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

[FrozenNorth]

I do want to clap back on one issue that I feel misrepresents the position of the more player-centric players. Someone upthread cited yuan-ti as a race they like to play that is relatively uncommon, so I’ll use it as an example.

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM; Ugh, I hate snakes, their skin is icky and their eyes freak me out.
Player: How about if her bottom half is a scorpion and she can speak with arthropods instead?
DM: Sure, why not?

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM: Are you kidding? Poison immunity, innate spellcasting AND magic resistance? No way!
Player: How about I get rid of magic resistance and downgrade poison immunity to resistance.
DM: Sure, seems balanced.

As described by some posters, the situations described above constitute DMs being “forced” to accept changes demanded by the players. Except that’s not what happened. Both sides compromised.

In the first example, the player went with an arthropod rather than a yuan-ti. In the second, they accepted a weaker version of yuan-tis.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry to interject, but can you just agree with @Crimson Longinus that there are levels to this. If I worked on a setting for several years, and finally came to a place where I feel comfortable bringing it to players, in part, because it is fully fleshed out - why on earth would the very first choice of a player be to change this? It seems rude, or at best, ignorant?

As a player who is more often the DM, and who has built quite detailed worlds, I would consider it rude to build a world so detailed and developed that the DM is uncomfortable adding in player ideas.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I disagree. Charging out of towners extra is a time honored tradition that is continued today by tourist trap restaurants and bars the world over.

Ah, yes, I was understanding "charging them double BECAUSE they didn't know that a cup of ale is 1cp and were obviously out-of-towners, and doing the 2cp price only for them". Having exorbiting places in touristy place is indeed, a time-honored tradition

IME PCs don’t care that much about dishonest business owners unless they are the ones being swindled by said business owners.

Indeed. IME, being overcharged 1 cp by a business owner often results in a proportionate and toughtful response, often involving burning the place down. Irrespective of the fact that they don't bother to collect even silver pieces on their dead enemies... Players...

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Ooh! Now I'm going to include a variant called "tidy elves" who can cast bubble bath and speak with rubber ducky as racial cantrips.

Hush, hush, they are called House Elves but we don't speak about them and their racial powers making them efficient natural-born servants anymore!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Subraces were lame in 2E too.

Pfft! In mine they were pretty decent. I never felt my my Hill dwarf was the same as my Gully dwarf or my High Elf like my Wood Elf...

In the first example, the player went with an arthropod rather than a yuan-ti. In the second, they accepted a weaker version of yuan-tis.

Or the DM can just let the player play the yuan-ti as it is, and have every person it encounters hostile towards it because they are scared of what they don't know or understand or feel threatened by its nature--and eventually kill it as an abomination of the realm since no other yuan-ti exists in that DM's world. It might be a tad passive aggressive but at least the player got to play one.

 

[Incenjucar]

Pfft! In mine they were pretty decent. I never felt my my Hill dwarf was the same as my Gully dwarf or my High Elf like my Wood Elf...


Or the DM can just let the player play the yuan-ti as it is, and have every person it encounters hostile towards it because they are scared of what they don't know or understand or feel threatened by its nature--and eventually kill it as an abomination of the realm since no other yuan-ti exists in that DM's world. It might be a tad passive aggressive but at least the player got to play one.

Sounds like a rough setting to be literally any fantasy creature or a spellcaster. Based on Castlevania, perhaps?
Here in the real world we have figures that people once or still believe in that have animal parts, people who use tattoos and body modifications to look like reptiles, not to mention numerous fandoms who would jump at the chance to hug a snake person.
There are absolutely settings (or populations within more diverse settings) where xenophobia is to be expected, but it's a bit wacky if it's not a low-magic world when Alter Self is a 2nd level spell.
Now if people associate yuan-ti with the Zehir cult or similar activities, sure they'd likely be terrified.

 

[Clint_L]

For me, this is a collaborative game. Even though I'm the DM 90% of the time, I still want to share the story with the players, and this is particularly true when it comes to their characters. So if they have a vision for their character that they are excited about, I want to facilitate that. I don't want to make my game world so inflexible that it crushes their creativity.

As long as what they want is balanced and not plot destroying, of course. But adding in a new race is never plot destroying. It's a game of magic and multiple planes of existence. I can shoehorn in anything.

 

[Oofta]

I do want to clap back on one issue that I feel misrepresents the position of the more player-centric players. Someone upthread cited yuan-ti as a race they like to play that is relatively uncommon, so I’ll use it as an example.

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM; Ugh, I hate snakes, their skin is icky and their eyes freak me out.
Player: How about if her bottom half is a scorpion and she can speak with arthropods instead?
DM: Sure, why not?

Player: I’d love to play a yuan-ti.
DM: Are you kidding? Poison immunity, innate spellcasting AND magic resistance? No way!
Player: How about I get rid of magic resistance and downgrade poison immunity to resistance.
DM: Sure, seems balanced.

As described by some posters, the situations described above constitute DMs being “forced” to accept changes demanded by the players. Except that’s not what happened. Both sides compromised.

In the first example, the player went with an arthropod rather than a yuan-ti. In the second, they accepted a weaker version of yuan-tis.

So, again, compromise means giving the player what they want? Other than races that can fly, the restrictions have little or nothing to do with racial features.

Because of the nature of my campaign a yuan-ti would be considered a monster. Maybe every bipedal creature that speaks common should be welcomed with open arms, but I don't run happy cuddly all accepting world when it comes to races. They would logically be killed on sight fairly quickly so it's easier to just say no.

 

[Minigiant]

Pfft! In mine they were pretty decent. I never felt my my Hill dwarf was the same as my Gully dwarf or my High Elf like my Wood Elf

And the Wood and High elf was fine.

The issue is when they went past the first 2 subraces. Like gully dwarves.

 

[Reynard]

Sure they can. But consider this. DMs that do this are acting more strictly than many actually published settings.

Let’s not talk about Forgotten Realms, since that’s low hanging fruit.
Matt Mercer’s Exandria? You better believe that he accommodates player’s concepts.
Dimension 20? Even more diversity.
Keith Baker’s Eberron? When 4e came out, he added dragonborn and tieflings to core.
Dark Sun? Also added dragonborn when 4e came out.

Even considering that the DM considers it “their world” and runs multiple games in it, what does it matter if one campaign within it has a small tribe of Loxodon monks that live on a mountain somewhere. That game could be non-canon to the setting.

The point is you don't get to tell the GM he has to accommodate these things. You can only decline to play.