D&D General I finally like non-Tolkien species for PCs

[NN]

Because I see a vast difference between the following two things.

"Alright guys. I'm running a campaign inspired by Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Lots of races you can't play. No elves. And no, Charlie, you can't play dragonborn in my game. Why not? Because I said so, that's why. I don't like them, so you don't get to play them. If you don't like that, you don't need to play in this campaign."

"Alright guys. My starting campaign idea was Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Gotta have options like satyrs and minotaurs, obviously. I'll be using a homebrew race for dryads, I don't think elves fit, but you'll get a lot of elf-y flavor out of that. I had a private chat with Charlie. He brought up some myths I hadn't heard of before, so dragonborn will be rare, but playable; I'd appreciate it if no more than one other player besides Charlie picked them, as their place in the world is...complicated."

The former is the always-cited "pulling rank", laying down the law, hard-as-nails, no-discussion, no-receptivity presentation always given in this sort of thing. The latter shows a GM who does, in fact, have a clear vision, but who expects to (a) need to persuade the players that that vision is worthwhile, even if they are the GM's friends, and (b) tweak and adjust and meet folks halfway, rather than tossing out an ultimatum that must either be entirely obeyed withotu question or entirely rejected (and thus the player rejects any form of participation at all).

Further, these examples already earn beaucoup sympathy from me, because they objectively cannot be just carbon-copying the now-trite tropes that have reigned supreme for fifty bloody years over this hobby. By being an intentional step away, they are necessarily, from the ground up, built out of examining things and questioning what fits and what doesn't. I inherently expect someone electing to do this to have actual, thought-out reasons for what they're doing, as opposed to tradition exclusively because it's traditional, screw you for having tastes that weren't written about by an author 70 years ago.

Yeah, GM #1 is righteous and GM#2 is weak.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Because I see a vast difference between the following two things.

"Alright guys. I'm running a campaign inspired by Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Lots of races you can't play. No elves. And no, Charlie, you can't play dragonborn in my game. Why not? Because I said so, that's why. I don't like them, so you don't get to play them. If you don't like that, you don't need to play in this campaign."

"Alright guys. My starting campaign idea was Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Gotta have options like satyrs and minotaurs, obviously. I'll be using a homebrew race for dryads, I don't think elves fit, but you'll get a lot of elf-y flavor out of that. I had a private chat with Charlie. He brought up some myths I hadn't heard of before, so dragonborn will be rare, but playable; I'd appreciate it if no more than one other player besides Charlie picked them, as their place in the world is...complicated."

see, thing is when we propose a curated campaign it's less a caricature like the first and more, an inbetween of those:

"Alright guys. I'm running a campaign inspired by Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Lots of races you can't play cause i want to keep the aesthetics tight but i've included what i could. Gotta have options like satyrs and minotaurs, obviously, Aarakocra are in there for harpies and genasi for various elemental spirits . I don't think elves fit in general but I'll be using a wood elves to sub in for dryads, Charlie just made a good argument for dragonborn with some myths i hadn't heard about, though i'll need to check my notes to find somewhere i'll be able to work those in, Sorry Jess i'd like to leave dwarves out of this campaign and hard no Danny, tortles aren't going to be in this campaign, you'll have to find something else to play this time, If you don't like that, you don't need to play in this campaign."

 

[J-H]

I am pretty sick of tieflings being everywhere... they were way over-represented in the Tasha's art. "Here, let's take the people who look demonic and put them on everything" is not an approach I'm a fan of. Meanwhile Aasimars get...mentioned in the DMG?

 

[Emerikol]

Because I see a vast difference between the following two things.

"Alright guys. I'm running a campaign inspired by Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Lots of races you can't play. No elves. And no, Charlie, you can't play dragonborn in my game. Why not? Because I said so, that's why. I don't like them, so you don't get to play them. If you don't like that, you don't need to play in this campaign."

"Alright guys. My starting campaign idea was Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Gotta have options like satyrs and minotaurs, obviously. I'll be using a homebrew race for dryads, I don't think elves fit, but you'll get a lot of elf-y flavor out of that. I had a private chat with Charlie. He brought up some myths I hadn't heard of before, so dragonborn will be rare, but playable; I'd appreciate it if no more than one other player besides Charlie picked them, as their place in the world is...complicated."

I think you may be presenting the tone of DM #1 as being more harsh than necessary. I think the best way to do a "curated" campaign is to just write it up and send it to the potential players. You can tell them the flavor chosen is not for everyone and bowing out won't be taken personally.

Also, if a DM hates a race, then I absolutely think the DM should ban it and be upfront about it. The DM should not be subjected to things they hate in a game.

The former is the always-cited "pulling rank", laying down the law, hard-as-nails, no-discussion, no-receptivity presentation always given in this sort of thing. The latter shows a GM who does, in fact, have a clear vision, but who expects to (a) need to persuade the players that that vision is worthwhile, even if they are the GM's friends, and (b) tweak and adjust and meet folks halfway, rather than tossing out an ultimatum that must either be entirely obeyed withotu question or entirely rejected (and thus the player rejects any form of participation at all).

There are a lot of things that can be discussed and negotiated. I feel though that people wanting to put their ideas for their character ahead of the campaign are already self identifying as troublemakers. This is why I send out the packet ahead of time. I hope they just don't join the game. If they do though and lead off with wanting to undo the packet that tells me I'm going to be fighting over everything with this player. I just don't need that grief. I want players who study the campaign packet and deliberately choose their race and class based upon what they see in that campaign. Those players are gold.

Further, these examples already earn beaucoup sympathy from me, because they objectively cannot be just carbon-copying the now-trite tropes that have reigned supreme for fifty bloody years over this hobby. By being an intentional step away, they are necessarily, from the ground up, built out of examining things and questioning what fits and what doesn't. I inherently expect someone electing to do this to have actual, thought-out reasons for what they're doing, as opposed to tradition exclusively because it's traditional, screw you for having tastes that weren't written about by an author 70 years ago.

I mean I run a variety of games and there is no race I couldn't ban for a specific campaign theme. I do tend to like traditional D&D a lot though and that tends to be my preference I've done other things. But if a DM really loves that to the exclusion of all else then seek your variety with other DMs. Play in that DMs games when you feel like that sort of game.

There is no pressure to join a game. At least there shouldn't be. We DMs should offer games and players should choose games that make them happy. I suppose if either player or DM really have no other choices then the one without choices will have to compromise or find another hobby depending on how strongly they hold to their views.

For me personally, I've decided I'm not playing a game with dissociative mechanics. So if that is my only choice I'm going to the chess club.

 

[Emerikol]

I am pretty sick of tieflings being everywhere... they were way over-represented in the Tasha's art. "Here, let's take the people who look demonic and put them on everything" is not an approach I'm a fan of. Meanwhile Aasimars get...mentioned in the DMG?

Tieflings are probably the race I like the least.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think you may be presenting the tone of DM #1 as being more harsh than necessary. I think the best way to do a "curated" campaign is to just write it up and send it to the potential players. You can tell them the flavor chosen is not for everyone and bowing out won't be taken personally.

Also, if a DM hates a race, then I absolutely think the DM should ban it and be upfront about it. The DM should not be subjected to things they hate in a game.


There are a lot of things that can be discussed and negotiated. I feel though that people wanting to put their ideas for their character ahead of the campaign are already self identifying as troublemakers. This is why I send out the packet ahead of time. I hope they just don't join the game. If they do though and lead off with wanting to undo the packet that tells me I'm going to be fighting over everything with this player. I just don't need that grief. I want players who study the campaign packet and deliberately choose their race and class based upon what they see in that campaign. Those players are gold.


I mean I run a variety of games and there is no race I couldn't ban for a specific campaign theme. I do tend to like traditional D&D a lot though and that tends to be my preference I've done other things. But if a DM really loves that to the exclusion of all else then seek your variety with other DMs. Play in that DMs games when you feel like that sort of game.

There is no pressure to join a game. At least there shouldn't be. We DMs should offer games and players should choose games that make them happy. I suppose if either player or DM really have no other choices then the one without choices will have to compromise or find another hobby depending on how strongly they hold to their views.

For me personally, I've decided I'm not playing a game with dissociative mechanics. So if that is my only choice I'm going to the chess club.

I don't think it is productive for us to continue this conversation. Especially given that last paragraph.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, GM #1 is righteous and GM#2 is weak.

Righteous. Really. That's your take here.

That person is a jerk.

Working with others isn't weakness. It is respect. Y'know, actual righteousness, rather than self-righteousness.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

see, thing is when we propose a curated campaign it's less a caricature like the first and more, an inbetween of those:

Given the response a mere ten minutes before yours, it sure doesn't look like a caricature.

"Alright guys. I'm running a campaign inspired by Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Lots of races you can't play cause i want to keep the aesthetics tight but i've included what i could. Gotta have options like satyrs and minotaurs, obviously, Aarakocra are in there for harpies and genasi for various elemental spirits . I don't think elves fit in general but I'll be using a wood elves to sub in for dryads, Charlie just made a good argument for dragonborn with some myths i hadn't heard about, though i'll need to check my notes to find somewhere i'll be able to work those in, Sorry Jess i'd like to leave dwarves out of this campaign and hard no Danny, tortles aren't going to be in this campaign, you'll have to find something else to play this time, If you don't like that, you don't need to play in this campaign."

To me this is 99.99% the second thing, with the teeniest, tiniest drop of the first, and adding some more options. Bit surprised you'd have playable harpies, given their nature as...well, something pretty purely monstrous, which is so often the claimed line in the sand here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because I see a vast difference between the following two things.

"Alright guys. I'm running a campaign inspired by Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Lots of races you can't play. No elves. And no, Charlie, you can't play dragonborn in my game. Why not? Because I said so, that's why. I don't like them, so you don't get to play them. If you don't like that, you don't need to play in this campaign."

"Alright guys. My starting campaign idea was Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff. Gotta have options like satyrs and minotaurs, obviously. I'll be using a homebrew race for dryads, I don't think elves fit, but you'll get a lot of elf-y flavor out of that. I had a private chat with Charlie. He brought up some myths I hadn't heard of before, so dragonborn will be rare, but playable; I'd appreciate it if no more than one other player besides Charlie picked them, as their place in the world is...complicated."

The former is the always-cited "pulling rank", laying down the law, hard-as-nails, no-discussion, no-receptivity presentation always given in this sort of thing. The latter shows a GM who does, in fact, have a clear vision, but who expects to (a) need to persuade the players that that vision is worthwhile, even if they are the GM's friends, and (b) tweak and adjust and meet folks halfway, rather than tossing out an ultimatum that must either be entirely obeyed withotu question or entirely rejected (and thus the player rejects any form of participation at all).

Further, these examples already earn beaucoup sympathy from me, because they objectively cannot be just carbon-copying the now-trite tropes that have reigned supreme for fifty bloody years over this hobby. By being an intentional step away, they are necessarily, from the ground up, built out of examining things and questioning what fits and what doesn't. I inherently expect someone electing to do this to have actual, thought-out reasons for what they're doing, as opposed to tradition exclusively because it's traditional, screw you for having tastes that weren't written about by an author 70 years ago.

So people who allow dragonborn no matter what are cool whilst those who don't are jerks. Also people with who create settings with traditional elements are just mindlessly copying whilst those who do not do that have proper reason even though they might be just copying Greek myth or something else already established.

 

[RealAlHazred]

"Alright guys. I'm running a campaign inspired by Archaic Greece mixed with the Trojan War, the Greek city-states vs Persia but with lots of myth stuff... Sorry Jess i'd like to leave dwarves out of this campaign..."

But what about my Kabeiroi? He's similar to a aasimar, as he's a dwarf descended from the dwarvish sons of Hehaestus...