Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6731374" data-attributes="member: 6790260">How do you figure?And this was exactly the mentality I had wanted to avoid, but which 5e plowed right into without a moment's thought. If there are any assumptions at all, it should be that there are NO core races. I can name two popular fantasy universes where it is impossible to play dwarves, and a further two where it is impossible to play elves--and all four of them have no halflings, plus another insanely popular one that has dwarves and elves (though the good ones are dark-skinned!) and still no halflings. If anything, someone with a strong background in (non-D&D) fantasy novels and video games will be more likely to expect no Halflings than no, say, Tieflings (demonic or demon-like races being quite common in fantasy). Human is the only race that appears in basically every fantasy universe, but even that (IMO) shouldn't be universally assumed. If it's okay to ban some races without reason, it should be okay to ban any races without reason."I'm after a Gygaxian theme"* is not the same thing as "because I said so." This is why I gave the example I did with the "I don't like stab-wizards" thing. "Because I said so" is literally just saying, "I think dragonborn are fracking stupid, so nobody gets to play those. If you like them, too fracking bad." It's a bald dismissal of a thing with no explanation whatsoever, no further statement of goal or purpose than "my hate is more important than your love." Adding something like, "I'm trying to create a particular feel, like a bit of Conan mixed with a bit of Paksenarrion and a bit of fantasy-instead-of-science Barsoom" makes it very different: again, you're stating a vision or purpose, citing (variably) well-known works to define a vision. If you have articulated that prior to getting agreement, then as stated the problem is completely with the player for agreeing to a thing they don't actually agree with (whether because they weren't thinking clearly, didn't ask questions to clarify, or expected you to be more lenient than you said).Failing to articulate your vision, and simply stating blanket bans sans context or purpose, is "because I said so." Purely autocratic--and, as I said, often "gleeful"-sounding--which I see as a terrible way of addressing player concerns or questions.*I know you've already responded to it, but I feel it's worth reiterating: Gygax was absolutely, perfectly okay with the idea of players with actual dragons and even balrogs as their characters. They just had to (a) accept that, like every character, you had to grow into your power rather than starting with it, and (b) you had to accept whatever meaningful limitations, especially on behavior, that the DM felt appropriate. E.g. "Dragons hoard--it's a natural instinct, even for good ones--so turning down treasure is literally painful to you. Roll d6, on a 4+ you can resist the urge, -1 to your roll if it's a huge treasure or doesn't make you break your alignment to do it, +1 if it's not particularly valuable and you're naturally inclined not to do whatever is needed to get it." The whole "only an extremely narrow, limited set of tropes that are pretty much unique to D&D" thing didn't arise until well after the hobby expanded beyond Gygax, and it almost certainly wasn't his doing.I see the two as being nearly, though not perfectly, synonymous. "Can I play an elf?" "Nope, no elves. Pick something else." "But...why not?" "Because."Instead of giving such terse answers, which (probably not intentionally) come across as contemptuous of player interest, giving even a single full-sentence answer can make a world of difference. E.g. "But why not?" "There never were any 'elves' in this universe, because I want to run a game where cultural differences are paramount, and distinct races make that too difficult."You're confusing Watsonian and Doylist explanations here. It's absolutely true that a Watsonian explanation is unnecessary, even illogical. But a Doylist explanation--why you, as DM, *decided* that there weren't any elves--is perfectly reasonable, because the concept of "elf" DOES exist in the minds of your audience (players).In which case, it could be appropriate to have both Doylist and Watsonian explanations for this particular choice. Doylist: "The whole 'centuries-long lifespan' thing makes historical ambiguities nearly impossible, so I don't really want anyone playing a race that could remember events that happened 150 years ago." I, as DM, don't want to run a game where people play elves. Then Watsonian: "Elves have a congenital condition--their long lifespans are dependent on staying close to their enchanted forests. Large groups reinforce each others' magic, allowing them to settle elsewhere and grow new forests, but an individual adventurer or two will grow ill and die if they spend more than six months away from home." In this world, elves don't *do* adventuring, because it's literally lethal to them.A cool and perfectly cromulent idea. Kudos for having the chutzpa to ban a "core" race! I've almost never seen that--in D&D works, anyway. As stated above, Halflings are pretty rare in fantasy universes (game or otherwise) that aren't explicitly using D&D (or the Tolkien legendarium) as their basis.Another perfectly cromulent idea that rarely, if ever, gets mentioned by people who make long and thorough lists of bans.Yeah see, if you did this to *me,* you'd have a very upset player on your hands--both because I have strong interests, and because I ask questions before I agree to join a campaign. "What do you mean, I can't play a dragonborn? They're right in the book, and when I asked if there were any restrictions, you said no." I consider this sort of thing pretty disingenuous, and that means it's likely to raise my ire if you pull this "trick" on me. I'm absolutely certain I'm not alone in this.Why is Wizard removal "particularly custom" but Monk removal is not? This is exactly what I was talking about with my "preconceived notions" comment.And I respect that greatly. Negotiating with a player, finding a solution that satisfies their natural enthusiasm while preserving your chosen theme, is a good and noble thing. Sometimes it can't be done, but with a leisure-time activity like D&D, I feel it's always worth it to try.Very, very well-said. If I weren't already giving XP for the previous paragraph, this one would've earned it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />To a certain extent I feel like this, itself, is also an answer--just a purely Doylist one. "I believe Kender innately encourage, or even cause, disruptive behavior within the party, and I want to avoid intra-party strife as much as possible."Completely agreed. That's why I said what I said: if you claim to buy into the DM's restrictions when they were clearly laid out in advance (or openly stated, but left unquestioned, e.g. "I know you said Elder Scrolls, but I've never played any of the games so I didn't know there weren't any gnomes so I should still get to play one!" Uh, no, player--you should've asked if you didn't know what was being said.)Completely--well, maybe not *completely*--disagreed. You only get "Smorgasbord: the Kitchen Sink RPG" if you intentionally make every single option commonplace, which is not at all the same thing as "if everyone gets their way." Let's say you have a group show up with a human cleric, a tiefling warlock, a dragonborn paladin, a dragonborn bard, and a half-orc fighter. At that point, you are not *obligated* to include any other class or race in the game. Elves, dwarves? Might be non-existent, might be super-rare, might be the hated empire that everyone else is trying to topple. Monks, rogues, wizards? Might never exist, not as PC classes anyway (being "a thief" means "knowing how to use thieves' tools," not backstabbing, kind of thing).Personally, I find it shocking that people can play in a single, highly-to-the-point-of-piquantly flavored campaign world for over two decades. I have yet to play a single game meaningfully set in the same world as any prior game. (I say "meaningfully" because I technically have played two DW games in the same world, but we intentionally set the second on the opposite side of the world, and several decades offset, so that they would be as separate as possible from each other.) Even if you really do go for "absolutely everything is 100% in," why does "S:tKS" get boring after but a single run, despite being open to literally all possibilities, while does "Piquancy: The Flavoring" does not?</blockquote>

Verification