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

[Jfdlsjfd]

The DM entitlement in this thread is astounding.

If the players do not accept the game you want, your freedom as a DM is to decline and join or start another game. Full stop.

Exactly. If the players do not accept your bullywug-free campaign, your freedom as a DM is to decline (I won't run a bullywug-featuring campaign) and start another game (which is exactly the same, bullywug-free, with other players who are happy to play in a bullywug-free world). So we're basically in complete agreement.

Cuts both ways, my friend.

Exactly.

Except that I don't call that DM entitlement when it's having the exact same rights as any other player.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think there is necessarily a lot of drama around that.

Then why does every pro-DM person in here keep talking about players being "demanding" or "entitled" or explicitly referencing vandalism etc., etc.?

Hence why I find it so bitterly hilarious that people keep asking for an assumption of good faith on the DM's part. I haven't seen a single person ask for that who is simultaneously asking for an assumption of good faith on the players' parts. It's a big part of why I keep harping on the hyperbole issue. The pro-restriction folks use hyperbole to their hearts' content in order to paint players in the worst, most horrible, most vicious light possible, and then get upset when you use even slightly uncharitable phrasing, let alone actual hyperbole.

If I'm going to be a villain either way, I may as well do it with a flourish, no?

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

Based on the way this thread has run, I doubt any pro-restrictions folks even believe such a thing is possible. "My way or the highway"-ism is rampant in this thread; it is demanded that the DM have absolute, unquestionable, and arbitrary decision-making powers. And if someone believes I'm making too strong a case there, they need look no further than this:

If you say so, but you are the one dying on the hill of GMs not having the right to say "no" for any or no reason at all.

Literally and explicitly demanding "the right to say 'no' for any reason or no reason at all." Cannot get more explicit than that: absolute, unquestionable, arbitrary power.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except that I don't call that DM entitlement when it's having the exact same rights as any other player.

Then why is it player entitlement?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Then why is it player entitlement?

Because the quote about the rights of the players you "turned" or "mirrored" wasn't player entitlement. It was the answer to it, summarizing no one is forced to do what he doesn't want to do (as a player, your only right if told that it's bullywug-free is to decline playing and find a group to accomodate your bullywug PC), instead of what would be player entitlement, which would be forcing the GM to accomodate the bullywug PC.

 

[Scribe]

It would be more interesting to see how or why DMs or Players come to agreement than repeat replies to the effect of "I'm rubber you are glue."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D as a whole, certainly, but the players you're playing with might not.

And...why shouldn't we be viewing it in terms of D&D as a whole...?.

Special cases are special cases. Especially in this brave new world where more than 3/4 of current players never played D&D before 5e.

 

[Xamnam]

The vast majority of people in this thread, and every thread on this topic, are for reasonable compromise first and foremost.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not a good analogy IMHO. Players are not asking for hamburgers in a Korean restaurant. You're opening your table to a game of D&D 5e and players are expecting D&D 5e playable options that they can find in the D&D 5e player option books.

I disagree, I think it is an apt analogy, with the caveat that the player has foreknowledge of what they are getting into (that is, what restaurant are you going to...):

If you see a sign for a Sea Food restaurant, you shouldn't go in, look at the menu, and then ask for a hot dog (which is not on the menu).

D&D is "food" and you want to play ("eat"). Now, if you want to eat a hot dog (the PC race you want to play), but my restaurant (game) and menu (permitted races) doesn't include that, do you really expect me to run to the store, buy hot dogs, come back, cook them, and serve them to you? I really hope not, as that is pretty unreasonable.

Now, let's say you brought a package of hot dogs with you! You just want me to cook up ONE. Well, that is certainly more reasonable and I would definitely consider it, but I have other things to consider as well: how busy is my restaurant, do I have the time to make a special order when other customers (other players) are ordering and eating what is already on the menu?

Suppose I make your hot dog and serve it. If other customers see you eating it and tell me, "Wow, that looks so good! Can I have one next time I come in?" then I might consider hot dogs would be good to put on the menu.

So, I see it as rather appropriate.

Also, several races are outside of the PHB. The only races as a DM I feel obligated to have are those. The rest are optional and I don't use most of them, but I've never denied a player who wants to play those in the PHB.

It would be more interesting to see how or why DMs or Players come to agreement than repeat replies to the effect of "I'm rubber you are glue."

The above analogy demonstrates what I've done in the past. I had a player in 1E/2E who wanted to play Draconians from Dragonlance. We went through the "dance" of "Sure, but you'll be from that world, others will be wary of you, etc.". They agreed, we had a good time, and another player (when his current PC died) asked if he could also play one? Basically, I said "Sure, how about you followed him here. Let me know if you are hunting him for some reason or friends/family and their to help him. Your choice."

When I started playing 5E, I incorporated Dragonborn and Tieflings into my world as cultures. I didn't have them before.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

And...why shouldn't we be viewing it in terms of D&D as a whole...?.

Because nobody is playing with every player of D&D as a whole? Why wouldn't the answer be dependant on local conditions?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because the quote about the rights of the players you "turned" or "mirrored" wasn't player entitlement. It was the answer to it, summarizing no one is forced to do what he doesn't want to do, instead of what would be player entitlement, which would be forcing the GM to accomodate the bullywug PC.

Ah yes, because DMs are never ever forcing or demanding anything with their absolute, unquestionable, arbitrary power. That would be silly.

It would be more interesting to see how or why DMs or Players come to agreement than repeat replies to the effect of "I'm rubber you are glue."

I tried. I was soundly ignored, or met with even more hyperbole. Should you wish to break that pattern, by all means, I eagerly await it.