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

[Hussar]

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.

Now, here's a question. You say that you are using this setting with multiple groups. Presumably those groups are not connected - they aren't the same people.

Do the players actually care? Do they actually care what happened in another campaign that they had no connection to? Do they care that you decided fifteen years ago that X was true in your setting? I get that you care. Fair enough. But, do you really think the players do? IME, they most certainly don't. There is no consistency because they didn't experience it.

The only link they have between themselves and the setting is you. So, they sort of have to care about setting consistency because you insist on it. They don't really have a choice. Because you've decided that a setting decision made years ago that is in no way connected to the current players must be consistent, they have to roll with that. And, because you will not allow the players to add to the setting, you've pretty much self selected players that won't add to your setting.

 

[Reynard]

Now, here's a question. You say that you are using this setting with multiple groups. Presumably those groups are not connected - they aren't the same people.

Do the players actually care? Do they actually care what happened in another campaign that they had no connection to? Do they care that you decided fifteen years ago that X was true in your setting? I get that you care. Fair enough. But, do you really think the players do? IME, they most certainly don't. There is no consistency because they didn't experience it.

The only link they have between themselves and the setting is you. So, they sort of have to care about setting consistency because you insist on it. They don't really have a choice. Because you've decided that a setting decision made years ago that is in no way connected to the current players must be consistent, they have to roll with that. And, because you will not allow the players to add to the setting, you've pretty much self selected players that won't add to your setting.

I don't understand what difference it makes. The GM cares. That's all that matters from the perspective of the GM making choices about what does and does not exist in the setting.

 

[Hussar]

The question is what is more important to the DM; the time they spend at the table creating fiction with the group, or time they spend alone creating fiction by themselves?

This, I think, rather pithily highlights exactly what I'm trying to say. The time you spend away from the table creating fiction by yourself entitles you to exactly nothing, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

I don't understand what difference it makes. The GM cares. That's all that matters from the perspective of the GM making choices about what does and does not exist in the setting.

I dunno about you, but, actually thinking about the living, breathing person sitting at the table is FAR more important to me than my imaginary friends. A DM for which " all that matters from the perspective of the GM making choices about what does and does not exist in the setting." is probably one of the worst things for the hobby and always has been.

A DM's primary, first goal should ALWAYS be "How do I run the best game for this table". All other concerns are secondary. Now, sometimes that will mean, "I shouldn't be running for this table" and that's certainly true. But, most of the time, simply unclenching the sphincter a little and trusting the players to be a far more positive force than one that needs to be constantly restricted, lest they "deface my painting with crayons" is a far better solution.

 

[Reynard]

I dunno about you, but, actually thinking about the living, breathing person sitting at the table is FAR more important to me than my imaginary friends. A DM for which " all that matters from the perspective of the GM making choices about what does and does not exist in the setting." is probably one of the worst things for the hobby and always has been.

A DM's primary, first goal should ALWAYS be "How do I run the best game for this table". All other concerns are secondary. Now, sometimes that will mean, "I shouldn't be running for this table" and that's certainly true. But, most of the time, simply unclenching the sphincter a little and trusting the players to be a far more positive force than one that needs to be constantly restricted, lest they "deface my painting with crayons" is a far better solution.

You are engaging in the same sort of false equivalency that @Vaalingrade is: you seem to think that GM defining his world in a precise manor means the GM will not be running a game in a way that is fun for his table. Those things are not necessarily related. They aren't even likely to be related.

Let's say that a GM decides to run her favorite setting: Dark Sun. She runs player driven improv based games with an eyes always toward the PCs being the protagonists. One player says "I want to play a Warforged," and the GM says , "No, I want to keep this one by the book. Pick a Dark Sun race, please." Suddenly the GM is one of the worst thing for the hobby?

You don't see how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

 

[Doc_Klueless]

OTOH, why would it kill you to make a hamburger so this one customer can sit in your restaurant with his or her friends instead of having to go to some other restaurant?

As I said before, a DM who would prefer to keep true to a setting over the actual, real, live, breathing person sitting at the table across from them is a DM that the hobby really doesn't need.

Because I'm a living, breathing customer as well who does the lion's share of work for the campaign and he/she doesn't trump me. A player who puts himself over others isn't a player the hobby really needs.

And it's not what I'm serving. It's not what I said I'd serve.

On top of which, I'm not denying him the ability to game and play D&D. Just not the specific way he wants to play at my table. He's welcome at yours or theirs or theirs or...

Now, if I'm denying a living, breathing person food, shelter and clothing, I'm an evil naughty word. Denying him the ability to play warforged in my Greyhawk game...? Cry me a river.

 

[Hussar]

Let's say that a GM decides to run her favorite setting: Dark Sun. She runs player driven improv based games with an eyes always toward the PCs being the protagonists. One player says "I want to play a Warforged," and the GM says , "No, I want to keep this one by the book. Pick a Dark Sun race, please." Suddenly the GM is one of the worst thing for the hobby?

Ok, let's run with this example.

Now, we do need some more information. Why is the DM saying no to a Warforged? Is it something in the campaign? Again, I mentioned things like survival themes. A war forged, since it doesn't eat or drink, has a significant advantage in the setting that I can totally see being a solid reason for not including.

But, is the DM simply saying "No warforged" out of some sense of canon loyalty? There were no warforged in 2e, thus we don't have warforged in our current game? That's a bad DM. There are so many perfectly legitimate ways to include warforged in Dark Sun. And, it's not like it doesn't fit thematically. It fits perfectly thematically in a Dark Sun game. Dark Sun has a bunch of golem type monsters and constructs are hardly out of place.

IOW, the DM is choosing his imaginary friends over the player sitting at the table for no reason other than the DM happens to like his imaginary friends. Yes, I am being incredibly dismissive here because it absolutely is one of the most toxic things you see in gaming. This is why edition wars happen. This is why you see all sorts of crap happening at tables. This notion of the importance of world building or canon. It's ludicrous.

 

[Incenjucar]

There are different kinds of DMs just like there are different kinds of players. We can certainly have our preferences for each, but as long as everyone is communicating in a polite and compassionate manner and I struggle to see a need to take issue with any of those types.

 

[Hussar]

Because I'm a living, breathing customer as well who does the lion's share of work for the campaign and he/she doesn't trump me. A player who puts himself over others isn't a player the hobby really needs.

And, we go right back around to the same old refrain - I did the work so you have to do what I say.

Nope. Sorry. You did the work because you wanted to. That does not entitle you to any special consideration at all. You refuse to make the hotdog for that one person, who, presumably, is your friend because you figure that your cooking Korean cannot be compromised and is more important than eating with your friend.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

This, I think, rather pithily highlights exactly what I'm trying to say. The time you spend away from the table creating fiction by yourself entitles you to exactly nothing, IMO.

The fact that a player dragged themselves into my game entitles them to exactly nothing.