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

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I wonder how many of the more GM-centric posters play under a GM-invite paradigm.

I’m a member of three gaming groups. In two of them, anyone can DM. Even in the one where I am the forever DM, I’m gaming with friends. There really isn’t a reason to start imposing restrictions on the characters the players come up with.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Let's avoid the snarky hyperbole please, Oofta.

Compromise means coming together, talking it out like adults, and seeing if it's possible to meet in the middle or which parties are willing to make concessions and where those areas of compromise may be.

For example I asked earlier:

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?

But I didn't get a reply to this question. You don't have to answer, of course, but I hope you understand that this is not a question that "means allowing the player to run anything they want and the desires of the DM always come secondary." It's a question that means finding out what parts of the setting you are willing to compromise on your end. The player may likewise have to compromise on their vision for their character. But determining this requires a dialogue rather than shutting down the player and jumping to hyperbolic statements that your desires as a DM always comes secondary to players.

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

If I am DMing the game, then I'm still not playing the yuan-ti character that I want to play.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

See, when you say it like that, it kind of makes me think you don’t actually believe it’s true. And yet it is. My son DMed their first game at 7, and did a pretty good job of it.

I don’t think I’d enjoy your game very much. And I’m quite happy to start my own.

 

[Xamnam]

I wonder how many of the more GM-centric posters play under a GM-invite paradigm.

I’m a member of three gaming groups. In two of them, anyone can DM. Even in the one where I am the forever DM, I’m gaming with friends. There really isn’t a reason to start imposing restrictions on the characters the players come up with.

That's an interesting idea, and I could see some merit to it. But, I've only ever gamed with friends, including one regular group where I and one other person swap DMing, and every campaign we've played, it's been the DM proposing the thing they want to run, and finding out if folks are interested. I've not personally seen coming up with the ideas first, and then finding a DM that fits them. If someone was excited to play in a specific setting, and every one else was on board, that'd be a very reasonable point of restriction in my eyes.

The only slightly different, more collaborative, high level choice scenario I've been a part of is when I selected five different systems, and asked the group which of them they'd be most interested in trying out.

 

[Oofta]

See, when you say it like that, it kind of makes me think you don’t actually believe it’s true. And yet it is. My son DMed their first game at 7, and did a pretty good job of it.

I don’t think I’d enjoy your game very much. And I’m quite happy to start my own.

Some people simply are better at DMing than others, a lot of people would be at least decent at DMing if they gave it a try. Whether I would be a good DM for you isn't particularly relevant, I don't assume I'd be a good DM for anyone. I've had to make new groups more than once because of moving and once I get a new group established, people tend to stick with my game for years on on end. That's good enough for me, I can't be the DM for everyone.

But I'm quite serious. If you can't find a DM you should try DMing yourself, it can be quite rewarding and fun.

 

[Oofta]

Let's avoid the snarky hyperbole please, Oofta.

Compromise means coming together, talking it out like adults, and seeing if it's possible to meet in the middle or which parties are willing to make concessions.

For example I asked earlier:

But I didn't get a reply to this question. You don't have to answer, of course, but I hope you understand that this is not a question that "means allowing the player to run anything they want and the desires of the DM always come secondary." It's a question that means finding out what parts of the setting you are willing to compromise on your end. The player may likewise have to compromise on their vision for their character. But determining this requires a dialogue rather than shutting down the player and jumping to hyperbolic statements that your desires as a DM always comes secondary to players.

You literally just stated "The GM has the power to change the world ... How is it so fundamental to your world that pureblood yuan-ti should not be made playable?" How is that not "allow whatever the player wants"?

I've explained it ad-nauseum. I don't want a kitchen sink world, I don't find them as engaging as a DM. Because of the world's history, most people are fearful of creatures they don't recognize and I don't want to play the extreme prejudice and outright violence they would encounter. I have an established history of races and yuan-ti are not part of it, no one in the history of my campaign world has ever encountered a yuan-ti. I don't want one-of-the-last-of-my-kind races, I don't care for that trope. If there's a yuan-ti adventurer it means there's a yuan-ti society and reasonable population. I used to allow anything and decided over time that it didn't work for me. The list goes on.

None of these reasons may be justification to you, but they matter to me. Even if it's just because "I've got a list I like because they fit the themes of my campaign", so what? If you're joining my game I gave you a set of restrictions which includes races. You accepted those limitations when you accepted the invitation to my game.

 

[Aldarc]

You literally just stated "The GM has the power to change the world ... How is it so fundamental to your world that pureblood yuan-ti should not be made playable?" How is that not "allow whatever the player wants"?

I know you like "logic," so you should know that one statement does not causally follow from the other nor are they making the same argument. If I wanted to argue "allow whatever the player wants," then I would have written that, but I didn't. I asked a question about the GM's power to change the world to accomodate the player and how the GM's world would somehow break if they were included.

I don't want a kitchen sink world, I don't find them as engaging as a DM.

Okay, which is fine, but we should both recognize that creating a space for playable yuan-ti in your world doesn't necessarily turn your game into a kitchen sink world. There are plenty of other ancestries that are probably off the table, and with a limited number of players, it's likely that players won't ask for everything. Moreover, a kitchen sink party doesn't necessarily mean a kitchen sink world.

Because of the world's history, most people are fearful of creatures they don't recognize and I don't want to play the extreme prejudice and outright violence they would encounter. I have an established history of races and yuan-ti are not part of it, no one in the history of my campaign world has ever encountered a yuan-ti. I don't want one-of-the-last-of-my-kind races, I don't care for that trope. If there's a yuan-ti adventurer it means there's a yuan-ti society and reasonable population. I used to allow anything and decided over time that it didn't work for me. The list goes on.

Cool. So this is what you should start with telling the player, though hopefully doing so respectfully with compassion and a willingness to listen to the players' desires. If you talk with the player then maybe there is a more appropriate ancestry that does fit with your established lore. But simply saying "No!" upon hearing the request IMHO does more to fuel problems at the table than it solves.

None of these reasons may be justification to you, but they matter to me. Even if it's just because "I've got a list I like because they fit the themes of my campaign", so what? If you're joining my game I gave you a set of restrictions which includes races. You accepted those limitations when you accepted the invitation to my game.

Would you make me aware of those restrictions when you pitched the game to me? Or is this something that I would find out after you invited me to your game and I'm already at your table?

 

[Oofta]

I know you like "logic," so you should know that one statement does not causally follow from the other nor are they making the same argument. If I wanted to argue "allow whatever the player wants," then I would have written that, but I didn't. I asked a question about the GM's power to change the world to accomodate the player and how the GM's world would somehow break if they were included.


Okay, which is fine, but we should both recognize that creating a space for playable yuan-ti in your world doesn't necessarily turn your game into a kitchen sink world. There are plenty of other ancestries that are probably off the table, and with a limited number of players, it's likely that players won't ask for everything. Moreover, a kitchen sink party doesn't necessarily mean a kitchen sink world.


Cool. So this is what you should start with telling the player, though hopefully doing so respectfully with compassion and a willingness to listen to the players' desires. If you talk with the player then maybe there is a more appropriate ancestry that does fit with your established lore. But simply saying "No!" upon hearing the request IMHO does more to fuel problems at the table than it solves.


Would you make me aware of those restrictions when you pitched the game to me? Or is this something that I would find out after you invited me to your game and I'm already at your table?

How is this not "allow whatever the player wants"? After all, it all comes down to the DM's vision versus the player. Why do I need to "justify" my decisions as DM? As the saying goes "if you allow a camel's nose under the tent the rest of the camel will soon follow". If I allow 1 exotic race, I have no reason to not allow another and another.

I will work with players. Sometimes we can work things out which is how I ended up with a deva in my 4E campaign - I came up with a fun secret justification for it and the deva looked human. There's going to be a goliath in my current campaign soon but they're just a tall human with rumors of a giant ancestor. But sometimes the answer will no.

I'll repeat again: all of my restrictions and expectations are made clear when I invite people.

 

[Minigiant]

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,

I'm not talking about your setting but many DM either don't have many PC options or don't establish the race's lore well enough to grip anyone but themselves.

The majority of players have a handful of PCs they are enthusiastic to play. And most of them are willing to switch a race or class or feat to get the aspect of that PC that they wanted.

95% off the time there shouldn't be a problem.

DMs who have very niche setting or boring settings.. well. If your setting is very very niche, you should be selling your setting. An if your setting is boring, well you are just asking for a headache.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

I did not equate horribleness to the topic divide. Not all DMs are enjoyable company, for any number of reasons. It is a factor in DM scarcity.