulgogi. Maybe I'm allergic to gochujang. Maybe what you've cooked is really, really spicy (which Korean food often is) and my stomach just can't take it. But, I'd like to hang around with my friends. Maybe I just really, really like hotdogs.

Wow. You've really stretched that one, didn't you?

Ok. Yeah. If playing an elf instead of a warforged would endanger your health, I'd let you play one. LOL.

Again, you're insisting that your "what I said I'd serve" is more important than the real person sitting at your table.

Because it is. Why? Because the others who showed up at my table are expecting what I said I'd serve. Gee, maybe I should actually deliver what I promised?

In addition, if we except your premise that all players are equal to include the DM, then that player is being a bit rude by insisting on imposing his will on me and our (myself and the other players) game. Or is it only possible for the DM to be rude in this manner?

And the hotdog analogy doesn't really work because it's not just one person eating the hotdog. It's one person saying: I wanna put a little hotdog in the kimchee so everyone has to taste a bit of it.

EDIT: Removed unneed hostility.

 

[Older Beholder]

So what you are saying is because you don't mind altering the setting, no one should?

No, not at all. I'm just giving an example of why having lots of races gives me inspiration for world building
I thought this thread was asking why people like lots of races, I was just trying to answer that question.

You were saying it was ridiculous to play a Warforged in Dark Sun, when it's actually a pretty good fit.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

No, not at all. I'm just giving an example of why having lots of races gives me inspiration for world building
I thought this thread was asking why people like lots of races, I was just trying to answer that question.

You were saying it was ridiculous to play a Warforged in Dark Sun, when it's actually a pretty good fit.

Yeah, I think that it's quite possible to play in settings with lots of different races. I once ran a campaign that took place on a Nexus World where lots of races from lots of different worlds came together. Kind of a Well of Souls type deal. It was a blast.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's why I was referring KB. I don't think he can be suspected of being a bad setting builder, and yet he doesn't want "kitchen sink" either. It's not because he was doing a ME clone. Sure, as it was designed to sell he had to shoehorn a few things in over the time, but "in his Eberron" there is a few significant deviations from the published Eberron. I was answering to dismiss the idea that "having a curated list of what is appropriate in a campaign (be it races, classes, background choices...)" is "being an unimaginative, copycat setting fanboy". Sometimes one just want to run a campaign around a specific theme or universe, and I don't think it's fair to imply some sort of inferiority in them.

I’ve spent a lot of time reading his blog and listening to manifest.zone podcast, and he has come around on Tieflings in Eberron, at least in the sense that he has all kinds of ideas for them and for the Venomous Demense.

I think the much more salient Bakerism is his constant advice that you brought up upthread.

Ask why the player wants to play that race. If it’s just for the mechanics, fine, let them, and reskin it as an existing Eberron race. If there is a story or dynamic they want to explore, then it’s a conversation.

The group. Collectively. As should always be the case when a group of people come together to engage in a social activity.

Who gets to decide what is a valid reason for bowing out of game night? Who gets to decide what is an acceptable dish to bring to Thanksgiving? Who gets to decide what words are English and what words are gibberish?

We do. Collectively. No single person has that power. The gaming group, the family, the Anglosphere. Whatever the relevant community is, that is who decides.

QFT.

Swimming WAAAY upthread, because I'm still catching up, but this, this highlighted bit? This is the most toxic thing I've seen in a while. This is the kind of DM that poisons the game, IME. By imagining that just because the DM happens to be sitting in the big daddy chair, they can make any decision they like and the players can either take it or leave it is just the absolute opposite of a healthy social interaction.

To be fair, I think you have taken that post out of the context in which it was posted.

But even so, I’d agree that it’s not great.

 

[Reynard]

No, not at all. I'm just giving an example of why having lots of races gives me inspiration for world building
I thought this thread was asking why people like lots of races, I was just trying to answer that question.

You were saying it was ridiculous to play a Warforged in Dark Sun, when it's actually a pretty good fit.

Whether a person can come up with a good explanation for a particular race in a particular setting is besides the point. The issue is that there are parameters (whatever they may be, for whatever reason) for a setting and the GM chooses to hold those limits. Given that, prospective players have a couple choices: play something within the boundaries, or don't play. "Force the GM to change the setting" is not one of the options. That's all.

There are lots of games out there. Players can find one they want to play -- or, failing that, run the game they want. Goodness knows we can usr more GMs.

 

[Scribe]

So for the folks saying they are for limits, have you looked at how many options you offer?

I THOUGHT, I was being restrictive, and yes I've cut out a lot of options, but if you include the variants, I'm actually at 30 options.

From your basic Human/Elf/Dwarf, to Goblin/Orc, to Planetouched, to what I consider the really weird stuff like Plasmoid/Reborn that are options but are essentially unique as a result of some of the backstory of my setting.

Again yes, if you think you are going to play a cat person, you will be out of luck with me, but 30 options isnt a short list to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why are you asserting that none of the other players at the table care about the canon? That that might be the reason they signed up to play this game in the first place?

I Think those people are bad players too, according to this philosophy.

 

[Older Beholder]

Whether a person can come up with a good explanation for a particular race in a particular setting is besides the point. The issue is that there are parameters (whatever they may be, for whatever reason) for a setting and the GM chooses to hold those limits. Given that, prospective players have a couple choices: play something within the boundaries, or don't play. "Force the GM to change the setting" is not one of the options. That's all.

There are lots of games out there. Players can find one they want to play -- or, failing that, run the game they want. Goodness knows we can usr more GMs.

Again, I'm not coming at this from a position of being against curating lists. I have no issue with a DM restricting options to fit a theme or whatever. I was using your example of Warforged in Dark Sun to show what I love about world building as a DM and how tailoring things to what excites my players is part of the fun for me and one of the many reasons I like to include as many options as possible.

I'm not saying anyone else has to do it this way, I just don't think it's as 'ridiculous' an idea as you suggest.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This, I think, rather pithily highlights exactly what I'm trying to say. The time you spend away from the table creating fiction by yourself entitles you to exactly nothing, IMO.

I mean, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with restricting options in and of itself. Personally, I’d just as soon have everyone be human as I said earlier in the thread. And if I made such a setting, then I’d hope that people would stick to it. Nothing wrong with that.

This problem, such as it is, seems more a product of online discussion than actual experience. Whenever these conflicts have come up in games in which I’ve been involved either as a player or a GM, we’ve talked it out and found some solution. Again, nothing wrong here.

But if we couldn’t figure it out… if attempts to compromise or reskin things somehow all failed… I’d simply give the player what they wanted. It’s just courtesy. As GM, I decide so much of the setting and its elements… I can yield one decision to someone else.

I think a lot of this comes down to control. The DM controls the setting. They’re the master of the world. All that rhetoric from the books. Many people spend months preparing their worlds, devoting hours upon hours to it. It’s no wonder they get attached to them.

But that’s all bollocks. None of it is necessary to run a game. You don’t have to spend all those hours doing all that work in order to do the job of the DM.

So if you do that amount of work, it’s a choice. You shouldn’t hold your choice over others’ heads.

And as I’ve said in the past, no one is going to share your connection with the world you’ve crafted. It’s just not going to happen. Players may enjoy it and even find it interesting, but they’re not going to be attached to it in the way the DM is.

Expecting others to be as faithful to your setting as you are is kind of odd. If that’s what you want, then you need to convince them in some way. If you’ve described your unique setting where it’s only humans and elves, and everyone shows up wanting to play dwarves and tieflings… then you dropped the ball.

I think that, generally speaking, the hobby overall but especially D&D in particular, involving more people in setting creation is a good idea.

I’d love to see them drop this “the world is yours” BS once and for all in One D&D. You can do things that way, and if everyone’s cool with it, great. But as a default I’d love more focus on collaboration.

I think limiting options becomes much easier when everyone has a say in what’s limited.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So for the folks saying they are for limits, have you looked at how many options you offer?

I THOUGHT, I was being restrictive, and yes I've cut out a lot of options, but if you include the variants, I'm actually at 30 options.

From your basic Human/Elf/Dwarf, to Goblin/Orc, to Planetouched, to what I consider the really weird stuff like Plasmoid/Reborn that are options but are essentially unique as a result of some of the backstory of my setting.

Again yes, if you think you are going to play a cat person, you will be out of luck with me, but 30 options isnt a short list to me.

I think that there is a misunderstanding here that is also present when someone scoffs at the idea of wanting more options in the game when there are already “so many you’ll never use them all”.

Most people don’t want to use them all. Or even half of them. They want to use the things that inspire them. They want to play the characters that they think of and get really excited about.

That means that if there is no Unarmored swordfighter with a divine mission, and their concept is that, a person might argue for adding Avengers to 5e.

Or ask a DM about adding a forest gnome culture in the mountains that live in the hollows of giant trees and root burrows that are cozy inside with hidden doors and windows and little carved paths underground between places. And then the conversation ensues and a basic idea of a place becomes a collaborative work between the player and GM, and a really engaging community on, in, and around this mountain home.

 

[billd91]

Or ask a DM about adding a forest gnome culture in the mountains that live in the hollows of giant trees and root burrows that are cozy inside with hidden doors and windows and little carved paths underground between places. And then the conversation ensues and a basic idea of a place becomes a collaborative work between the player and GM, and a really engaging community on, in, and around this mountain home.

Yeah, but if you know the DM has deliberately omitted gnomes (for whatever reason), maybe the idea isn’t to pitch a specific race at all, especially gnomes, but focus on the culture living in mountain forests among the roots with hidden doors and see what the DM fits to it. Because I can tell you, bringing a gnome PC concept to a DM who has omitted or even banned gnomes kind of says you’re looking for a conflict.

 

[Scribe]

I think that there is a misunderstanding here that is also present when someone scoffs at the idea of wanting more options in the game when there are already “so many you’ll never use them all”.

Most people don’t want to use them all. Or even half of them. They want to use the things that inspire them. They want to play the characters that they think of and get really excited about.

That means that if there is no Unarmored swordfighter with a divine mission, and their concept is that, a person might argue for adding Avengers to 5e.

Or ask a DM about adding a forest gnome culture in the mountains that live in the hollows of giant trees and root burrows that are cozy inside with hidden doors and windows and little carved paths underground between places. And then the conversation ensues and a basic idea of a place becomes a collaborative work between the player and GM, and a really engaging community on, in, and around this mountain home.

And I think I get that. My initial reaction to this thread was 'no, we dont need lots, heck I dont think I have 10' but that was at a cursory "what are my primary" races look, and NOT at looking into the cracks and the nooks and just saying 'ok yeah, there could be a gnome here' or 'you know what, that high level Wizard? Yeah he experimented with an ooze -> Plasmoid.

Which I guess was the point of my question. Now that I'm really looking, yes I still have restriction, but not nearly as much as I thought I had.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, you see,only GMs can be bad.

Again with the hyperbole. Clearly it's only a problem when people are advocating for the badwrongfun players might want, not the goodrightfun of the flawless divine GM.

This isn't helpful.

I tried. I legitimately, actually tried to engage, to give a nuanced understanding, to recognize that both sides have a point, to concede important things while not simply vacating my position. I was either ignored, scorned, or met with a renewed salvo of hyperbole.

Do you actually want to discuss it, or do you simply want surrender?

Because the more this happens, the more it seems like yes, you really do want absolute, unquestioned and unquestionable, arbitrary authority--utterly and totally unconstrained license to do what you want, when you want, for as long as you want, as GM. And anyone who has even the tiniest bit of protest or concern or even simply not being instantly obedient is a threat to be destroyed, before they destroy your precious setting.

For God's sake, if that's not true, prove me wrong. Show me that it is possible for you to take a more nuanced opinion. I already tried. Twice, in fact. I want to talk. Give me SOMETHING to work with.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There's just too many games out there that can make that fit possible.

And this is where you are simply, flat-out, unequivocally wrong.

There aren't that many games. I've tried. I tried for over a full year to find a 5e game I could enjoy. Or a 4e game, or a Shadowrun game, or a White Wolf game, or 13th Age, or Dungeon World--I've played all those systems, I have at least some idea what to do in them. I don't have easy transportation, so physical games are essentially impossible for me. Online is my only option. Fair enough, lots of games are online-only now.

I struck out. Every single time. For over a year.

So don't come here and tell me that there's some boundless cornucopia of games hungering for my participation. There isn't. An AWFUL lot of the time, there is one game in town. You get one chance.

 

[Aldarc]

Except that's not the restaurant (5e Game) I created and advertised. I made and advertised a Korean Restaurant (A flavor of D&D). I did not create and advertise an International Delights Restaurants to tastes the flavors from around the world. You (general) may not like my menu selection, but you knew it before you started eating.

So, yes, it's a perfectly good analogy.

Nah, it isn't. You made a D&D restaurant and are upset that people are asking for D&D options.

The analogy would be more apt, IMHO, if you were advertising for Call of Cthulhu or some other different tabletop roleplaying game, but people asked for D&D options.