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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vaalingrade

Legend
No offense, but I am pretty sure I haven't. A player that wants to play a non-setting race, one where the DM has done the work to create the setting, is not demanding, they are being rude, or at best ignorant. A DM that has done little or no work to create the setting, and just says no to the player is being rude, or at best, ignorant. ;)
Here's the thing:

All this stuff about all the hard work the DM has to do to incorporate a non-setting species... is bunk.

There is no requirement for the DM to do any extra work at all. That's something people are using as an excuse or a self-imposed limitation to put on themselves. There doesn't need to be a hidden elf village. There doesn't need to be some grant treatise of where their people came from. You don't even need to remember to throw in NPCs of the type if you don't want to.

How many times have you had someone play and elf and ask for storytime about how the elves came to be the prettiest ponies of all? I'd wager never.

All the DM has to do. ALL they have to do is not make an issue of it.

People are either putting extra work on themselves and blaming the players, or they are so vehemently against another person's having fun they don't approve of that they will claim to totally ruins their fun as a defense of their attempts to take fun away from the other guy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
You are confused on the Why question.

The Why Question is "Why do you want to play a (banned race/class/whatever)?".

The DM who isn't even attempting to find an allowed PC for the player to run is unreasonable. The DM should want players to play their game.

So what qualifies as a good reason to have a curated list of races? Who gets to decide?
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
This topic comes up a lot, and it’s hard to say ‘I like having all the options available’ and not have it sound like you’re against a curated list. Or not have it be framed as player vs DM as has been the case again in this thread.
Surely, then, we must break the false dichotomy by making each one more nuanced?

"I have certain options I love, and would really really like to play unless it is an absolutely intolerable burden" is quite a bit less strident than "I want every option available every single time." Likewise, "I have certain setting concepts I want to explore, and would very much appreciate efforts to support, rather than detract from, those concepts" is a lot less strident than "here's the list, play something on it or get out" that is so often presented here. And, as a lovely bonus, both of these come with the implication that discussion and compromise are possible, while recognizing that some things are still a bridge too far, rather than the incredibly frustrating constant push toward "oh so if I can't forbid whatever I want whenever I want for literally any reason or no reason at all, it's an ABSOLUTE ETERNAL FREE-FOR-ALL?!" that keeps plaguing this conversation.

As a player it doesn’t really worry me if there’s a curated list, I like to play to the theme so it‘s rare that I can’t find something that would be fun from any given set of options. I‘d still prefer to be given a theme, be it a setting such as Dragonlance or Ravenloft, or something more vague, like a pirate swashbuckling campaign, rather than just be given a list of what’s banned.
Same. By that same token, I also don't necessarily have a high opinion of hyper-restrictive themes most of the time. "Historically-accurate 13th century France" leaves me cold, mostly because it is cutting out most of the fantasy. "Everyone is a centaur from the same tribe, no classes other than this list of six, you all must be just beginning your coming of age" similarly turns me off, because at that point we may as well just be playing pregens, which is something I have zero interest in. (I've considered it before, and never found a single pregen character to be interesting enough that I would actually want to play them.)

It's more that as a DM I prefer to have no limits beyond the options officially published. Part of the fun of world building for me is finding ways to write new races into my homebrew setting. I also want the players to be engaged and into the game as much as possible, and letting them play the thing that they're most excited about is a big part of that.
Fully agreed on all counts. I find many heavy restrictions DMs are shockingly cavalier about obtaining and sustaining player enthusiasm, despite it being one of the most precious and easily-lost commodities in tabletop roleplaying. If my players aren't sincerely and internally motivated to attend my game, I have failed big time. And one of the best ways to lose your players is by saying no, no, no all the time—especially if you do so "for any reason or no reason at all."

I see a LOT of DMs who talk a great deal about how much they say no. I see very little from these "my setting is an artwork" DMs that reflects any desire to obtain or sustain player enthusiasm. Indeed, they seem to feel quite entitled to that enthusiasm, hence all the "I do all this work and the players are such ungrateful JERKS!" rhetoric.
 

Scribe

Legend
Surely, then, we must break the false dichotomy by making each one more nuanced?

"I have certain options I love, and would really really like to play unless it is an absolutely intolerable burden" is quite a bit less strident than "I want every option available every single time." Likewise, "I have certain setting concepts I want to explore, and would very much appreciate efforts to support, rather than detract from, those concepts" is a lot less strident than "here's the list, play something on it or get out" that is so often presented here.
Yep Reaction GIF by C H A R L Ö T T E
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
So what qualifies as a good reason to have a curated list of races? Who gets to decide?
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.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
So what qualifies as a good reason to have a curated list of races? Who gets to decide?
Any reason is a good reason. Any reason.

The issue is every proposed setting is not a good D&D setting.
Every proposed setting is not a good 5th edition D&D setting.

If you run a setting an edition ofD&D's assumptions, you will run into pushback unless you Player to DM ratio in your area is very high.

If a DM wants to run a magic wizard school setting, then he/she/they will run into players who want to be warriors and experts. And that DM will have to deal with the fact the 20-40% of players will not want to play at the table.

This is specifically why I said Strixhaven was a bad idea.
 

Hussar

Legend
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.
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.
 

Oofta

Legend
Any reason is a good reason. Any reason.

The issue is every proposed setting is not a good D&D setting.
Every proposed setting is not a good 5th edition D&D setting.

If you run a setting an edition ofD&D's assumptions, you will run into pushback unless you Player to DM ratio in your area is very high.

If a DM wants to run a magic wizard school setting, then he/she/they will run into players who want to be warriors and experts. And that DM will have to deal with the fact the 20-40% of players will not want to play at the table.

This is specifically why I said Strixhaven was a bad idea.
IMHO the setting is good if the people at the table enjoy it. A setting does not have to have broad appeal to be good for a specific group.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
IMHO the setting is good if the people at the table enjoy it. A setting does not have to have broad appeal to be good for a specific group.
Being a good setting and a Setting working for a specific group are 2 different things.

My mom's second pan of sweet potatoes was too sweet. The kids loved it.
But it was bad sweet potatoes as it was something most of the table didn't want.
 

Oofta

Legend
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.
We'll just never agree on that. I've run a persistent campaign for decades with multiple groups. I value consistency and campaign theme more than running a campaign by committee.

I wouldn't want it as a player either.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top