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

[Mecheon]

man, waking up to 15 notifications generally means I did something last night, huh?

Except that, as a DM, I typically have WAY more players asking to play than I need. So Mr. Bullywug and Mr Frog can go find another group that better fits their play style.

I'm still gonna have way more players than I need.

In short, that ain't even close to a threat.

You're not considered a DM as far as that group is considered, though. Hypothetically you could even get situations wherein it extends out to everyone. But as far as "The group you were playing with prior" is concerned, you are no longer playing with them. If you play with other people, that's that. It broke apart the group, even if just one person out of it.

The player who can't play within the bounds of the races available within the campaign is being unreasonable.

Just the same, sometimes it could be the DM being unreasonable. like, I'd hate to drag things back to 'orc thread' levels, but, there is a non-zero amount of DMs out there who absolutely refuse to accept good orcs despite Warcraft 3 having made that the common idea for the past.... 20 years and more than eclipsing the LotR orc model.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Call that tin-pot whatever or DM entitlement. But I, as the DM, am going to be putting in WAAAAY more work than the players. Therefore, I wanna run what I wanna run.

I think the amount of work mentionned is what might trigger the DM-entitlement accusation. I find your argument works just as well without it.

EVERYONE is a player, including the GM.

Every player has the right to play what is fun for him and can't be forced to play non-fun thing.

A player of a PC has the right to play Mr Frog and Mr Bullyug. He can't be forced to play what he doesn't want to play.

A player of the other side of the screen has the right to run the world as he see fits, including any worldbuilding elements (restrictions on race) or campaign-building element (restriction on... lots of things). He can't be forced to play what he doesn't want to play.

If all the players are in, the game exists and everyone plays.
If none of the players are in, (because the GM doesn't find anyone to play with him), the game doesn't exist.
If some of the players are in, other are not, then the game exist... among those who are in. Which may have one of them take the GM mantle if the original GM isn't one that is in (ie, everyone want to play Mr Frog and Mr Toad as PC, but the original GM doesn't want to run that world... [he might want to be PC in it, for all we know].

 

[FrozenNorth]

Indeed.

I'd ask "Why do you want to be a Yanti Pure blood"

If it's to be poisonous, I'd let them be a Human with a poison based feat

If it's is to be secretly from an evil faction, I'd show them one of the evil factions of the allowed races.

If it's to be a good PC of a "evil" race, I'd show them one of the evil allowed races.

If it is to be snakey, I'd display ways to be snakey in my setting.

If they disagree with all these options then they are being unreasonable.

If my setting has none of these options then my setting is too narrow or too boring for standard D&D.

What if they really want to play a race with a “Y” in the name? The “Y” makes it sound cool.

 

[Minigiant]

This is precisely why I like settings with a lot of races.

Because with enough races and options, the players will find their own fun and be excited on their own 90 times out of 100.

And that leaves me more time to build and design.

Keep your narrow settings and your headaches.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

What if they really want to play a race with a “Y” in the name? The “Y” makes it sound cool.

OK, I compromise, you can play a Yooman, and your character obviously has trouble with writing skills.

 

[Minigiant]

What if they really want to play a race with a “Y” in the name? The “Y” makes it sound cool.

They suddenly are playing a Yelf or Yooman and have a funny accent.

 

[Reynard]

A DM should listen to their group. Like Minigiant said, "The DM who isn't even attempting to find an allowed PC for the player to run is unreasonable."

Literally no one is suggesting that.

 

[Minigiant]

Literally no one is suggesting that.

In way, many people are.

Because 99% of players don't walk away from tables or demand setting changes over one single banned race.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Ugh. I don't think I'm voicing my thoughts correctly. I'm thinking kinda like this:

I'm opening a Korean Restaurant with certain dishes on the menu (making a campaign with certain allowable races). I invite a diner to my restaurant (player to my campaign) that they know serves Korean food (has certain allowable races). Said diner (player) shows up, looks at the menu and goes "I wanna hamburger" (wanna play some race not allowed). I'm under no obligation to make that player a hamburger to eat. Or even something hamburger like.

They can, of course, go to another restaurant that serves hamburgers. Which I would encourage! No hurt feelings at all! There are, after all, lots of restaurants that serve hamburgers.

And I'll just find a diner who wants to eat Korean food. and I won't have any problem doing so because there are lots of people out there at least willing to try my Korean Food Menu.

Neither of us needs to change the menu or the restaurant to have a good meal. We just need the right restaurants and the right customers.

So to speak.

 

[Azzy]

Literally no one is suggesting that.

Lol, that's not the reading I get of some of these posts.