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

[DND_Reborn]

As if the lore when matters one iota when we are constantly reminded that it's the GM's game to change as they please, including what the lore of yuan-ti entails.

Or to NOT change it if the lore fits their game--it matters to them, and it is a bit disingenuous to state that it doesn't matter.

Any DM can change (or not) whatever they want, certainly, and if another DM was running a game where the Yuan-Ti were noble beings, etc. I would tell them thanks, but that isn't for me, and walk away. That is my right, whether people here like it or not.

 

[jasper]

When I recruit new people I'm very clear on what I allow and how my world works. So I agree, the DM should set expectations which includes not only races allowed but any other restrictions and general campaign style and feel. For some people that's going to be a campaign pitch of "show up and we'll figure it out together" to "This is going to be a pirate themed adventure with a Tabaxi crew, Pirates of the Calico!" I don't think either approach is wrong, there's a lot of options.

Unfortunately, some people insist that any restrictions are somehow wrong. We get things like "All these selfish, hurtful, petty players, with their intentional vandalism of the poor, beleaguered GM's beautiful setting. [it continues on in the same vein]". While also complaining about how using a phrase like "Mos Eisley Cantina" as an example of multiple species that basically everyone can relate to is somehow derogatory.

Meanwhile pretty much every poster that supports curated lists seems to be more "this is what I do and why but do what makes sense to you". I just don't see much support for the "both sides do it".

I am sorry Oofta just 8 sentences is not enough explanation on why you limit player agency. Please submit 500 sentences by Monday.

 

[Aldarc]

Or to NOT change it if the lore fits their game--it matters to them, and it is a bit disingenuous to state that it doesn't matter.

Any DM can change (or not) whatever they want, certainly, and if another DM was running a game where the Yuan-Ti were noble beings, etc. I would tell them thanks, but that isn't for me, and walk away. That is my right, whether people here like it or not.

So what is your good reason that you have no interest or inclination in changing the lore to accomodate the player who wants to play the yuan-ti? Please tell me, DND_Reborn, how the great lore of your meticulously crafted setting would collapse into nothingness as a result of this change.

 

[Oofta]

Consensus, discussion, voting, random chance if you really feel like it, consulting an expert or independent third party. All the usual ways by which social groups determine what should be done besides autocracy.

Of course I listen to my players and what they want. My campaigns are very player driven - I propose scenarios that make sense and they vote on the direction they want to take or they can propose different directions. But world building? Rules? I make the final call.

If you want everything to be designed by committee go for it. I tried collaborative world building and it took away a lot of the enjoyment for me and didn't work very well from a design perspective. It's also not the core assumption of D&D, never has been. To quote the DMG:

The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game. The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story. ​

...​

A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players’ characters (the adventurers) to discover. ​

...​

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game.​

As DM I listen to feedback. But the buck stops with the DM. With one exception of world by committee that's the way it's been in every game I've ever been in as a player. I don't have a problem with that and if the DM isn't the right one for me I'll find a different table. Fortunately that's only happened twice over decades of play*. There is simply no way that every DM can make every player happy and there's no way every DM will be the right DM for every player.

P.S. Last time I checked there is no "D&D expert hotline". Occasionally I look up Sage Advice but it doesn't cover everything. I also don't always agree with it because the answers are sometimes too literal for my taste.

*Technically 3 times, but I'm not sure I count Killer DM since no one wanted them as DM after the first session.

 

[Reynard]

So what is your good reason that you have no interest or inclination in changing the lore to accomodate the player who wants to play the yuan-ti? Please tell me, DND_Reborn, how the great lore of your meticulously crafted setting would collapse into nothingness as a result of this change.

You are missing the point: the GM is not required to have a reason, let alone one that satisfies you. The GM is only required to inform you what the limits are so you can choose whether to play under those restrictions, or find a game more to your liking. You are not entitled to anything.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So what is your good reason that you have no interest or inclination in changing the lore to accomodate the player who wants to play the yuan-ti? Please tell me, DND_Reborn, how the great lore of your meticulously crafted setting would collapse into nothingness as a result of this change.

Why should I? Why can't the player choose to play a race that I have established in my world as a playable race? They have lots of options, what is it about the Yuan-Ti that makes them so essential that they play one?

And, frankly, I said they can play one if they want to accept the consequences, but no I am not going to change my game world to accommodate a player's whim.

Players come and go, my game world has been is mine (MINE, I tell you, all MINE!!! Mwahahahahah!!! ).

You are missing the point: the GM is not required to have a reason, let alone one that satisfies you. The GM is only required to inform you what the limits are so you can choose whether to play under those restrictions, or find a game more to your liking. You are not entitled to anything.

Yeah, this!

 

[jasper]

You can ask everyone at the table if they think the race fits in this campaign. Go with the opinion that is in the majority.

It is my campaign. The DM. I decide what fits in this campaign. I said it was homebrew. This was a real XP. Told players in session 0 no Drow. I was forced to go with majority opinion. Result. The evil drow army never left the gate, because Sue's Drow was goody goody. And if one Drow was good, they couldn't be all evil. And Sue after getting her Drow only show up for half the games.
So the DM rules, and players either show up. Or they DM.

 

[Oofta]

The different table preferences are all valid. This is only really an issue when players are stuck between choosing a DM they don't enjoy or not being able to play. If there was an endless supply of non-horrible DMs it wouldn't be a concern if some of them were more restrictive than others.

It can be pretty rough for people stuck with limited options, though, and I think that the struggle to find a DM who is interested in providing something a given set of players find to be fun may be behind a lot of the negativity here. DMs being a scarce resource, they have an outsized impact on the experience of others.

How is it "horrible" to not play a specific race? I've never been fixated on the idea of playing any single PC. I like playing tank strength based PCs, typically warrior or cleric types in heavy armor. But when I started Tomb of Annihilation the DM let us know it was going to be in the jungle and that heavy armor wasn't a great option. So I wrote up a monk and I've been having fun with it ever since.

 

[jasper]

Do you think all forms of entertainment would be better if the details were up for a vote?

Ummm Reynard just threw down 4 kings. I think my 3 Aces should beat him. What do you say table?

 

[CreamCloud0]

People can decide their games by voting or committee or everyone throwing in their part all they want but when there’s a tie, or a disagreement on what should or shouldn’t be, if the group as a whole can’t decide between themselves it always circles back to fall on the DM to have the final say because that’s part of the job description, To Be The One Who Decides And Makes Judgements About The Game.