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

[jasper]

Do individual posts count? Because at the rate this is going and how much time I've wasted trying to give an explanation only to be told "nah uh" I should have 500 words soon enough.

You are up to 11 SENTENCES. I said SENTENCES. Not WORDS. How are you going to be able to be a great DM, unless you compromise with me and give my other 489 Sentences.
EVIL JOKING GRIN for the ones who don't get this.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I asked a question, no hyperbole. If the DM doesn't make the final call, who does?

Why is there a final call? You yourself admit that if the parties can’t agree, one or both can walk away.

I would say, however, that in most cases, there is pressure to arrive at a consensus, since presumably, the people at the table want to play with each other.

I think this is where the other players come in. Maybe if they feel either side is too demanding, they can intervene.

Of course, this is partially why I push back against the “DMing is soooooo hard” arguments. It seems to me if someone tend towards being an intransigent DM, it is definitely in their interest to argue that not everyone can do it.

To paraphrase August Gusteau “Anyone can DM”.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don't think worldbuilders are looking to solve any problems for the hobby. You don't care about worldbuilding, and that's fine, but it's also probably why we won't see eye to eye on a lot of things, because worldbuilding is the most important part of the hobby for me, and certainly the most fun.

Ridiculous. You seem to think a GM is the employee of the players. That's absolutely not the case. It is a group activity but it is one that is assymetric in regards to work input. A group is absolutely entitled to play what they want to play but they don't get to force a GM to run a game they want to run just because the vote is 5 to 1. Instead, that's a group that should be a GM and 4 players.

These two arguments are in contradiction of each other.

On the one hand, world-building is their favorite part of the game, and PC-centric posters shouldn’t “yuck another person’s yum” by asking to include a non-standard race.

On the other hand, the reason GM are entitled to enforce their decisions against players is because they put in so much more work than the players, work that is their favorite part of the game.

 

[Xamnam]

This argument feels like it's going down the same path that locked multiple Dragonlance threads, so I'm just going to reiterate what I've said there.

If a DM invites you to a campaign, and includes a list of rules/restrictions that they run, the kind thing to do if you accept that invitation is to come in intending to abide by them, not argue and fight.

If a player comes to a DM with a concept, the kind thing to do is hear them out and see if there's any way to make what their goal/fantasy is fit into the world and campaign, especially if they had no reason to think it wouldn't.

Life's too short to play with people who won't extend that sort of consideration, on either side of the table. I think "tyrant" DMs and players both are largely a fear more than reality, especially because people who abuse their positions like that will struggle to find and keep tables that enjoy that behavior. Do these people exist? Sure. There will be inconsiderate people in the world, and in this hobby. Being demanding about what you want, to the point where it is an active detriment to others, is a function of that, and not the other way around.

 

[DND_Reborn]

To paraphrase August Gusteau “Anyone can DM”.

Sure, but to continue the paraphrase, "Not everyone can be a great DM."

These two arguments are in contradiction of each other.

On the one hand, world-building is their favorite part of the game, and PC-centric posters shouldn’t “yuck another person’s yum” by asking to include a non-standard race.

On the other hand, the reason GM are entitled to enforce their decisions against players is because they put in so much more work than the players, work that is their favorite part of the game.

They can be contradictions, but it doesn't mean they must.

I've done a lot of hard work doing something I love, like teaching and my work in the Peace Corps.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Then tell people “DMing isn’t that hard and it’s pretty fun!”. You don’t need to create the entire multiverse (including the planes), to have a fun time.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Now, to backtrack my point a bit. I am presuming good faith on the part of the player. The player isn't deliberately picking stuff that doesn't fit with the campaign. They are makign the earnest attempt to make a character that is in keeping with what they understand to be the campaign.

Nothing wrong with refining your argument. The forum would have more productive discussion if everyone were willing to recognize when their argument overreached.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Over the past few decades in the hobby, I have usually taken feedback & suggestions from players. But there is always a point beyond which I will not compromise. What that point may be depends on what I‘m trying to run.

Sure, and I just want to emphasize that this is what compromise is all about. You can be willing to compromise and still have certain elements that are no-gos for you. You can both be willing to compromise and still not achieve agreement.

As pointed out in my yuan-ti example, my issue is that both parties changed from their initial positions is being framed as the DM being “forced” to accept the player’s character.

 

[Oofta]

I would not say that there is no reason to not allow yuan-ti, but IMHO not many posters are making a compelling argument that doesn't involve appealing to GM authority and their own sense of entitlement, and that is admittedly compelling enough an argument for some. GM is God, and the Word of God is immutable law. The GM has the power to change the world and, yes, they have the power to not change anything. But what fundamentally breaks and shatters about your world if its opened up a bit for playable yuan-ti in this game? How is it so fundamental to your world that pureblood yuan-ti should not be made playable?

Right. So compromise means allowing the player to run anything they want and the desires of the DM always come secondary. Feel free to run your games that way, I'm tired of repeating why I don't.

 

[Oofta]

Why is there a final call? You yourself admit that if the parties can’t agree, one or both can walk away.

I would say, however, that in most cases, there is pressure to arrive at a consensus, since presumably, the people at the table want to play with each other.

I think this is where the other players come in. Maybe if they feel either side is too demanding, they can intervene.

Of course, this is partially why I push back against the “DMing is soooooo hard” arguments. It seems to me if someone tend towards being an intransigent DM, it is definitely in their interest to argue that not everyone can do it.

To paraphrase August Gusteau “Anyone can DM”.

If you don't like my DMing, feel free to start your own game. After all, anyone can do it.